Patterico's Pontifications

3/27/2014

Sen Hairy Reed Is A Liar

Filed under: General — JD @ 6:24 pm

[guest post by JD]

Apparently Sen Hairy Reed does not recall saying what he said on the floor of the Senate one month ago. In his now infamous remarks, to paraphrase, he accused the GOP and the evil Koch Brothers of fabricating tales and making up out of whole cloth the evils of ObamaCare. Today, he does not recall his own words.

He tried to wiggle out by limiting his lack of recollection to calling GOP examples lies, because even he does not have the temerity to claim he doesn’t recall his almost daily two minutes of hate against the Koch Brothers. Sadly for him, he included the GOP and Republicans in his list of people that lied, distorted, and made up tales out of whole cloth during his rant on 2/26/14.

Calling him a liar is really giving short shrift to the word liar. Brazen liar doesn’t quite cut it either.

Don’t take my word for it. Just listen to his own words.

—JD

273 Responses to “Sen Hairy Reed Is A Liar”

  1. That is a lie, and you are a liar.

    JD (eae4bc)

  2. Hairy Reed is not a very good human being.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  3. You could run that headline daily. I think his fellow Democrats need to take him aside suggest he STFU.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  4. Loss of short term memory is indicative of senescence. Soon he will be repeating himself every 7 minutes.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  5. I was just about to say that he’s been sounding demented for a while.

    nk (dbc370)

  6. Word on the street is that in the last 10 years, Harry Reid has never molested a boy older than 10 years of age. He hasn’t paid his taxes either.

    Colonel Haiku (bbe165)

  7. That was straight from Huggy Bear, who was also molested by Reid.

    Colonel Haiku (bbe165)

  8. Water is wet.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  9. I’m sure Nevadan’s are comforted by the fact that they have the best Senator that money can buy.

    Even though he has yet to deny that he is a pederast.

    Tom (a63b69)

  10. I don’t remember, did he ever repeat his lie about Romney’s taxes off the senate floor? If he did, why doesn’t Romney sue him, now that the campaign is over? Or is the answer that he kept the lies on the floor, and on TV he merely referred to what he had said earlier?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  11. Sure, I know politicians lie all the time. But it is one thing to promise you will do something and then not follow through.

    However, the Democrats seem capable of lying when absolute, contradictory evidence proves they are lying, yet they still deny lying. And everyone pretends they’re telling the truth.

    I swear I’m living in a Kafka novel. I’ve been around for a while and the time we’re living in is astonishing.

    Let me try an example: Nixon lied about what he knew of Watergate. The tapes showed he lied, so he resigned.

    Everyone in the Obama administration, including Obama, lie pretty much every day. It is not debatable. They lie about things they probably don’t need to lie about.

    They do things that any other administration would have been crucified for: ignoring subpoenas, sneering at Congress, not enforcing laws, dead diplomats, defeat after defeat internationally, a horrible economy, millions out of work, no budget proposals from the Senate, a g-d damn $17 trillion debt, the list goes on.

    Response: Crickets.

    Even Clinton had to turn on the good old boy charm and admit he didn’t know no better to become the best damn President that ever lived.

    No one seems to care anymore and I can not for the life of me figure out why.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  12. There should be a Like button for that comment, Ag80

    JD (5c1832)

  13. I share your confusion about this, Ag80, but here’s my best guess: “Cool” Democratic politicians and the media/entertainment/education complex have mocked the idea of people having values (like honesty, respect for the law, and integrity) for so long that now it’s a joke to actually believe in those values. It’s similar to the way modesty and morality were admirable qualities in the 1950′s, only to become something to mock as the province of out-of-touch prudes in the 1960′s and 1970′s.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  14. In other words, they’ve changed today’s political and legal value systems, just as surely as they changed our sexual and marital value systems 40 years ago.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  15. ==I swear I’m living in a Kafka novel. I’ve been around for a while and the time we’re living in is astonishing.==

    I agree completely. Hey, remember when we all used to laugh and laugh at Baghdad Bob and his blatant falsehoods? He seems almost cute and amateurish now compared to what’s coming out of Washington D.C. . But I also think the internet and alternate media and video and i-phones have documented and made many of us much more hyper aware of it all too. I suspect at the least, most of the geriatric fools in government like Hairy who live in the past do not realize this yet–hence they get busted over and over.

    And as I said on another thread here, if one is of the mind set that “the end justifies the means” as much of the current Left seems to be–well…… .

    elissa (c27fef)

  16. I don’t remember the 1950s, of course. And I’ve got a bunch of friends who are in their 20s.

    My experience is that honesty, integrity, and morality are all alive and well among young urban liberals. Respect for the law, not so much – there’s a large libertarian bent in this demographic, and I think the general sense is that what matters is *what’s right*, not *what’s legal*.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  17. now it’s a joke to actually believe in those values

    I think such trends are made much worse because too many people — far too many people throughout America — fall for the notion that a liberal philosophy imbues a politician with great kindness, warmth and generosity. So that along with self-entitled greed — in which John Q Public believes it’s easier to game the system when screwball liberals are in charge — allows creaky old characters like Reid to get away with murder, at least figuratively speaking.

    I don’t know how much further downhill this society can go or will go, but the examples of an American city like Detroit and a country like the following is always a wake-up call to me.

    rt.com, March 24: Most of the protesters in Spain are peaceful, but there is an increase in radicalization, especially among young people, which is understandable due to the high level of youth unemployment, trader and portfolio manager Felix Moreno told RT.

    On March 22, tens of thousands of Spaniards rallied in Madrid for a so-called ‘Dignity March’ against EU-imposed austerity measures. The protest was peaceful in general, though later on some protesters switched to violence, starting to throw stones and bottles at the large numbers of riot police and attacked cashpoints and hoardings. The main demands of the protesters are an end to the so-called Troika-style cuts in Spain, more jobs and affordable housing.

    FM: [Almost] all of the protesters are peaceful, but there is an increase in radicalization, especially among the young people, and this is understandable…. [T]he anger keeps…building up because as you said there is over 50 percent youth unemployment in Spain and those people are getting very angry.

    FM: Well, definitely the Troika, the IMF and the EU have had an influence on the government policy, but the ultimate decision has lied with government in Madrid because they did have choice of how to balance the budget… It’s not said very much, but there has been more than 50 tax increases within the past two years since the government came to power and that’s a direct opposition to what they promised in their electoral program

    RT: Have these massive tax increases been advertised on the Spanish media?

    FM: The Spanish media has talked about it quite a bit but they have made much more noise about the cuts. In fact, that’s been three times as much revenue impact through tax increases than through cuts.

    FM: Of course, the government’s own economic experts came out with a report two years ago with real alternatives…and then they did exactly the opposite of what they’ve actually published in their own books. What they said was “Two thirds of the cuts should be through reduction in government spending and privatization of the public companies and one third in tax increases.” They’ve done the exact opposite. They have increased VAT, which is a tax that most impacts the poorest, and they’ve cut spending in the most sensitive sectors. They have not reduced headcount in public, in government workers, they have not reduced spending of government companies and obviously they bailed out the banks.

    Mark (86534e)

  18. Is rt.com Russia Today, Mark?

    nk (dbc370)

  19. Up is down, good is bad, a POTUS who tells lie upon lie, sics government agencies on the people he was elected to serve, obstructs justice and denies tax paying citizens their constitutional right to free speech. What I’ve just described are impeachable offenses and it barely scratches the surface of the current straits we find our country in.

    Colonel Haiku (869a85)

  20. Interesting observation, Aphrael. Could you give us an example?

    elissa (c27fef)

  21. “My experience is that honesty, integrity, and morality are all alive and well among young urban liberals.”

    I see absolutely no evidence of that. Perhaps I live a sheltered life. Just look at who they admire and look to for leadership.

    Colonel Haiku (869a85)

  22. While we await Aphrael’s supporting facts…

    Elissa, I’m going to give you a pass at this point on the “geriatric” comment. :-) But only because you may be correct. He may not be lying, he just might not remember what he said a few days ago, even though he probably remembers most of the names on his dance card for the junior prom. Why he is in a position to do so much damage to the USA is on the backs of the Nevada voters… back in 2010 they were able to find and nominate the ONLY person in the state, if not the free world who could not beat Hairy in an election. Pure magic, I tell you.

    So he doesn’t have to care if anyone believes him or not, although he knows enough will. And among those are the MSM who will not call him on it.

    Go back 40 years and it was a group from his own party, led by Barry Goldwater, who met with Nixon and told him that enough was enough, there were enough votes in the House to impeach and it was time to go. The elders had spoken and the rest is history. There are no members of this administration’s party who will make that walk in 2014. Yes, things have changed.

    I don’t recall those dance cards, but I do remember losing 50-cents on a world series bet: the only time I’ve ever taken the Yankees… and the Milwaukee Braves beat ‘em. But I also remember what I had for breakfast this morning…

    gramps, the original (8c018c)

  23. Reid should be the first pol. hack to meet a sturdy oak branch.
    This bastard has covered for O-loser the entire time. String him up.

    mg (31009b)

  24. If only there were some “Estate” that would report on Reid’s activities.

    ErisGuy (76f8a7)

  25. “My experience is that honesty, integrity, and morality are all alive and well among young urban liberals.”

    I think so too. They don’t rob, rape, or murder; they maintain their credit rating; and they don’t have sex with anyone other than their current partner unless they get paid for it.

    nk (dbc370)

  26. Is rt.com Russia Today, Mark?

    Correct.

    all alive and well among young urban liberals.”

    So many liberals can be two-faced — meaning that behind closed doors they’re just the opposite of what their ideology touts to the onlooking world, and what they, in turn, incubate in the society around them (eg, cities like Detroit or nations like Venezuela or Argentina) — that when it comes to the “urban” ones described by aphrael, such a contradiction can be a good thing. However, I would imagine that overall the “honesty, integrity and morality” in question tend to be shallow, perhaps quite fleeting, and full of equivocation.

    People in general — regardless of their politics — can be full of contradictions. But I’ve observed too many people on the left who take that to a whole other level, which is why if I were hiring someone to work in the accounting department and learned they were a big fan of, for example, Barack Obama, etc, I’d be very wary of the reliability and integrity of that person.

    Mark (86534e)

  27. @25- I think the interwebz ate nk’s sarcasm font.

    gramps, the original (8c018c)

  28. I’ll qualify the murder part. *or murder except in a licensed abortion clinic*

    nk (dbc370)

  29. Young, urban liberals are a pestilence in California. Between that lot and public employee unions, not much more is required to turbo charge the state’s circular, downward trajectory into the sewer system.

    Colonel Haiku (36c214)

  30. Elissa, I’ll have to think about that – the problem I’m having is that the ethical/moral issues I’m aware of, in the lives of my friends, are generally deeply personal, and so I don’t feel like I can share a lot of them in a venue like this without violating trust.

    It also occurs to me that I may suffer from a selection bias: the young urban liberals whom I know to be honest, moral, and of high integrity are a set of people who are to some degree selected for those qualities, and they may not be a representative sample. I’m not sure how I’d falsify that, though.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  31. Mark – interestingly, most of the liberals I’m close to are extremely disappointed in President Obama, and the result of the last six or seven years has been to make them extremely apolitical.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  32. aphrael– not trying to give you a hard time. But in your opinion did their becoming “extremely apolitical” prevent them from voting for the President a second time? Because if they did vote for him in 2012 after being “extremely disappointed” then one really cannot give them much benefit of the doubt about being apolitical. If they voted for him their vote was as meaningful and damaging to the country as the vote of the LIV Obamabots. That’s how I see it anyway.

    elissa (89f75d)

  33. Elissa – honestly? Yes.

    I want to distinguish my twentysomething friends from my thirty and fortysomething friends. My thirty and fortysomething friends mostly voted for Obama in 2012 because, as much as they were disappointed in him, they considered the disappointing version of him to be preferable to what they expected from Romney.

    My twentysomething friends mostly voted for Obama in 2008 (with one exception – a dude who voted for McCain in 2008 and has since come to regret that decision) and then didn’t vote in 2012 because they saw no point to it.

    —–

    I don’t approve of the decision to not vote, incidentally; I think that as citizens we have a responsibility to each other to be able to make an informed decision in the *collective* exercise of democratic governance. But I understand the temptation (particularly since I live in Harlem, which means that the outcome of every thing I could possibly vote on is a foregone conclusion).

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  34. – interestingly, most of the liberals I’m close to are extremely disappointed in President Obama, and the result of the last six or seven years has been to make them extremely apolitical.

    Isn’t this primarily because instead of sprinting to the far left, he only jogged there? 😉

    JD (2f5d3c)

  35. JD – honestly I think it’s because they expected miracles and didn’t get them. Which is to say: they were sufficiently low-information voters that they had wildly unrealistic expectations of what a President could accomplish, and are angry that Obama was constrained by political reality.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  36. People who expect miracles from very human politicians deserve to be disappointed and disillusioned.

    JD (2f5d3c)

  37. Say what you want, Jeremiah Wright did prophesy. Our chicken did come home to roost. In the White House.

    A couple of recent snippets from our SCOAMF.
    – Russia’s takeover of Crimea is a not a sign of Russia’s strength, it is a sign of Russia’s weakness.
    – The Coliseum reminded him of Wrigley Field.

    Intelligent people, and foreigners, hear that and say “Dafuq?” Domestic consumers of Obama inanities eat it up. He’s perfect for the 47%.

    nk (dbc370)

  38. aphrael,

    Have any of your friends lied about being gay at some point in their lives? (BTW, I don’t consider it lying if they are young or aren’t sure of their sexual orientation. I’m talking about adults who know they are gay.) If so, do you think that should or should not be relevant to evaluating their honesty?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  39. Also, why does it matter if people don’t vote, especially if they don’t feel knowledgeable enough about the issues or the candidates to vote? Should we educate ourselves enough to vote? Yes, but sometimes life doesn’t give us that luxury. It seems to me that those are the times our good sense should kick in and say don’t vote.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  40. The friends I have who are gay, most of them lied about it before they came out, yes. This is true of the overwhelming majority of gay and lesbian people, *even among today’s youth*. So no, I don’t think it impeaches their overall honesty – I think it’s a normal part of how people come to accept their sexuality when their sexuality is substantially nonstandard.

    But I’m puzzled by:
    > BTW, I don’t consider it lying if they are young

    because I don’t understand the definition of ‘young’ you are using. I’m discussing friends who are in their 20s; what’s the age line you use where lying about being gay starts to be an issue?

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  41. > Should we educate ourselves enough to vote? Yes, but sometimes life doesn’t give us that luxury. It seems to me that those are the times our good sense should kick in and say don’t vote.

    Sure.

    I vote religiously but I decline to vote for things like school board where I don’t know enough to contribute a meaningful vote and have no incentive, and very little ability, to learn enough to cast a meaningful vote.

    But the people I’m describing have given up on voting at all, ever, because they think it’s pointless — which is a different dynamic than the one you’re describing.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  42. I’m old-fashioned, aphrael. I still view 21 as the age when someone becomes an adult, so that’s when I think they should no longer be considered a child, and that’s what I meant by “young” in my earlier comment.

    I get your point re: lying about being gay. I’m sure it is a difficult issue to deal with but, apart from sociopaths, most people who lie do so with topics that are difficult for them. That was my point. Bill Clinton lied about Monica because it would hurt his marriage and his career to be honest. The key to real honesty is whether someone is honest when it’s hard to be honest.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  43. Maybe they are right about voting, aphrael, at least by their standards. My guess is that they understand what they want in politics and government isn’t going to happen, so their vote won’t make a difference. Don’t we all go through that phase, at least a little bit? Most of us realize the more practical limits of politics and voting as we age, and I guess some never give up their idealism.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  44. Senator Harry Reid and his staff are lying also about the $31,000 or so his campaign gave to his granddaughter. One fallback lie, half truth, or omission after the other.

    It all started when the Las Vegas Review Journal looked at his campaign filings. There was $16,786 listed as being paid to “Ryan Elisabeth” in two separate payments of $5,416.93 and $11,370.00 on October 23, 2013.

    Jon Ralston @RalstonReports
    Follow

    I asked @SenatorReid’s staff Monday if she was a relation, got stonewalled/diverted. But it is (@STetreaultDC found out, too). Looks awful.
    3:14 PM – 25 Mar 2014

    His granddaughter’s name is Ryan Elisabeth Reid. She is the 23-year old daughter of Rory Reid, who ran for Governor of Nevada in 2010.

    His staff explained this was for jewelry to be given to campaign contributors as holiday gifts.

    And Ryan Elizabeth was the brand name of the jewelry.

    The jewelry vendor is based in Berkeley, Calif, although his granddaughter lives in Brooklyn..

    I read something to the effect that it may not be legal to give substantial gifts of this nature to campaign contributors, but that may be wrong. This seems more clear:

    https://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/reid-pay-back-campaign-gifts-bought-granddaughter

    Federal law prohibits lawmakers and candidates to spend campaign money for personal purposes. Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist on ethics and campaign finance, said the federal election agency has interpreted the law to allow for some uses such as hiring a family member to work on a campaign, or purchasing goods from family members as long as it can meet a fair market test.

    In any case “gifts” is an example of inadequate campaign reporting.

    It is not legal at all to give a gift to close family members, but a granddaughter is not on the list of close family members.

    Harry Reid said he would reimburse the $17,000.

    Jon Ralston @RalstonReports
    Follow

    BREAKING. That was quick: @SenatorReid decides to reimburse his campaign for the gifts bought from his granddaughter.

    http://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/reid-paid-granddaughter-holiday-gifts-give-donors-supporters … 5:29 PM – 25 Mar 2014

    56 Retweets 18 favorites

    Then it was noticed (by Republican Party operatives and reporters who checked Harry Reid’s 2012 campaign filings) that he had done the same thing in 2012, in the amount of $14,481, this time in checks for the amounts of $9,064 and $5,000.

    Elisabeth Reid’s has a Brooklyn address and runs the Sprat Theater Company, a small theater in Brooklyn.

    According to its web site, it has received contributions from the Clinton Global Initiative and two major Las Vegas foundations: Caesar’s Foundation and the NV Energy Foundation.

    It also says “was awarded the Clinton Global Initiative grant for our work” but the Clinton Global Initiative doesn’t give out direct grants – all the money it hands out is laundered.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  45. 11. …However, the Democrats seem capable of lying when absolute, contradictory evidence proves they are lying, yet they still deny lying. And everyone pretends they’re telling the truth.

    …No one seems to care anymore and I can not for the life of me figure out why.

    Comment by Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 3/27/2014 @ 7:39 pm

    I think this is one of the best examples I’ve ever seen of a Democrat lying when the absolute, incontrovertible evidence proving they’re lying is available. In fact, these CNN “journalists”/contributors just witnessed that evidence with their own eyes.

    At the DNC convention in 2012 there was controversy because the Democrats had eliminated the mention of God or of Jerusalem being the capitol of Israel from their platform. So they decided to put it back in. But the delegates weren’t cooperating. L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa was confused when it sounded like the “NOs” had it after the voice vote. So he called for a second voice vote. Still confused. So a lady came out from off stage and told him to just get on with it because the delegates were just going to do what they were going to do. This is shortly after the delegates booed putting God and Jerusalem back in the platform. And if you had looked closely, the teleprompter Villaraigosa to say “The motion passes” without even listening to the voice vote. And the delegates were booing.

    Then a CNN reporter went to ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz about it.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/anderson-cooper-dws-in-alternate-universe-134634.html

    She’s comfortable lying right to their faces because that’s the worst that can happen. The MFM will chuckle about it and move on. Because at the end of the day they’re all on the same team, and they want their team to win.

    In their world if someone is constrained by the truth, then that someone is playing half-court basketball while they’re playing full-court.

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  46. DRJ – I think some of them, their view on the utility of voting will change. It won’t help for me to harrangue them on the subject, so I don’t. :)

    I didn’t come out until I was 26. I never *claimed* to be straight; I just avoided the subject entirely and let people draw their own (incorrect) conclusions without making an issue of them.

    I don’t think this makes me a liar. I *do* think it makes me a coward.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  47. FWIW, I don’t think it makes you either of those, aphrael–unless waiting till you were 26 seriously affected or damaged someone else’s life (such as breaking an engagement with a woman, etc.)

    elissa (89f75d)

  48. “But the people I’m describing have given up on voting at all, ever, because they think it’s pointless — which is a different dynamic than the one you’re describing.”

    aphrael – Or are they just trying to avoid Jury Duty? :-)

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  49. We have a family friend who is gay and religious. He came out to his church and they offered him, and he accepted, counseling. The “cure” didn’t take. On the other hand, he’s on a don’t ask-don’t tell basis with his family. They’re not stupid, it’s not possible that they don’t know, but why hurt each other discussing things that nobody can do anything about.

    nk (dbc370)

  50. Also, aphrael–it’s good to see you back and active in the commenting community here.

    elissa (89f75d)

  51. Comment by Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 3/27/2014 @ 7:39 pm

    All agreed say “Aye”.
    I was going to say I heard that, but I decided that would be inappropriate in a thread about honesty…
    but it seems that most of us agree.
    Off-hand thoughts,
    Yes, it is most common for people to lie when they are afraid of the consequences of telling the truth. This is part of human fallen nature. Perhaps we would call this step 2 of the dishonesty scale, with step 1 being acknowledging the truth but blame shifting (that woman that You gave me…that snake that You let into the Garden…).
    Let’s say step 3 is lying to get something you want that you wouldn’t otherwise get.
    Step 4 is pathological lying, lying out of habit even when you don’t need to, such as Al Gore in the 2000 presidential debates (but likely assuming that people don’t know you’re lying, that they believe the BS).
    Step 5 is just lying all of the time when it is convenient to make a point and not caring whether people believe you or not, because all that makes a difference anymore is your own narcissistic view of reality.

    Can I make a small suggestion? Perhaps when subjects like this come up when tack on, “…, let me count the ways”;
    that just points out that we already know it, but here are more examples.
    but a very minor addition, I know.

    Every generation in trying to individuate tries to do something different than the previous generation, the problem is when we are young we often don’t have the wisdom to do it wisely. Perhaps there is “naive” honesty and “experienced” honesty.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  52. I would just say, nk, that sometimes “cure” is not quite the appropriate perspective. I will never be cured of easily being discouraged by certain things or of inappropriately avoiding conflict, but that does not mean I live with those characteristics dominating my life everyday, by God’s grace.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  53. DRJ,

    People LIED to protect themselves or to protect Jews during Nazi Occupation.
    Does that impeach their “honesty” ?

    How about a bank teller or a convenience store clerk who LIES when he doesn’t hand over “all of the money” from the cash drawer during a hold-up ?
    Are they sinful lying liars, too ?

    A person’s sexual orientation is their own business. Lots of people hide it because they fear being ridiculed or bullied.
    If some of you knew the “honest truth !1!!1!!!” about some of your favorite actors, I fear you might feel compelled to have a DVD burning ceremony.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  54. “I will never be cured of easily being discouraged by certain things or of inappropriately avoiding conflict”

    MD in Philly – Pro-tip – No reason to feel discouraged, your bride is always right. :-)

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  55. 10. Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 3/27/2014 @ 7:33 pm

    I don’t remember, did he ever repeat his lie about Romney’s taxes off the senate floor? If he did, it didn’t get videotaped amnd broadcast.

    If he did, why doesn’t Romney sue him, now that the campaign is over?

    Romney is still a public figure. A person can anything at all about him, unless there was malice or reckless disregard for the truth, which means he had to know it was a lie, or had no reason to believe it, which might actually be the case here, although you’d haved to do alot of fishing in discovery to prove that.

    Or is the answer that he kept the lies on the floor, and on TV he merely referred to what he had said earlier?

    But I don’t think we don’t want to take poliotics into courtrooms, and the Democrats would do better at this actually.

    The Senate floor used to be more important before New York Times v Sullivan, where it protected Senator Joseph McCarthy.

    The senate floor is still important when it comes to disclosing secrets. Senator Mike gravel did that with the Pentagon Papers and Senator Dianne feinstein very recently.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  56. Nixon lied about what he knew of Watergate. The tapes showed he lied, so he resigned.

    Nixon was a Republican. See the difference?

    Kevin M (b11279)

  57. Sharron Angle and her ilk would not be able even to grasp the ironies. That aside, the title to this main blog post easily could also have read: “Sun rises in east.”

    Lawrence Westlake (4fc30a)

  58. Comment by Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 3/27/2014 @ 7:39 pm

    However, the Democrats seem capable of lying when absolute, contradictory evidence proves they are lying, yet they still deny lying. And everyone pretends they’re telling the truth.

    As I once wrote somewhere: It’s one thing to lie and not get caught – it’s another thing to lie and get caught, over and over again, twice a day, and still not develop a credibility gap!

    But only a Clinton can really pull this off.

    From the Sammy Files:

    Date: 03-29-93 (14:25) Number: 17496 of 24698 (Refer# NONE)
    To: ALL
    From: SAMMY FINKELMAN
    Subj: TOP CLINTON LIES SERIES 5
    Read: (N/A) Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
    Conf: POLITICS (16) Read Type: MAIL FROM YOU (+)

    Because there was some trouble with the relay the weekend before this, I am resending the week of March 14, the fifth week in the tradition of
    compiling and awarding prizes to the top Clinton lies. The extra time has enabled me to review and revise my work, and add an additional quote
    that appeared in the newspapers on Saturday, March 20, 1993.

    As always, things said by people other than Bill Clinton are eligible.

    _________________
    | \ / |
    The envelope please. . . | \/ |
    |________________|

    The Winner is. . .

    « Could you BELIEVE, that Ross Perot, who comes from Texarkana, only 35 miles from Mack McLarty’s home town of Hope came here the other day and attacked my chief of staff, who ran a Fortune 400 company, as a business failure??? » – President Bill Clinton, at a television correspondent’s dinner in Washington D.C. on Thursday, March 18, 1993.

    In actuality, Perot didn’t COME for that purpose, but mentioned when he was interrogated by Senator Harry M. Reid of Nevada about his statement that nobody in the White House had run a business, and in FACT Thomas F. “Mack” McLarty DID have “problems” in running ArkLa (The Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company. They were detailed or noted in the Market Place column on page D8 of the December 15, 1992 New York Times.

    What Clinton is hiding is the fact that McLarty was only kept on for so many years as a favor to Clinton by Jackson T. Stephens or as a means of buying influence. His rise in the company parallels Clinton’s political career.

    He was made a director in 1974, when Clinton was running for Congress and Pryor for Governor, and McLarty became Chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party; he was hired as an employee in 1979, when Bill Clinton first became Governor; he became President in 1983, after Clinton had
    made a successful comeback and defeated his successor, Frank White, in the 1982 election; he became CEO in 1984, when Clinton’s re-election
    looked assured, and he became chairman as well chief executive officer in 1985, when Clinton looked solidly entrenched as Governor and a
    referendum extending the Gubenatoroial term to 4 years, effective in 1986, had passed in November 1984.

    On March 2, 1993 Perot also made some other points, which left the Senators without an answer. They backed down to applause from the
    crowd when he said that federal budget figures were very fuzzy.

    BTW, Clinton also joked about his jogging track and building a McDonald’s in the White House and some other jokes with a purpose.

    The Runner up is…

    « We are dealing with cards that were dealt by the previous administration. The Bush Administration changed the picture when
    they granted the test burn permit. Would we have preferred that they not have done that? Certainly. Now we are dealing with this
    issue in the most responsible way possible. »

    - Albert Gore’s spokeswoman, Maria Romash, explaining why the Clinton Administration hadn’t done anything to stop commercial operation of a
    new hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio, about which Albert Gore had made such a fuss late last year (and blaming it on the
    Bush Administration for having issued a test burn permit in January.)

    Actually, the Clinton Administration could have revoked that test burn permit on January 21, and that would have stalled the whole project for
    at least some months – if they wanted to.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  59. Elephant Stone,

    That’s a good point. I was talking about gays who aren’t honest with their friends and families, but I guess you had no way to tell that from my comment so you instead jumped to inflammatory alternatives that I’ll be glad to address.

    Do I think it was okay to lie during the Holocaust to protect Jews? Yes. Do I think “a bank teller or a convenience store clerk who LIES when he doesn’t hand over ‘all of the money’ from the cash drawer during a hold-up” is a “sinful lying liar”? No. Those are not lies because all of these people were under duress.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  60. aphrael,

    I don’t know what you are like in your real life but I know that in your online life, you are both honest and brave. It’s the reason I like to talk to you, because I know you will always say what you think. To me, commenters like you are a big part of why we have these rare internet moments of great insight and value.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  61. And it’s also why I’m not afraid to ask you the hard questions. You are a jewel of a person, aphrael.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  62. You know, Elephant Stone, the law has an element of morality in it. We don’t make laws just to make random laws. We make them because they fit our idea of morality, at least we used to. So when you use terms like “sinful lying liars,” you may think you are slandering me as a Christian but you are also revealing a lot about how you view some laws.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  63. Nixon lied about what he knew of Watergate. The tapes showed he lied, so he resigned

    Not about the original Watergate break-in, but about the cover-up.

    At the very beginning, he had wanted to conceal the role of the Committee to Re-Elect the President – at a time when it was already known, but John Dean misled him.

    In Silent Coup, they write, that time is actually a smoking gun for John Dean.

    John Dean pretended his ideas came from other people. John Ehrlichman wound up in a meeting where he had no idea what was going on. John Dean had pretended it was John Ehrlichman’s idea that they should pretend following up the investigation would damage some interest of teh CIA. The CIA never sent the message to the FBI John Dean wanted them to.

    On July 6, 1972, Richard Nixon told L Patrick Gray to do a complete and honest investigation. He had no further interest in a coverup after that – once he knew that the fact that campaign was involved was known.

    It is claimed he approved the use of hush money to E. Howard Hunt in March, 1973, but there are three key facts that are overlooked:

    1) Nixon was interestd in hiding the earlier Plumbers operation and the burgary of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office, which he and
    Ehrlichmann thought was legal. (there is the little matter of the 4th amendment, of course)
    National security type things, not political things. Not Watergate.

    2) Nixon only said he would agree to it to buy time. To think, that is, because the whole thing was new to him. (John Dean claimed Hunt was newly threatening to disclose that.)

    3) Dean had already sent the money but was looking for after-the-fact authorization or complicity by Nixon, who didn’t know the money had already been given to Hunt!!

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  64. Sammy Finkelman,

    Wow. You’ve been aggregating information for a long, long time.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  65. Sammy #58,

    Did you add your Sammy Files later or were you computerized in 1993?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  66. I agree with elissa @ 47.

    People lie when they are afraid of losing something.

    They also lie to protect – unlike Clinton, who did not lie to protect Hillary or Chelsea or the American people, but rather lied to protect himself, and only himself.

    I believe there are moral quandaries when lying, whether bluntly or by omission (see ES # 53), is the better option. I believe it’s because we indeed have a fallen nature and live in a fallen world. The situations that compel such lies are part of this valley of tears we inhabit. It is God who determines the intent of the heart and what drives it – when we can’t.

    Would we not lie to spare our own children great harm or death?

    It’s just not always black and white, like some people need it to be. Life is messier than that.

    With regard to your statement, aphrael, firstly, it’s no one’s business. Period. Secondly, fear is a powerful hurdle to overcome for all of us. Typically, it’s when we mature and become more secure in ourselves, that we become ready to tackle the fear that has held us hostage, and face it head-on. Thirdly, the unmerited favor and grace of God is endless and His alone to grant. Who are we to quibble about whom He doles it out to?

    I’m of the mind that my own interior life is messy enough to deal with, let alone judging anyone else’s personal path to freedom.

    Dana (9a8f57)

  67. 22. Comment by gramps, the original (8c018c) — 3/27/2014 @ 10:32 pm

    back in 2010 they were able to find and nominate the ONLY person in the state, if not the free world who could not beat Hairy in an election. Pure magic, I tell you.

    It was Harry Reid’s strategy to make that happen.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  68. Dana,

    Is a person’s sexual orientation “no one’s business” if the person is dating?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  69. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/28/2014 @ 11:11 am

    Step 5 is just lying all of the time when it is convenient to make a point and not caring whether people believe you or not,

    That would seem to be something that Senator Ted Cruz did the other day when he praised Janet Reno’s appointments of special prosecutors, in order to more strongly criticize Eric Holdrer and Barack Obama.

    And that’s not the only place Ted Cruz is careless with the truth.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  70. It may not be my business but don’t you agree the person s/he is dating has an interest in knowing how the other person feels about his or her sexual orientation?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  71. DRJ, as elissa’s comment at 47 stated, in part, or damaged someone else’s life (such as breaking an engagement with a woman, etc.), I think it’s obvious it would matter (dating, lest that lead to a broken engagement).

    Dana (9a8f57)

  72. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/28/2014 @ 11:47 am

    Did you add your Sammy Files later or were you computerized in 1993?

    What you saw there was originally posted on the POLITICS conference of RIME.

    I guess you could call everything I have Sammy Files. This was among the best parts.

    It was originally saved on 5 1/4 inch floppy disks.

    Although someone (by the name of Michael Williams, I think) imagined I had a Sun computer.

    I began calling and posting online on BBSs on March 28, 1990. Different things. 1990 was actually somewhat late for this.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  73. DRJ,

    If someone doesn’t wish to reveal their sexual orientation or details about their love life to their friends or families, that’s their own goddamn business, and it doesn’t impeach their “honesty !!1!!1!”
    Good Lord.
    Many people choose to hide their sexual orientation because they do fear being under duress—which is the standard you just asserted as justification for lying in comment #59.

    I work with a lot of gays in Hollywood, and I have to tell you that gay people are people created in God’s image…who just happen to be gay. Get over it.

    In order to preserve a certain order of civility (on the micro level) and civilization (on a larger scale), we all navigate through life, espousing little white lies, half-truths, deceptions, and untruths.
    Did you ever tell your cousin Suzie that it’s so good to see her again—even though you don’t really think it is so good to see her again ?
    Did you ever tell your neighbor that their new hairstyle looks wonderful—even though you think the new hairstyle isn’t particularly flattering to her ?
    Did you ever tell your child when they were four years old that their little drawings or doodles are beautiful—even though the drawings or doodles are just chicken scratch ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  74. Sammy,

    Janet Reno participated in choosing 7 independent counsels under a revised independent counsel law that she and Clinton pushed for in 1993. They were reasonable appointments, especially when compared to the people Holder has appointed.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  75. I used to post the same thing, edited and improved and more typos corrected every time, in different places.

    Felipe just called that the Sammmy Files the other day.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  76. Here is something, somewhat funny, from 1996:

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/%22sammy$20finkelman%22$20%22michael$20williams%22/misc.activism.progressive/v2_V6D3UhM8/ohxOyUJdFIMJ

    The news groups that you quote from are four-years-old old. You can’t retrieve material that old. You have to have it. So, either you, or someone else saved it. That means
    a significant storage system with a data base that let’s you access it easily and that means a BIG hard drive. I have an appreciable hard drive, and I wouldn’t consider doing that. So, it means a SUN station, a gigantic hard drive, or something like that.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  77. ==So when you use terms like “sinful lying liars,” you may think you are slandering me as a Christian ==

    DRJ, I’ll let ES speak for himself with respect to his comment and his intent—but seen from the view of a disinterested third party, that you somehow took from his words that he was personally slandering you as a Christian seems to take some pretty convoluted thinking.

    elissa (89f75d)

  78. Elephant Stone,

    I don’t have a problem with people who don’t want to talk about their sexual orientation, whether they are gay or straight. But that doesn’t mean it’s always appropriate for a person to refuse to discuss the subject with friends or family members. You’ve presented several hypotheticals where you think it’s wrong to demand honesty and I agreed with you. Similarly, I hope you agree it would be dishonest to knowingly lie — either directly or by omission — about one’s sexual orientation to a date or fiancee.

    Also, duress is a legal term. Making someone uncomfortable or imperiling their business prospects is not duress. It requires something more, such as in your examples in the convenience store and Nazi Germany.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  79. elissa,

    I’m a convoluted thinker then! I’ve been called worse so I can live with it.

    Seriously, though, I think you are trying mightily to bring peace to the comments section and keep people from disagreeing. It’s part of your nurturing, elegant, and very well mannered personality. I would love to know you in real life because I know you are charming, polite and caring. I’m not that interested in talking to you online because you hate confrontation, and that to me is one of the big selling-points of the internet.

    I don’t say everything I think in real life because I care about hurting their feelings. I don’t say everything I think here for the same reason. (Believe it or not, I do have a comment moderation feature.) But there is no point in having an honest conservative sounding board if we’re afraid of speaking forthrightly.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  80. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/28/2014 @ 12:01 pm

    Janet Reno participated in choosing 7 independent counsels under a revised independent counsel law that she and Clinton pushed for in 1993. They were reasonable appointments, especially when compared to the people Holder has appointed.

    She didn’t choose any independent counsel after her attempt to pre-choose Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

    What she did is authorize the appointment of a counsel. She did that in minor cases, after Fiske/Starr but she didn’t do it in the most important case: the 1996 campaign. There was usually an in-house investigation before that.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/renocounsel.htm

    Attorney General Janet Reno yesterday rejected Republican demands for an independent counsel to investigate reports of illegal fund-raising by the 1996 Clinton reelection campaign, informing Congress that a special Justice Department task force will continue to examine the allegations.

    The independent counsel was actually picked by a 3-judge panel. She had no control over who was appointeed, and once he was appointed, she had no further control of him.

    Your sources seem to confuse her appointments with that of the judges.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  81. Elissa, at 47 and 50, thank you. :)

    I come and go depending on what else is going on in my life and how interested I am in the current topics of discussion, but it’s unlikely that I’ll ever permantnly leave. :)

    DRJ, at 60 and 61, thank you for the kind words and the respect. :)

    I am who I am now in large part because of the judgments I made of my behavior when I was younger; I think this is true of most people who have honest relationships with their internal lives. :)

    I value honesty, and in particularly I value intellectual honesty … but sometimes that’s painful because it means I have to see where I’m thinking/feeling contradictory things and figure out how to align them.

    I find the discussion of duress interesting. I think it’s clearly true that many gay people lie because they’re under duress, and I think there’s a sliding scale – lying as a twentysomething with friends and family who grew up in suburban California and are generally in alignment with mainstream modern culture is a very different matter than lying as a gay person in a conservative religious family with parents who have flat out said they will disown any gay child. The latter happens, sadly, and my sympathies are with the kids in that scenario.

    Dana, at 66:

    > Secondly, fear is a powerful hurdle to overcome for all of us. Typically, it’s when we mature and become more secure in ourselves, that we become ready to tackle the fear that has held us hostage, and face it head-on

    I agree with both of these.

    > I’m of the mind that my own interior life is messy enough to deal with, let alone judging anyone else’s personal path to freedom.

    Absolutely! This is why I can call myself a coward but would not call another gay man who came out at a similar age under similar circumstances a coward; it’s not my place to make that judgment of him. :)

    DRJ, at 68:

    I would say the sexual orientation of an individual you are dating is your business, yes.

    A more interesting, more difficult question:

    If you are trans and are not presenting as your birth gender, do you have an obligation to disclose that to people you are dating?

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  82. a revised independent counsel law that she and Clinton pushed for in 1993.

    But before the law was passed, she appointed Robert B. Fiske, Jr. to act somewhat like an independent counsel, with the idea that when the law passed the federal judges would ratify the appointment.

    But they didn’t.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  83. DRJ at 78, one of the most difficult issues I see people grapple with online is this: they’re in their mid-to-late 30s. They’ve been married since they were 17 or 18, and they got married because it was expected of them and they felt enormous social pressure to do so … but they’ve been gay all along, and their lack of sexual attraction to their spouse is destroying their marriage.

    So what do they do?

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  84. > Seriously, though, I think you are trying mightily to bring peace to the comments section and keep people from disagreeing. It’s part of your nurturing, elegant, and very well mannered personality. I would love to know you in real life because I know you are charming, polite and caring.

    I see similar things in elissa, DRJ, and honor her for them. :)

    > I’m not that interested in talking to you online because you hate confrontation, and that to me is one of the big selling-points of the internet.

    This is interesting to me; I find a lot of value in the internet’s *ability to create communities*, and communities depend on conflict being channeled in certain ways.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  85. Reverse it, aphrael, and tell me what they should do:

    … they’re in their mid-to-late 30s. They’ve been married since they were 17 or 18, and they got married because it was expected of them and they felt enormous social pressure to do so … but they’ve been straight all along, and their lack of sexual attraction to their spouse is destroying their marriage.

    Wouldn’t you agree they should be honest with their spouse about their real feelings, and also make a wholehearted effort to explain how they got there in the first place?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  86. PS — I know your hypothetical couple couldn’t have been legally married for 10+ years, but many gay couples have been together that long and consider themselves married. That’s what I’m thinking in this example.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  87. I’m of the mind that my own interior life is messy enough to deal with, let alone judging anyone else’s personal path to freedom.

    Heh. I just realized my comment begs the question: what is the definition of freedom? I mention this because the fundies would say that clearly, living a life of homosexuality is not freedom, but is bondage. (I was in the church for a very long time, and mostly find it an exhausting exercise…again, I have my own messes to deal with…).

    Dana (9a8f57)

  88. DRJ – yes, absolutely. But it’s a hard thing to do, especially when there are kids involved, and it’s very easy for people to get paralyzed by the situation and not do what they know is right *for them* because of the harm they see it causing others.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  89. aphrael:

    A more interesting, more difficult question:

    If you are trans and are not presenting as your birth gender, do you have an obligation to disclose that to people you are dating?

    I think so, because I think people have an expectation that people’s appearances match what they are from birth. That may change as we get a more nuanced culture, but I think that’s where we are today.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  90. aphrael,

    I guess it depends on how much you trust your spouse but, to me, you at least owe the truth to your spouse. Otherwise, one spouse is simply manipulating the other spouse under the guise of sparing them pain. Maybe honesty will result in more pain, or maybe it won’t. But if the truth comes out, the spouse and family will always know they weren’t told the truth and that, alone, can be devastating.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  91. In previous generations many many closeted gay men married unsuspecting and innocent women because that was what society expected of them once they graduated from school, and the virginal women they married did not know better. The men did it to maintain an appearance that they believed was required of them in order to survive socially, professionally and financially in pre- Stonewall and pre-AIDS America. IMO one of the tangible benefits of our more open society when it comes to homosexuals, and their relationships, and living arrangements is that far less of these sham marriages that did ruin people’s lives are taking place today.

    This does not mean I support the radical gay agenda with all its hysteria and hate. I do not. But I hardly consider our aphrael and his husband to be part of that.

    elissa (89f75d)

  92. This is some impressive thread drift, but:

    what would you describe the ‘radical gay agenda’ as being, elissa? (I’m genuinely curious here; I”m not sure what the term means when you use it, and that makes it difficult to discuss without summoning strawmen. :))

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  93. aphrael:

    lying as a twentysomething with friends and family who grew up in suburban California and are generally in alignment with mainstream modern culture is a very different matter than lying as a gay person in a conservative religious family with parents who have flat out said they will disown any gay child. The latter happens, sadly, and my sympathies are with the kids in that scenario.

    I agree, but I don’t think that ends the discussion. First, as I said before, I don’t expect a child (under 21) or even an adult who is still dependent on his or her parents to confront them about sexual orientation issues. That’s asking too much of someone that young and dependent.

    However, second, if the person is an adult who is self-sufficient, does hiding the truth to preserve one’s inheritance seem like something that will make him or her a better person? I can sympathize more with concerns about losing the family relationship, but at some point people have to put their own identities ahead of their families’ demands. To me, that’s part of growing up. Growing up in some families is easier than others, and your example is one of difficult situations. But it doesn’t excuse us from having to deal with it.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  94. Are mixed orientation marriages actually on the decline? I can’t find any statistics on them but if you include bisexuals, etc., they might be as common or even increasing.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  95. ==Seriously, though, I think you are trying mightily to bring peace to the comments section and keep people from disagreeing.==

    Actually no. I’m just kindly trying to keep you from going off and making the disagreements be ugly and personal and belabored over some thing or a “slander” you may have imagined. I should know better. I’ll stop.

    elissa (89f75d)

  96. DRJ,

    I realize Texas is a big state, but you are swerving your Cadillac alllll over the map, darling.
    Do you really believe that I subscribe to Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins’ view of Christendom ?
    Or is that merely the best distracting debating technique you could muster, recognizing that you are attempting to defend a losing assertion ?

    It simply is none of your goddamn business to demand to know what a stranger or a friend or family member’s sexual orientation or love life is all about. And please don’t try and play the “What about asking my spouse—can’t I ask him if he’s cheating on me !!!!!1!!???” angle.
    That context is completely different from the understood context of the discussion, and you know it.

    DRJ, I suspect your prurient interest into the private lives of others has elicited you to keep a stack of National Enquirer magazines tucked away among all of your legal journals and history books. Do you keep your flask hidden there, too ?
    :)

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  97. Dana:

    DRJ, as elissa’s comment at 47 stated, in part, or damaged someone else’s life (such as breaking an engagement with a woman, etc.), I think it’s obvious it would matter (dating, lest that lead to a broken engagement).

    I agree. Which means a person has an obligation to reveal their sexual orientation if s/he has a basis to believe it might be misinterpreted, right? In other words, there can be situations where one’s sexual orientation is someone else’s business.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  98. Elephant Stone #96,

    Please explain to Patterico why you personally ran me off from his website, NEVER TO RETURN. But that was your goal, wasn’t it? So congratulations because you will all be much happier in your cocoon now.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  99. > It simply is none of your goddamn business to demand to know what a stranger or a friend or family member’s sexual orientation or love life is all about

    I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree.

    I expect that my close friends will tell me what their love life is about.

    *That’s definitionally part of being a close friend*.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  100. DRJ,

    If you would re-read my comment at 66, I clearly preface it with “I agree with elissa @ 47.” If you read elissa’s comment at 47, you will note that she states, “FWIW, I don’t think it makes you either of those, aphrael–unless waiting till you were 26 seriously affected or damaged someone else’s life (such as breaking an engagement with a woman, etc.) It is logical to infer that if the exception is breaking an engagement wherein one causes damage is not acceptable, than surely the relationship leading up to the point of engagement is also problematic. (Also, if you read my further comments, when we are young, we are far less inclined to overcome fears that hold us hostage).

    I trust you to not be playing a game of gotcha. However, I will remind you that we are, to the best of our abilities, simply having a discussion.

    Dana (9a8f57)

  101. Somewhere the lying Hairy Reid is smiling.

    elissa (89f75d)

  102. aphrael,

    Let’s be fair and make a distinction between a person choosing to reveal their love life VS a person facing an inquisition about their orientation or love life.
    DRJ was talking about someone refusing to divulge their orientation or love life to inquiring minds. In fact, if you scroll way up, you’ll see that she was equating a refusal to divulge one’s orientation to inquiring friends or relatives as proof of lack of honesty and integrity.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  103. DRJ,

    Oh, c’mon, I was just teasing you about the flask—that’s why I put a smiley face after it.
    But I wasn’t teasing you about the National Enquirer. But don’t feel embarrassed about reading it—millions of upstanding productive Americans do. That’s why it is there at the checkout stand at the supermarket.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  104. Someone is kind of a dlck today.

    JD (2f5d3c)

  105. 82. …I think it’s clearly true that many gay people lie because they’re under duress, and I think there’s a sliding scale – lying as a twentysomething with friends and family who grew up in suburban California and are generally in alignment with mainstream modern culture is a very different matter than lying as a gay person in a conservative religious family with parents who have flat out said they will disown any gay child. The latter happens, sadly, and my sympathies are with the kids in that scenario.

    Comment by aphrael (5cffd4) — 3/28/2014 @ 12:13 pm

    I haven’t seen this mentioned, but if parents would disown a gay child I don’t see how religious they could be. Pope Francis seems to be getting a lot of good press for being “gay friendly,” but his style is just different from his predecessors. Not his theology. I grew up in a conservative religious family and he isn’t saying I haven’t heard since childhood. So if the church would welcome a gay child, how could it be “religious” for his or her parents to disown that child?

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  106. Steve,

    I think some of the more fundamentalist Christians are different in their approach to the issue than Catholics are.
    But I agree—disowning a gay child does not sound like a Christian tenet.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  107. Romney is still a public figure. A person can anything at all about him, unless there was malice or reckless disregard for the truth, which means he had to know it was a lie, or had no reason to believe it, which might actually be the case here, although you’d haved to do a lot of fishing in discovery to prove that.

    This suit would surely have no problem clearing that bar. There was no way Reid could possibly have believed his own lie.

    Even if his alleged informant actually existed (which I doubt), by his own account that person could not have been in any position to know anything about Romney’s taxes. He claimed this person was a client of Bain Capital; I’m a client of Bank of America, but do I have any information about its CEO’s personal finances? Let alone of a former CEO who left the bank before I opened my account?

    For that matter, even if he had claimed his informant was an employee of the firm rather than a client, the same obvious objections would have applied. How many employees at a firm know anything about their bosses’ personal finances?

    So it should be no problem for Romney to demonstrate reckless disregard, which is enough to clear the Sullivan bar.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  108. For instance, here’s Uncle Pat Robertson
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/28/pat-robertson-says-jesus-would-not-have-baked-wedding-cakes-for-gays/,

    …waxing all cukoo for Cocoa Puffs all theological about how Jesus wouldn’t have baked wedding cakes for gays.
    He then basically implies that a hypothetical gay couple would have likely been stoned to death at that time in history before they could have their wedding—so there wouldn’t have been time (or reason !) to bake them a wedding cake.
    Or something.

    He could have just said that Jesus didn’t have access to a high quality convection oven two thousand years ago, but whatever—it’s Pat Robertson, and people still send him money.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  109. If only there were some “Estate” that would report on Reid’s activities.

    Any time I hear someone refer to the news industry as the “fourth estate” I challenge them to name the first three. The news industry has arrogated to itself a constitutional role that doesn’t exist. It has no more constitutional status than the church or the nobility, or for that matter than the plumbing, carpentry, or sex industries, and is not entitled to any special considerations. That’s why I’m against any “media shield” law.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  110. Do I think it was okay to lie during the Holocaust to protect Jews? Yes. Do I think “a bank teller or a convenience store clerk who LIES when he doesn’t hand over ‘all of the money’ from the cash drawer during a hold-up” is a “sinful lying liar”? No. Those are not lies because all of these people were under duress.

    How were they under duress? They could tell the truth with no consequences to their own safety. No, the reason they were not wrong to lie is much simpler: they had no duty to tell the truth. It was none of the Nazis’ business where the Jews were hiding, and it’s none of the robber’s business how much money is left in the till. More than that, the bank teller has a duty to her employer not to disclose this information to the robber, and thus she has a duty to lie. The person with knowledge of a Jewish hiding place had no fiduciary duty to keep it secret, but certainly had a moral duty not to disclose information that would harm the people hiding, and thus had a duty to lie.

    The key is that there is nothing wrong with lying per se. Truth is a valuable commodity, and not everyone has a right to it. It is wrong to lie to someone who is owed the truth; it is not wrong to lie to someone who is not owed the truth. In general, nobody owes anyone the truth about their sexual preferences; therefore, no matter how old a person is, or how sure of their preferences, it’s perfectly OK to lie about them, whether to ones parents and relatives or to random nosy people. That’s also why it’s OK to lie to pollsters.

    A politician, when talking about a matter of genuine public interest, owes the public the truth. Thus Reid was wrong to lie. But on a matter that is none of the public’s damn business we are not owed the truth, so a politician has every right to lie to us about it.

    I have no problem with Bill Clinton denying in public his relationship with Lewinsky; he didn’t owe us that truth. But he owed it to Paula Jones and her lawyers, because it was directly relevant to her suit against him. It’s not as if he didn’t challenge the relevance; he did, and the judge ordered him to answer truthfully. They even negotiated the definition of “sex” for the purpose of the question, and the definition the judge handed down included blow jobs. And then he lied. That was perjury, a crime for which people go to prison, and grounds for impeachment and disbarment. But if he’d told the truth in the deposition and then gone out and lied about it at a press conference, however silly that would have been I’d’ve had no moral objection.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  111. By the way, the law on perjury agrees with what I just wrote. It’s not perjury to lie, even under oath, if the lie isn’t material to the case at hand. That’s why Clinton challenged the question, but the judge ruled that it was material, as indeed it obviously was.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  112. Here’s an example with no duress. Do you owe your business competitors the truth about the state of your affairs, or the techniques you’ve developed that they might not know? Of course not. If they ask you how you’re doing you have every right to tell them you’re doing fine, even if you know it to be false. And if they ask how you manage to do something in a short time that take them longer, you have every right to spin them a tale. Not because you’re under duress, but because you don’t owe them the truth.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  113. Comment by Steve57 (a017ec) — 3/28/2014 @ 1:48 pm

    Very true, Steve. One of my siblings best friend became Catholic because of her (and her family’s) Christian example. He was astonished that his homosexuality was not an issue of scandal to us. The anxiety he suffered over his decision to “come out” was accentuated by his erroneous understanding of Catholicism. Yes, he remains a Catholic.

    felipe (6100bc)

  114. DRJ, you are not going anywhere. If anyone goes, it will be Elephant Stone. And he won’t be missed. His contributions are thinner than his baby doll negligee.

    nk (dbc370)

  115. Elephant Stone, you bending over and pulling out your tube of Vaseline for Hollywood’s gay mafia is not something to brag about.

    nk (dbc370)

  116. I am so lazy! Above, there are to be found some interesting exchanges between DRJ and Aphreal regarding truth, fear, and decisions. Both are thoughtful, but fall (don’t we all?) very short of the “mind of God”. Let me share an example from my personal experience.

    One of my (many) siblings came to me for advice about avoiding divorce. The spouse was acting progressively combatant over everything and there was no peace in the household- the children (teens) were picking sides for the inevitable separation. I advised my sibling to say a Rosary and put the matter before God.

    I have received most every kind of reply when I have give out this kind of advice – whether to family, friend, or foe. But this sibling was highly aware of what happened to the person I had given this same advice to; an “unexplainable” reverse of life-course.

    My sibling said the Rosary and waited only a day before the “miracle” occurred. The spouse broke down at the dinner table with the confession of a pre-marital “indiscretion” which included the discovery of a new family member!

    Let me tell you that the “miracle” was not in the unexpected confession of infidelity. The miracle was the subsequent decision that had to be made next. It was the “mind of God” that led to the decision to forgive all and to legally adopt the “new” family member.

    My sisters and brothers, there is my way, your way, and there is God’s way.

    felipe (6100bc)

  117. Hey, if DRJ goes, so do I! Solidarity!

    felipe (6100bc)

  118. However, second, if the person is an adult who is self-sufficient, does hiding the truth to preserve one’s inheritance seem like something that will make him or her a better person? I can sympathize more with concerns about losing the family relationship, but at some point people have to put their own identities ahead of their families’ demands. To me, that’s part of growing up. Growing up in some families is easier than others, and your example is one of difficult situations. But it doesn’t excuse us from having to deal with it.

    Having an identity doesn’t mean ones family has to know about it. It’s not usually about an inheritance, it’s about the fact that Grandma doesn’t want to know. Coming out can’t be undone, and I know of many cases where it was a bad mistake, and severely damaged a relationship without benefiting anyone. So where’s the sense in that?

    Do you owe the truth to someone you’re dating? That really depends; there can’t be any blanket rules. Do you have to disclose your sexual past before marrying someone? Does your partner even want to know who all your exes are? It seems to me that the key point is to assume that they will find out eventually, and to ask yourself how they will feel then, and what it will do to the marriage. If finding out in a month or a year or a decade will cause problems, then tell them now. But all this only applies to someone with a right to know, because things are getting serious, not someone you’ve just met.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  119. I just realized my comment begs the question: what is the definition of freedom?

    The Garden, the apple, the snake, and the consequences, illustrate it pretty well. Choose it, own it, live or die with it.

    nk (dbc370)

  120. “Do you owe the truth to someone you’re dating? That really depends; there can’t be any blanket rules. Do you have to disclose your sexual past before marrying someone? Does your partner even want to know who all your exes are”?

    I mean you no disrespect, Milhouse. But have you asked these hard questions yourself?

    I have been on both ends of the equation and have been taught the answers; yes, yes, and hell yes!;-)

    felipe (6100bc)

  121. Let me clear up something I wrote earlier: A politician owes the public the truth about matters of genuine public concern. Why? The answer is the same as why you owe your employer the truth about anything related to your work. But you don’t owe your boss’s competitors the truth about your work; on the contrary! Nor do you owe it to random strangers who ask what you do for a crust.

    But you don’t owe your boss the truth about your personal life. Even your resume isn’t always the business of an employer or potential employer. Here’s an example: Suppose you were falsely convicted of a crime, were in prison for some years, and then the whole thing was expunged. What do you put in your resume for that time, when applying for a job? If you tell the truth you’re unlikely to get the job. But the truth doesn’t affect the employer, so it’s none of his business. I see no moral objection to inventing something to fill the gap, whether travel, a health crisis, or even a fictional job, so long as you aren’t claiming significantly more experience than you really have. What say you? Tell the truth and remain unemployable?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  122. Felipe, there are cases where that has ruined a good marriage, for no good reason.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  123. The advice counselors I know give is: don’t pretend to be a virgin, but don’t give details unless the other person demands them.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  124. I’ll take that as a “no”.

    felipe (6100bc)

  125. I’m a strict constructionist, myself, when it comes to the Ninth Commandment. Don’t lie about somebody else in a way that could hurt him or her. If you take this “never lie” to its logical extreme, all grandmothers who ever told a bedtime story are burning in hell.

    nk (dbc370)

  126. “The advice counselors”. Now that is a reality show I would watch!

    Paris Hilton: I was at the WYNN with my friend when the pigs busted him for no good reason!

    Advice counselor: Your problem being?

    PH: Well I opened my bag to get my cell-phone to call a lawyer and my coke fell out! Should I tell then it was his coke?

    AC: Remain silent until they demand to know whose it is!

    felipe (6100bc)

  127. By the way, Sammy, mayhap I should get a nickel every time you use the “Sammy files” moniker?

    Oh, and may I say you look splendid in it!

    felipe (6100bc)

  128. ==Hey, if DRJ goes, so do I! Solidarity!==

    felipe, there is absolutely no need for anyone to “go” over this, or to be chastised, either. And if DRJ chooses to do so either temporarily or permanently, she’s a grown up and it’s her decision which should affect no one else. (I’ve been there and I know.) I’ll remind you and others of the following from upthread:

    ====I think you are trying mightily to bring peace to the comments section and keep people from disagreeing. ……I’m not that interested in talking to you online because you hate confrontation, and that to me is one of the big selling-points of the internet.
    …….. there is no point in having an honest conservative sounding board if we’re afraid of speaking forthrightly.
    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/28/2014 @ 12:12 pm===

    Exactly 42 minutes later, DRJ flounced out of here “never to return” because apparently she found that she in fact does not like confrontation very much after all. At least not today. It happens. Thankfully tomorrow is another day.

    elissa (89f75d)

  129. JD – honestly I think it’s because they expected miracles and didn’t get them. Which is to say: they were sufficiently low-information voters that they had wildly unrealistic expectations of what a President could accomplish, and are angry that Obama was constrained by political reality.

    Comment by aphrael (5cffd4) — 3/28/2014 @ 9:04 am

    It’s that “Magical Thinking” gene…

    Colonel Haiku (b32161)

  130. That wasn’t confrontation, what Elephant Stone did. It was gutter talk directed personally at DRJ. That he doubled down on. I’ll type slowly. He – trash – talked – her – with – the – Enquirers – and – the – hidden – flask.

    nk (dbc370)

  131. I never pictured DRJ as the flouncy type, BTW. Slapping her quirt on her riding skirt, possibly.

    nk (dbc370)

  132. Smokey Obamison and teh Miracles

    Colonel Haiku (b32161)

  133. I agree, elissa, except that I think it was that her buttons were unwittingly pushed in the one manner that would engender that response. I base this on my own response, on this site, to a commenter who had just managed to stumble upon my “cleaning woman” button.

    felipe (6100bc)

  134. Yeah, DRJ doesn’t do “flounce”. It was possibly a “cleaning woman” episode.

    felipe (6100bc)

  135. nk–Ima girl. I recognize a flounce when I see one! :) We ladies have a broad spectrum of reactions that we employ as the situation warrants. As your daughter gets older you’ll be witness to this confounding phenomenon regularly.

    elissa (89f75d)

  136. I take back the “cleaning woman” theory. ES was very nasty. Not at all nice like Rachel Ward. But I confess that I don’t finish reading comments that turn vile. I went back and finished reading them. NK is right.

    felipe (6100bc)

  137. That video was great, felipe. Yes, we all have our personal emotion triggers. Your comment was very on point.

    elissa (89f75d)

  138. Well if I were charitable, I’d just say that Harry Reid is a senile old coot.

    But because I’m wedded to reality, I’ll have to say that Harry Reid is a prevaricating posturing pustulent nasty pusillanimous little prick with the instincts and manners of a wolverine. And I’m insulting the animal kingdom when I say that. Of course when it comes to graft and corruption, old Harry drops the wolverine suit and becomes a greedy Berkshire sow at the trough.

    Skeptical Voter (12e67d)

  139. I’ll buy that, Skeptical Voter. But please allow me to add that, in my experience (and it’s some), as a person’s cognitive functions deteriorate his basic nature comes through. Sweet-natured people remain sweet, snakes bite more.

    nk (dbc370)

  140. Beat that, hairy Reed

    Colonel Haiku (d34d63)

  141. Do I think it was okay to lie during the Holocaust to protect Jews? Yes. Do I think “a bank teller or a convenience store clerk who LIES when he doesn’t hand over ‘all of the money’ from the cash drawer during a hold-up” is a “sinful lying liar”? No. Those are not lies because all of these people were under duress.

    As I understand it, intent has a great deal to do with it.

    If the intent is to save a life when telling the truth would cost someone’s life, then lying isn’t a sin. The one about lying to save a Jew’s life during the Holocaust is the easy one. But what if you lie to save the life of an assailant? If telling the truth would only escalate a situation to the point where you’d have to use deadly force and kill the guy, but if you lie you can defuse the situation which is better?

    If your intent is life, or to benefit the person you’re lying to, or to keep the peace, then it’s better to lie than tell the truth.

    The way to look at, I think, is what are your options? In the case of hiding a Jew during the holocaust you can either a) lie or b) tell the truth and be an accessory to murder. If it’s a deadly force situation you can either a) choose to at least try to lie or b) choose to go straight to deadly force which would be tantamount to choosing to be a murderer if you thought there was a chance (a) might have worked.

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  142. Comment by Colonel Haiku (d34d63) — 3/28/2014 @ 4:59 pm

    Cue Peter Lorre’s voice: “Now I’ve seen everything”.

    felipe (6100bc)

  143. 125. …If you take this “never lie” to its logical extreme, all grandmothers who ever told a bedtime story are burning in hell.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 3/28/2014 @ 4:01 pm

    If you’re an absolutist about this sort of thing you’ll never get through life. I guess the Greek Orthodox take the same sensible attitude the Catholics do.

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  144. My grandmother told me she would by me a red sports car. Instead I got a hand-me-down white ’68 Nova.

    Should I hold that against her?

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  145. Yay! I had a ’68 Nova with a 307, 4 speed and a bench seat. Loved that car!

    Colonel Haiku (cd2f41)

  146. That video made me a wrestling fan, Felipe!

    Colonel Haiku (cd2f41)

  147. My three favorite wrestler names are Gorilla Monsoon, Wahoo McDaniel, and King Kong Bundy!

    felipe (6100bc)

  148. 147. Yay! I had a ’68 Nova with a 307, 4 speed and a bench seat. Loved that car!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (cd2f41) — 3/28/2014 @ 5:23 pm

    307, Powerglide, bench seat.

    It’d do. Throttle response wasn’t exactly sharp. Still I’d take it back in a heartbeat.

    I don’t know why they ever got rid of bench seats. There was always something special about cruising on a summer night with the windows down and taking a sharp turn and your baby slides over next to you. By accident of course.

    I drove the Nova “in between.” It was in between my first and my third car. My first car was ’68 Ranchero. Again, bench seats. I hot rodded the $chitt out of that. Sig Erson cam, Edelbrock Torker manifold, 351 Windsor heads, 600cfm carb, and I forget what headers. People would ask me, “What’s in it, a 390?” No, instead I had built…a car that would eat transmissions. I learned a lot about building up the rest of the car to handle the power and having brakes that would actually slow it down with that thing.

    I loved my third care the ’68 Charger with the 440 Police Pursuit Special, Torqueflite, Dana 60 w/posi even more than the Nova at the time. That was the only down side of the Charger. Buckets with a massive console. The girl might as well have been in Uraguay.

    But all in all there’d be something nice about having my Grandparent’s car back.

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  149. Aphrael–

    Hours ago you asked==what would you describe the ‘radical gay agenda’ as being, elissa? (I’m genuinely curious here; I”m not sure what the term means when you use it, and that makes it difficult to discuss without summoning strawmen. :) ==

    Basically, it’s the in-your-face overkill.
    The following link is just an example of the kind of thing I was thinking about. Some people demanding ouster of the CEO and founder of Mozilla because they don’t like his politics on gay marriage. Or the chick fil-a boycott kerfuffle. Even people who support gay rights for their friends and family members are often greatly turned off by the militancy and stridency of many in the gay community who will not tolerate or allow any voices of dissent to be tolerated. It seems like they forget this is America and that social changes never happen at lightening speed.

    People who have strong religious beliefs about the subject are not persuaded by being called bigots and haters and godbags and breeders. It’s a nasty business –all that intolerance about what the gay community calls intolerance in others. This is what the “radical gay agenda” means to me. And as I said, I cannot imagine from what I know of you on this site that you and your husband support these tactics either.

    Since we’ve apparently moved back to Harry Reid and on to cars, it is fine with me if we drop the subject-or not. But I did not want you to think I was ignoring or avoiding your question.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/mozilla-ceo-prop-8-controversy-2014-3

    elissa (2ffd80)

  150. Wow. Quite an exchange. I’m glad I missed the especially unpleasant parts, but I see that there were several attempts at peacemaking and calls for civility.

    I don’t think that argument is a good route for differences of opinion. But then, I believe that argument is different from debate. Argument very often turns personal. And though there are some folks who get a “pass” on being deeply nasty to other human beings in this discussion group, folks are mostly civil to one another here.

    I’m sorry to see the bad feelings, but hopeful for the positive comments.

    Over on FaceBook, I had posted a comment about feeling frustrated that some people think of themselves as tolerant and understanding…but who say the most insulting things about what other people people think and believe (often without knowing either of those things). Like clockwork, a couple of the people most guilty of this chimed in with agreement that such a course was reprehensible. Sigh.

    Sometimes, we all need a mirror held to our own behavior. Me, especially.

    Ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae.”

    Simon Jester (77a5ff)

  151. I’m so old that I remember when groupthink was a bad thing.

    Now, it’s all the rage.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  152. Ag, when I was in college (oh so long ago now; whatever happened to the years?), there were the then-aging hippies saying “Do your own thing, man.”

    But what they meant was: “Do you own thing man, so long as it is my kind of thing you do.”

    Orwell wears many faces these days.

    Simon Jester (77a5ff)

  153. Elephant Stone’s comment was nasty and inappropriate.

    DRJ, I suspect your prurient interest into the private lives of others has elicited you to keep a stack of National Enquirer magazines tucked away among all of your legal journals and history books. Do you keep your flask hidden there, too ?

    Just an ugly and uncalled-for comment directed at one of the most decent people ever to grace this site.

    Patterico (15551a)

  154. Simon:

    People today confuse hippies with the left.

    Stay with me here.

    Hippies were the easily trained “counter-culture” intent on leaving the misguided ways of their square parents for a carefree world of love, harmony and drugs. Especially drugs.

    The left has always been an establishment to take advantage of the those who think freely.

    They just want to make sure thinking in a free manner agrees with them.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  155. Yes, not terribly civil, specially when one acts like the jackalope Maher, there is a flexible standard, we were all supposed to be angry over Packwood, but give Clinton a pass, for twenty years they covered up Filner, because apparently he was successful in his policy, and of course we have the brouhaha in the military, that has spilled over into House of Cards, in the media;

    Meanwhile, something completely different;

    https://twitter.com/occbaystreet/status/449628323811819520/photo/1

    narciso (3fec35)

  156. Elephant Stone, you have crossed a line. It is very difficult to uncross it.

    It would be smart of you to start figuring out how to fix it before its too late.

    Oops, too late.

    SPQR (768505)

  157. Sorry, that was the Enquirer,

    narciso (3fec35)

  158. Elissa, thank you. :)

    My first reaction when I read about the Mozilla thing was to think it’s crazy – a tech company promoted a CTO, who was involved in the development of a key technology used in modern web infrastructure, to CEO. Seems completely normal and reasonable, and exactly the kind of person who a tech company *should* be promoting (assuming he can handle the public relations aspects of CEOship, but a CTO already does some of that).

    I have a lesbian friend who worked at Netscape for a while, and she was seriously hurt when she discovered this guy had donated to the prop 8 campaign; I understand that reaction – because it’s hurtful to discover that someone you’ve known and worked with and had good relations with *for years* thinks the state shouldn’t recognize your marriage. It changes your understanding of the other person’s opinion of and understanding of you. I would be hurt too.

    But part of living in a liberal, pluralistic society is that you discover things about people that you wish you hadn’t discovered, and we all have to interact with people we disagree with and see and honor the good things about them. I can both say that John McCain shouldn’t be President (because $reasons) *and* say that the suffering he endured for his country is amazing and that he should be honored and respected for that. People are complex, and they shouldn’t be reduced to one fact or figure, and doing so is profoundly illiberal.

    So, while I understand why gay Mozilla employees are unhappy, I don’t support the boycott.

    [Then again, it's easy for me not to support the boycott, as I switched to Chrome years ago and basically never use Firefox anymore]

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  159. Elissa, at 128:

    there’s a famous quote about disagreeing without being disagreeable.

    Maybe #96 was meant in jest, but even if so, it’s the kind of jest one should only make when one is sure of one’s audience. But from my perspective it looked like it was just being disagreeable.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  160. Elephant Stone, at 102:

    I think at a certain point, not divulging one’s sexual orientation *can be* a sign of lack of integrity.

    I’m a gay man who lives in a big city and has a social circle which is comprised largely of highly educated liberals. If I were not open about my sexuality with them, there would be something *wrong*, and that wrongness might well impeach my integrity. And if I were *pretending to be straight*, hooking up with girls to maintain the illusion? Then it would *definitely* be a sign of low integrity.

    But I don’t think it’s *per se* a sign of lack of integrity; it depends heavily on the context. Context is king. :)

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  161. so it’s an opinion, some are accepted celebrated, and others are considered practically crimethink,

    this acceptance of same sex marriage, is partially voluntary, but it is also in the aftermath of the most relentless deriding of anything having to do with traditional values,

    narciso (3fec35)

  162. Narciso, at 164: i’m sorry, but I have absolutely no clue what you’re saying. Could you rephrase? :)

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  163. Steve57, at 105:

    It’s a common thing for gay people to be disowned, thrown out of the house, ostracized, etc, by ostensibly religious parents. it’s not common enough to be *the norm*, but it’s common enough that it’s not surprising when you run across a gay person to whom it has happened.

    As a taoist, I’m not really entitled to opine on whether the ostensibly religious people are in fact acting in accord with the tenets of their religion; that’s not my place, and I have neither the knowledge nor the skill to render the judgment. But they *claim* to be religious, and they’re believed to be religious by the family members who are their victims … and I think a lot of the gay community’s hostility towards traditional religion stems from this.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  164. That would seem to be something that Senator Ted Cruz did the other day when he praised Janet Reno’s appointments of special prosecutors, in order to more strongly criticize Eric Holdrer and Barack Obama.
    And that’s not the only place Ted Cruz is careless with the truth.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/28/2014 @ 11:56 am

    I don’t have time to read everything now, just got down to this.
    Sammy, what did Cruz do to lie?
    Did Reno never appoint special prosecutors?
    Did he previously say that when Reno appointed special prosecutors it was wrong?

    I have no idea of the details to what you refer to begin to understand.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  165. Doc, neither does Sammy.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  166. that was the proper procedure, even though the Clinton’s stonewalled and demagogued the whole way,
    notably, there were as many counsels, investigating Reagan administrations as were the Clinton’s if not more,

    narciso (3fec35)

  167. And if I were *pretending to be straight*, hooking up with girls to maintain the illusion? Then it would *definitely* be a sign of low integrity.

    aphrael, have you ever wondered why a high percentage of gays are also politically, ideologically liberal or leftwing? I ask that not to be glib, but because it’s an interesting phenomenon to me, but one that’s never been researched by people in the world of science or psychology.

    I recall Patterico saying a few years ago that one reason why he sympathized with the idea of same-sex marriage was based on his assumption that human sexuality was very fixed, or non-flexible. He illustrated his POV by posing the question that if gays choose to be homosexual, then do heterosexuals choose to be straight?

    At the time I gave Patterico some leeway on that observation, thinking, that, yea, why would a person be gay unless he or she was programmed or forced to be that way biologically? I thought various conservatives perhaps weren’t sophisticated enough when it came to that one facet of human nature.

    But then I recall a noted commentator of the right mentioning several years ago how he had a friend who told him on one occasion that he considered himself to be gay. The commentator was surprised by this and asked his friend, who had been in a traditional marriage for a number of years, whether sex was good with his wife. The guy said, yes, it was.

    After looking more closely at the actual history of human nature (which the agenda of GLBT should compel all of us to do) — particularly as it involves those in the highly visible and very liberal (and trend-setting), flaky world of entertainment, much less what the world of the MSM tries to foist on society — I now realize that conservatives were more correct than I even gave them credit for several years ago.

    Mark (12c2a8)

  168. Simon @152. You touch on several important points here, I think. It took me several graduate level courses to really understand all the nuances and differences in purpose and technique between “discussion” “rhetoric”, “persuasion”, “debate” “argument”, “confrontation”, etc. Too often these distinct words that imply and address disagreements or mere differences of opinion are used interchangeably when they should not be. I still catch myself doing it, too.

    elissa (aa6b49)

  169. Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/28/2014 @ 11:56 am

    “That would seem to be something that Senator Ted Cruz did the other day when he praised Janet Reno’s appointments of special prosecutors, in order to more strongly criticize Eric Holdrer and Barack Obama.

    And that’s not the only place Ted Cruz is careless with the truth.”

    168. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/29/2014 @ 10:45 am

    I don’t have time to read everything now, just got down to this.
    Sammy, what did Cruz do to lie?
    Did Reno never appoint special prosecutors?
    Did he previously say that when Reno appointed special prosecutors it was wrong?

    What Cruz did to lie, because it helped him in an argument, was issue a statement:

    http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1024

    (also quoted in a Patterico post)

    that included the following:

    “Both Nixon Administration Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Clinton Administration Attorney General Janet Reno appointed special prosecutors whose integrity was beyond reproach; Eric Holder should do likewise….

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf07f)

  170. I have no idea of the details to what you refer to begin to understand.

    Q. Did Reno never appoint special prosecutors?

    Only Robert B. Fiske, Jr., which she intended to have federal judges ratify when the special prosecutor law was re-enacted.

    His integrity was NOT above reproach.

    She later called for the appointment of special prosecutors by a 3-judge panel about seven times.

    She did NOT call for one in the investigation of Bill Clinton’s 1996 campaign finances.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/renocounsel.htm

    Attorney General Janet Reno yesterday rejected Republican demands for an independent counsel to investigate reports of illegal fund-raising by the 1996 Clinton reelection campaign, informing Congress that a special Justice Department task force will continue to examine the allegations.

    But what does Ted Cruz say?

    Just as nobody would trust John Mitchell to investigate Richard Nixon, nobody should trust a partisan Obama donor to investigate the IRS’s political targeting of President Obama’s enemies.

    And she compares Nixon and Clinton avorably to Obama. Now Nixon really did nominate special prosecutors 9it was a condition of the Senate confirming his nominee for Attorney Genreal, Elliot Richardson, and when Archibald Coox was dismiised, Richardson, and his depurty, felt obliged to resign – technically Nixon ordered him to fire him and he resigned rather than do it There was such an uproar at the “Saturday Night massacre: with calls for Nixon to be impeached just for that, that he appointed another one, Leon Jaworski.

    Q. Did he previously say that when Reno appointed special prosecutors it was wrong?

    No, he said nothing about it. The point is Janet Reno:

    1) Appointed a lawyer whom Bill Clinton could trust – that’s what I think – to take control over all Clinton-related investigations.

    Fiske had previously represented Goldman Sachs and Robert E. Rubin and protected hom from Giuliani’s insider trading investigations, and although a registered Republican, there is every reason to believe he was striving to protect Clinton and narciso mentioned a thing or two about him. (saying Fiske, had been one of the ABA standing committee who downgraded Reagan nominees, not for their credentials, but for their ideology)

    2) Called for appointments of special prosecutors, whom she did not and could not name, in seven relatively minor cases, that could not reach Bill Clinton, usually involving false statements by his nominees.)

    3) Did NOT set the process in motion to appoint a special prosecutor in the case where it was maybe most called for: Clinton 1996 fundraising.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf07f)

  171. Comment by nk (dbc370) — 3/28/2014 @ 4:01 pm
    Actually a very good point, and one which I had not previously thought enough about. It is important to first observe what a statement is and is not saying before one goes to applying it. Since we are talking about Scriptural injunctions, we have the statement that all of the Law can be summed up in loving God with your all and loving your neighbor as yourself. While it can easily be manipulated, there are lots of things that are “true” that may be better off unsaid, or even given an untruthful answer, if the purpose is not so much to advance your own cause or to harm another’s cause, but to protect some one.
    That said, there is an interesting story in The Hiding Place where one person in the ten Boom extended family thought it wrong to ever tell a lie, even when asked directly by a Nazi officer, “Where are you hiding the Jews?!?!” She pointed to under the kitchen table, which was covered with cloth that went down to the floor. The officer yanked back the tablecloth, expecting to see a few people hiding under the table. When he didn’t see that, he just yelled at her before they stormed out. he didn’t take the time to see the outline of the trap door which led to a secret chamber under the floor where the Jews were indeed hiding.

    Sammy, DRJ made a comment at— 3/28/2014 @ 12:01 pm where she pointed out some instances where Reno called for the appointment of special prosecutors. To be direct, I do not have the time and energy to go through it all and ferret out the specifics. Did I ever say Ted Cruz was perfect? I don’t believe I did. Should I vote for Hillary Clinton for what you pointed out? I don’t think so.

    There was some of discussion of what the “gay agenda” was and how a homosexual was to view someone who had been friendly enough but was opposed to same sex marriage. I was planning on posting on that, but I spent a good part of the day with an emergency plumbing task and other threads are active, so I’m not sure anyone would see it or wants to see it. I’ll take a hint one way or another.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  172. aphrael, back in the ’6os and ’70s we used to have two words. “That way,” as in Uncle so and so was “that way.”And life moved on.

    It sounds so contrived, that someone was “kicked out” of their family for being gay. Really? Or is there more to the story? I think there is.

    These days it’s really good to have a victim story.

    If it were going to happen, it would happen in my ape man clan. Yet my sweet, sweet cousin who is “that way” remains among us. What gives?

    I just can’t credit all these “I was a victim of my fly-over country’s religious bigotry film at 11″ hype.

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  173. ” and I think a lot of the gay community’s hostility towards traditional religion stems from this.”

    Wrong again aphrael , Their hostility comes from being gay and therefore on the “wrong side” of God. What you so smugly call “traditional” religion is in reality an age old tried and true belief in a supreme being and not a fly by the seat of your pants philosophy. Although heathens and atheists (choose your side) may not like being called heathens or atheists, they are so none the less. So as a white male Republican Lutheran married to a Asian woman I MUST be a racist. See how neatly it all fits together? Oh, by the way, did I mention I am heterosexual? Of course not. That’s because my sexual proclivities are not important unless they are perverted. Right?

    Hoagie (511e55)

  174. Also aphreal, the “gay community” is neither gay nor a community. They are perverts and a mob. The men butt-bang each other and the women strap on plastic dongs in a (failed) effort to make themselves into something they are not. And their “community” which is less than 3% of the population bullies the other 97% by claiming victimhood for being perverts.

    If we are not willing to call a spade a spade then we are doomed to live under their lies for ever. I for one, did not spend my youth killing commies in Vietnam just to become one. Nor will I tolerate them running my country.

    Hoagie (511e55)

  175. I’m sorry if 177 and 178 are corrupted with bad spelling and punctuation. As you may oer may not know I have dyslexia so often what I type is not what I see. I just hope you get the point either way.

    Hoagie (511e55)

  176. Hoagie–aphrael is a long time member of this blogging community and many of us think a lot of him. You are obviously entitled to your opinions but a little civility and making them less personal would be in order. Please.

    elissa (aa6b49)

  177. Elissa, I was unaware my comments were “personal”, they were not meant to be. If aphreal is a homosexual it’s fine with me. As a matter of fact it’s none of my business unless aphreal (or you) makes it my business. However, once aphreal (or you) does make it my business then I will make my belief known.

    And since I’m not a “long time member of this blogging community” ( however, I watched and read this blog fo a couple years before I felt comfortable enough to acyually post) I stand correcvted.

    I am in no way trying to inflict incivility on any blogger here. And I apologize if that’s the way it came off.

    Hoagie (511e55)

  178. Also aphreal, the “gay community” is neither gay nor a community. They are perverts and a mob. The men butt-bang each other and the women strap on plastic dongs in a (failed) effort to make themselves into something they are not. And their “community” which is less than 3% of the population bullies the other 97% by claiming victimhood for being perverts.

    hello whirl here’s a song that we’re singin’ – come on get happy!

    a whole lotta luvin’ is what we’ll be bringin’

    come on get happy!

    also i like that deviled egg commercial for miracle whip

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  179. Oh my stars and garters. I feel faint. Do you mean to tell me that some people like Miracle Whip? When did that happen?

    I had no idea.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  180. miracle whip is not the enemy

    trust me on this

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  181. let’s all listen to this song by Joe Brooks called “someday”

    it’s a happy song for to ameliorate these dark times, if only for a short time and in a small measure

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A4tMmDhzYk

    joe brooks is cooler than me

    joe brooks is cooler than you

    and that’s ok

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  182. just don’t “butt-bang” nobody

    I got my eye on you people

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  183. Their hostility comes from being gay and therefore on the “wrong side” of God.

    I’ve noticed that theology often is entered into a part of many debates on such social-cultural issues — this one in particular — along with stereotypes associated with the groups in question. But rarely, if ever, is it noted that a high number of those in the forefront of GLBT are liberal or leftwing. Then, too, atheists are more likely to be liberal, so it’s hard to know the dividing lines of the factors of liberalism, biology and secularism. Or where one begins and one leaves off.

    If the GLBT crowd were mostly ideologically moderate to conservative, I’d perceive them differently. But they’re not, and so their political orientation is more crucial (and telling) to me than strictly their sexual one alone.

    Your blunt description of the behavior of certainly a percentage of such people coincides with the following recent news:

    dailymail.co.uk, March 14, 2014: A woman has given HIV to her lesbian lover in an extremely rare case of female-to-female HIV transmission, according to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The 46-year-old Texan woman ‘likely acquired’ the virus from her HIV-positive female partner.

    Such reports are incredibly rare, but the women were noted to have engaged in several risky behaviors and the diagnosed woman had stopped taking her medication in 2010. The 46-year-old unnamed woman tested positive and indicated she had had sex with only her female partner in the six months prior to her diagnosis. She also said she had not engaged in sex with a man for 10 years.

    The woman reported no HIV risk factors – besides sex with her 43-year-old partner – such as getting tattooed, having multiple unprotected sexual partners or IV drug use. The report indicated that the newly infected woman’s HIV strain was a 98 percent genetic match with her partner’s.

    Despite its rarity at the outset, the case’s particulars make it less shocking.

    ‘They described their sexual contact as at times rough to the point of inducing bleeding in either woman,’ reads the report. ‘They also reported having unprotected sexual contact during the menses of either partner.’

    It has been theorized that many gays are hostile to religion — to Christianity in particular — because it frowns upon homosexuality. But I bet a lot of that hostility comes just as much from the GLBT crowd’s devotion to modern-day secularism, in which liberalism is treated as its own form of religion, as much as it comes from anything else.

    Mark (12c2a8)

  184. tell me that some people like Miracle Whip?

    I remember trying that version of mayonnaise (by way of Kraft) as a kid and wanting to spit it out. Ever since then I’ve always been surprised anyone wants to buy that product.

    The Best Foods brand (or similar generic-labeled versions) are the only ones that deserve to be purchased.

    Mark (12c2a8)

  185. Hoagie, go away.

    SPQR (768505)

  186. “But rarely, if ever, is it noted that a high number of those in the forefront of GLBT are liberal or leftwing.”

    Mark – Are you high or something?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  187. i met this gay guy once what was all liberal and whatever

    i was like yo dude free enterprise much

    and he was all like hey have you tried these spinach things

    and I was all like no not yet did you make them?

    and he was all like nope but they’re real simple this girl was saying how she just made em up real fast after work

    and i was all like omg these are so effing good

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  188. Once again, at the risk of being uncivil, I must say Mark is incorrect when he states: “many gays are hostile to religion — to Christianity in particular — because it frowns upon homosexuality.” All religions “frown” on homosexuality, not just Christianity. Christians do not kill homosexuals as do Moslems. Christians are today not just asked to “tolerate” homosexuals but now we are told that if we do not “accept” them and joyously celebrate their gay marriages we are intolerant homophobes akin to Nazis. Sorry, I ain’t no Nazi and I ain’t no commie but I will not celebrate homosexuality. That’s because I am a Christian and as such I understand my religion does not “frown” upon homosexuality. There is no frowning, it’s a sin pure and simple. But being a sinner is not easy…unless you’re a homosexual and have a major network of sycophants covering your ass (pun intended). Today homosexuality is a protected class like blacks, Hispanics or child molesters ( see recent Democrat politicians). But it still does not make it right.

    Or does it ?

    Hoagie (511e55)

  189. READY???

    O

    K

    gimme an h

    gimme an o

    gimme an m

    gimme another o!!!!

    thank you very much!

    wuduzdatspel?

    it spells “homo” and it’s short for homosexual, which refers to people what are valuable members of the american tapestry, even if america is a loser debtwhore jokenation all the other more respectable countries laugh at

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  190. “189.Hoagie, go away.”

    SPQR, what the hell is that? Does that mean if I express an opinion you don’t like I should just go away and all will be good for you? Wow. I thought the object of blogs like this was to voice one’s opinion, not be silenced and told to “go away”. How very, very leftist of you to want to silence another for speaking something to which you object. Thank you for your support. I now understand why SPQR is your handle. Welcome to the Empire. Should I say “We who are about to die salute you”?

    Hoagie (511e55)

  191. it spells “homo” and it’s short for homosexual, which refers to people what are valuable members of the american tapestry,

    Happyfeet, you need to explain to me how having perverted sexual proclivities makes one “valuable” to this American tapestry. Exactly what value does homosexuality bring to the table? I mean, other than great hair dressers and interior designers. And even those don’t make up for their inability to procreate other American tapestry members.

    Hoagie (511e55)

  192. Hoagie, go away.

    I hope you’re not saying that merely because he’s being politically incorrect. In this age of Nidal-Hasan-ism, I don’t trust the sentiments of anyone, certainly from the left but increasingly from the right (definitely when it’s the squishy right) too.

    Mark – Are you high or something?

    daleyrocks, if I’m reading your quip correctly, I was referring to commentary throughout the general public, and not just here in this thread, at this website, involving my own postings. However, I admit to not listening to major conservative talkers like Rush Limbaugh or certainly his counterparts like Bill Maher.

    BTW, I recall a time (if not still today) when certain pundits deemed it as improper or rude to discuss the ideological slant of a nominee to the Supreme Court.

    All religions “frown” on homosexuality, not just Christianity

    Hoagie, I didn’t say otherwise. But antipathy to Christianity is stronger among many so-called progressives, in the GLBT crowd in particular, in the US (or Europe) because its origins are connected to the Western World, and, ironically enough, even though Islamism is far harsher towards homosexuality, it’s judged differently by much of the left because that religion is deemed as Third World-ish or semi-Third-Worldish. Or it’s bestowed a reverse form of social/religious chauvinism from the left.

    Mark (12c2a8)

  193. which refers to people what are valuable members of the american tapestry,

    That’s why you of all people, happyfeet, shouldn’t use the word “gay” in a pejorative way, which you have a habit of doing. Yea, you may say that you’re just being a wiseguy and flippant when that happens, but such word usage could just as easily be sort of a “Freudian slip” on your part, meaning even you unconsciously find something odd or pathetic about “gay.”

    Mark (12c2a8)

  194. I DON’T UNDERSTAND NONE OF WHAT YOU PEOPLE IS SAYING, SPECIFICALLY MARK AND HOAGIE

    gay people rock the effing casbah, which needs rocking from time to time, Mr. Hoagie

    and Mark, you are an enigma what is *not* wrapped in a tasty voodoo doughnut

    which sucks cause those doughnuts make you wanna slap you mama

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  195. the whole thing about the car flipping is just a metaphor

    I know that in my heart but it’s still scarier than stabby clowns

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  196. “daleyrocks, if I’m reading your quip correctly”

    Mark – Of course you’re not reading it correctly. Standard taunt of the left is that Republicans/conservatives are anti-gay or homophobes. See if you can figure out how that squares with your comment that nobody ever seems to mention that a high number of people at the forefront of the GLBT or gay movement are liberal or leftwing.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  197. See if you can figure out that squares…

    What? If anything, you’re merely saying that the left (or GLBTers) — and one generally is the same as the other — has no trouble sniping about anti-gay attitudes originating from the right. Okay, we know that—that’s a given. But how does that imply that many conservatives (or people in general) therefore ever mention that much of the GLBT crowd is of the left and, in turn, has an ideological antipathy to the right, beyond the issue of homosexuality or not? IOW, it can just as easily be said that many gays dislike rightists not just because conservatives don’t approve of homosexuality, but because conservatives in general don’t approve of a whole host of left-leaning causes and policies embraced by most liberals.

    Or I should say that if liberalism could be converted into a form of homosexuality, that would be the only “homosexuality” that gays would give a damn about. The same idea applies to many on the left who love to rally around racial matters too. IOW, if liberalism were a race or ethnicity, that would ultimately be the only “race” or “ethnicity” that most black and white liberals would give a damn about.

    Mark (12c2a8)

  198. “What? If anything, you’re merely saying that the left (or GLBTers) — and one generally is the same as the other — has no trouble sniping about anti-gay attitudes originating from the right.”

    Mark – So, if the right is the anti-gay party. The left is the gay party. Am I going too fast for you? How percentage of people do believe do not understand that stereotype fostered by the left? My comment was intended to go no further than that.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  199. I’ll take a hint one way or another.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/30/2014 @ 6:46 pm

    Go for it.

    My daughter just got back from spring break in Spain where she stayed with friends while her mother went to Cameroon. The daughter could not get a coffee in Madrid because the Starbucks was surrounded by riot police. “The people” were protesting EU’s austerity measures. Her mother saw a little boy with tetanus in a hospital where there is only one bathroom on each floor (for everybody including patients), and rats running between patients’ beds in the wards. Among other things. First World problems are the best kind of problems.

    nk (dbc370)

  200. the task is more like that of 2 Timothy 4:7, there is a reason why the current pattern of social organization has endured for thousands of years,

    narciso (3fec35)

  201. Mark, at 171:

    I don’t think we have a good, scientific theory about what causes people to adopt particular political beliefs, and I question whether one could be developed; I think that it would be instantly politicized and any actual information content would get drowned out.

    That said, I would describe the person in your story at 171 as being bisexual. I’ve never felt a sexual attraction to a woman, and I *do* feel sexual and emotional/romantic attraction to men, so it’s very easy for me to believe this is true of other people.

    ———-

    Mark, at 187:

    are people hostile to religion because they’re secular, or are they secular because they’re hostile to religion? :)

    I know a fair number of religious gay people. And many of them are deeply, deeply conflicted because they get a strong social message from their religious community that their sexuality is *wrong*, and that’s difficult/painful for them.

    ———-

    Mark, at 197:

    my experience is that most western gay people are more hostile to Christianity than they are to Islam because they grew up in (at least nominally) Christian communities and so they react against the Christian community, but the Islamic community is irrelevant to them. This is similar to how many national movements formed – in opposition to the dominant culture of the region.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  202. Hoagie, at 177:

    > What you so smugly call “traditional” religion is in reality an age old tried and true belief in a supreme being and not a fly by the seat of your pants philosophy

    I’m not being smug, there. I’m a Taoist; I was trying to distinguish “religion that’s traditionally been practiced on a large scale in the western world” from other religions. If you don’t like “traditional” because you think it’s smug, can you find another accurate word?

    > Although heathens and atheists (choose your side) may not like being called heathens or atheists, they are so none the less.

    Feel free to call me a heathen; that particular insult is insulting to you and not to me, so why should I care? :)

    > So as a white male Republican Lutheran married to a Asian woman I MUST be a racist.

    Huh? That doesn’t follow at all. My general assumption is that people aren’t racists until/unless they prove themselves otherwise.

    > Oh, by the way, did I mention I am heterosexual? Of course not

    You didn’t directly, but by saying you are married to an Asian woman you strongly implied it.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  203. nk, at 203:

    > The daughter could not get a coffee in Madrid because the Starbucks was surrounded by riot police.

    She was in Madrid and the only place she could think of to go to get coffee was Starbucks? *puzzled look* Coffee is *everywhere* in Madrid.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  204. Elissa, at 180; and SPQR, at 189: thank you.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  205. Earlier in the thread aphrael asked someone to say what they meant by “the gay agenda”. I’ll comment what I think it is, why it is in a way quite reasonable (though obviously no one is waiting with baited breath for my affirmation), how many people think it is something different, with perhaps some other thoughts mixed in.
    I would say that the gay agenda has two parts to it. Part I is to have the society and the culture accept homosexuality as being equally “normal” to heterosexuality. Part II is a willingness and desire to use political force to accomplish this.

    That is the short answer. If you want a further discussion continue on.

    Nobody wants to feel “different” to the point of being thought negatively of. In this sense part I of the “gay agenda” is logical and expected (though some people that I have known would say it is “not normal”, but it is what they are). I think the majority of Americans don’t object to this in the sense of the feeling “let them alone, who am I to tell them what to do”.
    Part II is a different thing which I think the majority of people have not thought through so are silent about it or criticize those who have concerns. This is voiced by the comment, “How is John and Jim’s marriage going to hurt me?” Well, Part II is the desire for society and the individuals in society to not only say and think, “Let them be”, but for society and the individuals in society to think “they are normal”. Recognizing they can’t make everyone think that, they can at least ostracize and even criminalize people who are not willing to go along with that. Jim and John’s marriage may not bother you in any way, as long as you affirm them in action and deed; if you don’t agree and you happen to be a wedding photographer or wedding cake baker, you do not really have freedom to act like you think, but you must act in affirmation or there will be consequences not only of ostracism but legal consequences as well. And legal consequences are important, because (attempted) ostracism doesn’t always work, as seen with Chick-fil-A.
    The argument is made that homosexuality is an inborn trait just like skin pigmentation and other physical features; so just as we agree (as a society and most individuals) that it is wrong to treat people differently because of their skin color, so too it is wrong to treat people differently because of their sexual orientation. [This reasonably leads to approval not only of homosexuality, but any kind of sexual orientation, just as there are not only 2 skin colors, but a whole spectrum from very white to olive to brown to black with shades of yellow and red tossed in at times.]

    It is the implications of part II that people either don’t think about or purposefully ignore. It is part II that makes domestic partnership laws inadequate and instead wants to demand that society see a SS marriage as no different than a heterosexual one.

    I think there many gays who would be content with domestic partnership and “leave us alone, I don’t care what you think”; but there are others, like aphrael, who think that to disagree is to be hostile and offensive. Hence, an individual who is directly kind and respectful and helpful, upon being found out as against homosexual partnership being equated with heterosexual marriage, is not seen as, “Wow, you treat me as a friend even though you disagree with me”, but as “I thought you were a friend, but a friend would not be against who I am as a person”.

    As the book title goes, in one respect “normal is just a setting on the drier”. Being gay is “normal” IMO and that of traditional Christian thought (based on what Scripture teaches, not what all people who call themselves Christian have done) in that we are all normally very messed up, at least compared to what we were intended to be. Some of us I suppose are less messed up than others compared to each other, but compared to the blueprint we are all seriously flawed. Recognizing that, it is easily possible for one to be a friend to someone who is gay even though they do not agree that SS attraction is just as normal as hetero. If the gay person can live with that, focusing on how they are being treated, then no problem. If the gay person wants to be affirmed not just as another messed up person who needs to be loved, but as someone who is “not messed up”, then there will be a problem.
    While aphrael is respectful in dialogue and I try to be as well, I think it only reasonable that he would not want to “sit down and have a beer (-or wine-or Perrier-or whatever he likes) with me”, as my view offends him.
    The problem in public policy and law comes when aphrael as others who agree with him want to marginalize those who think like I do. As I said, I understand that and think it reasonable for him and others to feel that way. What I think has largely been missed in the public discussion (at least as portrayed in the media) is the implications for those who “just want to be left alone” with their “heteronormative” beliefs. Of course, a significant part of the Part II agenda has already been accomplished as the media generally does already regard those who are “heteronormative” as being “haters”, the ones who are not only wrong in opinion but mean and evil in their opinion.

    BTW, when I started typing this the last comment I saw was aphrael at 5:35.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  206. MD in Philly, a minor (or maybe not so minor) point. :)

    I’d be happy to sit down and have a beer/wine/Perrier with you. From what I can tell, you’re a reasonable guy who disagrees with me on many things, and you’re a guy who has interesting stories to tell; that meeting would be a lot of fun. :)

    Followed by a clarification:

    > The problem in public policy and law comes when aphrael as others who agree with him want to marginalize those who think like I do

    I don’t think I want to marginalize people who think like you do. I *do* want to marginalize people who think like *Hoagie* does … and I think there are two immediately clear problems: (a) it’s not always easy for me to tell from a distance whether someone is thinking like you or like Hoagie, and (b) it’s not always easy for someone like you to tell from a distance whether the goal is to marginalize people like you or people like Hoagie.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  207. 195. …Happyfeet, you need to explain to me how having perverted sexual proclivities makes one “valuable” to this American tapestry. Exactly what value does homosexuality bring to the table? I mean, other than great hair dressers and interior designers. And even those don’t make up for their inability to procreate other American tapestry members.

    Comment by Hoagie (511e55) — 3/30/2014 @ 10:25 pm

    Hoagie, you’ve taken this to far even for me. How are they valuable? By being actuaries or engineers or accountants. By paying taxes. Too many ways to count.

    I’m sort of lost in what used to be the middle. I’m not going to reorder society, but I don’t want to bother people who just want to lead their own lives. But if you’re going to come along and say “they” have no value then I can’t stand in the middle.

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  208. To further elaborate on something I said in 210: part of my conception of the person I want to hold myself to be is that I will break bread, as it were, with just about anyone. Meeting, talking, getting to know people, sharing the parts of ourselves we are willing to share – that’s how we build community and how we strengthen the ties that hold us together as people. If we can “disagree without being disagreeable”, then that disagreement should be no bar to us sharing a beer, or a coffee, or a dinner.

    On the other hand, certain kinds of disagreement would make it hard for me to consider you an intimate friend; but I think that’s the kind of triage that *everyone* does. We only have the time and space in our lives for true intimacy with so many people, right? :)

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  209. 2 Timothy 4:7,
    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 3/31/2014 @ 3:46 am

    Did you mean verses 3 and 4?

    In the past it was often said critically of the church, “Practice what you preach”, which is a fair criticism and one that most within the church (as I know it) would agree with. Of course, that was concerning things that others outside of the church agreed with, especially when coerced to endorse certain political activities (since the Scriptures say to love your brother as yourself, you should give the government more money to run more programs.)
    Now in other matters, such as this, the societal statement is “do in church what you like, but don’t bring it out here in the ‘real world’”. Typically though that usually devolves into “you aren’t allowed to think that way in church, either, there is no God but Caesar”.
    But Christians are to expect to be persecuted, the real problem is how bad a society is when Christians are persecuted by a totalitarian state.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  210. Is Hoagie, the all-American sandwich, a leftist plant?

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  211. Steve57, at 211: thank you. :)

    To play devil’s advocate a little bit, though, I think that what Hoagie is saying is that while gay individuals may be valuable members of the American tapestry, our homosexuality does not *in and of itself* add value to the table.

    My counter to that would be that for the overwhelming majority of people, sexual attraction is such an integral part of who they are that the rest of them cannot be understood in isolation from it. To ask what value my homosexuality brings to the table as opposed to what value the rest of me brings to the table is to ask an unanswerable question; the correct question would be to ask what value *I* bring to the table as a whole individual.

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  212. I appreciate your responses, aphrael.
    When people are forced to do things that are against their conscience at the threat of forced legal consequence, I think of that as being marginalized. Now, in one way maybe you do not want me to be marginalized, but I don’t think you are supportive of baker’s declining to make wedding cakes. Though I guess you could say, “I don’t want such a person marginalized by legal consequences, though I would be happy to never go to them.” That would be fair enough.
    People like to dismiss “sliding-slope arguments” as “sliding-slope arguments”, but just as Rome wasn’t built in a day, neither did it fall in just a day. You tell a baker that he has to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because there is no difference between a SSM and a hetero one, and then you can marginalize a child of mine in public school has said that his/her parent teaches that SSM and hetero are not equivalent, and then you can report me to social services for abusing my child by teaching illegal hate.

    But I would still be willing to sit down and drink, though if in NYC I guess it will not be a large soda! (Actually, I’m not sure I wouldn’t mind if Philly passed a law that says an establishment must at least offer a truly small soda as a choice. we went to the movies a week ago, $5 for a “small” soda that was big enough for 3 people to share!!) But then I do find NYC a bit intimidating (been there a couple of times), perhaps a coffee shop within walking distance of the “Cake Boss” in Hoboken (went there once, birthday party field trip for our daughter).

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  213. …while gay individuals may be valuable members of the American tapestry, our homosexuality does not *in and of itself* add value to the table.

    What if it doesn’t, aphrael?

    …for the overwhelming majority of people, sexual attraction is such an integral part of who they are that the rest of them cannot be understood in isolation from it.

    My counter would be that the whole point of regulating marriage was to regulate procreation. Not attraction.

    If it’s not marriage, who care?

    What’s with this gay demand to regulate their arrangements as if they were marriages?

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  214. Comment by aphrael (5cffd4) — 3/31/2014 @ 6:47 am

    This is the fundamental dilemma, and I think it is perfectly reasonable. You see your sexuality as an integral part of who you are, and you do not see yourself are as someone who is fundamentally messed up and needs God’s mercy.
    I agree that sexuality is a fundamental part of who a person is, but I also think that we are all deeply and fundamentally messed up and apart from God’s grace and mercy are in deep trouble. That is reflected in Scripture where sexuality immorality of any kind (yes, fuddy-duddy that I am heterosexual intimacy out of wedlock is not affirmed either) and greed and cowardice are listed together.
    Now, I’ve known people who at the thought of being told they are a sinner (even in a nice way), are deeply offended, while others say, “Whatever”.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  215. BTW, the local hardware store is now open, so off to hopefully find what I need to finish the plumbing repair.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  216. That said, I would describe the person in your story at 171 as being bisexual.

    And apparently, both technically and socially, a lot of even self-described gays (which is the way that person labeled himself) are bisexual. I started to have a sense that was truer than not when delving into the history of quite a few people, particularly who are alive and well in the current era (when the stigma of homosexuality has decreased greatly), who have been labeled as homosexual (particularly by themselves) and yet have a record of initiating serious relationships with both genders.

    At the very least, I might have once theorized that such people altered their behavior to conform to society and peer pressure. I now realize human nature isn’t as simple as that.

    I know a fair number of religious gay people. And many of them are deeply, deeply conflicted because they get a strong social message from their religious community that their sexuality is *wrong*, and that’s difficult/painful for them.

    That along with their politics says a lot about what may be motivating them as much as anything else. When certain people say they don’t have any choice in their sexuality — and that it isn’t a matter of free will — and they’re, at the same time, running around with tattoos, pierced noses and metal studs in their tongues — but most importantly when they’re gravitating to leftist politicians, notions, biases and policies — forgive me if take their contention with a huge grain of salt.

    Perhaps the only gays who I can take at face value when they say it’s not a matter of free will and free choice are the ones who are truly — truly — socially and politically conservative, or are at least truly ideologically moderate.

    Mark (12c2a8)

  217. I think that what Hoagie is saying is that while gay individuals may be valuable members of the American tapestry, our homosexuality does not *in and of itself* add value to the table.

    Aphrael, it’s interesting that you, of the left, interpreted Hoagie’s comment in a way that seems accurate to me, while some of the right-leaning forumers here misinterpreted one of his observations.

    Such ironies never cease to amaze—which is a good motto to apply to plenty of social-political controversies.

    Mark (12c2a8)

  218. Mark: I try, within my limits as a human, to be charitable in my interpretation of others’ positions; I think that’s the most constructive way to have a discussion, and I think it’s the right way to behave. I fail, sometimes.

    That said, I think some of the conservative commentors were responding to 178, which I am carefully not responding to because I am aware that I would be unable to do so constructively. :)

    aphrael (5cffd4)

  219. Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 3/28/2014 @ 2:48 pm

    But he owed it to Paula Jones and her lawyers, because it was directly relevant to her suit against him. It’s not as if he didn’t challenge the relevance; he did, and the judge ordered him to answer truthfully. They even negotiated the definition of “sex” for the purpose of the question, and the definition the judge handed down included blow jobs. And then he lied.

    Worse. He signed a bill into law that made it relevant.

    Later on, by the way, the judge reversed herself.

    That was perjury, a crime for which people go to prison,

    Not too often, maybe it should be more often, and then usually when a person won a case because of it – which is why Bill Clinton settle the lawsuit even though the tort was legally defective

    (Bill Clinton wanted that lawsuit, so he’d have a publically acceptable reason to have a legal defense fund.)

    It might be pointed out that Senator Packwood (R-Ore.) was forced to resign from the Senate for less. Although I’m not ure it got to the point of lying under oath. That’s supposed to mean something.

    Clinton was also offered the chance to revise his testimony – to gte right with law according to Lindsey Graham, but he didn’t do it.

    Lindsey Graham also pointed out that Clinton had done more than deny – he had tried to get his people to characterize Monica Lewinsky as a stalker, and therefore a liar, and this could no longer be thought of as protecting Monmica Lewinsky’s privacy.

    and grounds for impeachment Grounds for impeachment is, as Gerald Ford once said, when the idea of impeaching supreme Court Justice William O Douglas was being proposed in 1970, whatever a majority of the House of Representatives thinks it is.

    It doesn’t really have anything to do with crimes on the statute books.

    It should be something wrong and clearly recognized as wrong and seriously wrong and I don’t think you can go further, really.

    Attempting to exceed the powers of his office could also be a reason, if it doesn’t stop.

    and disbarment.

    Getting disbarred is maybe more common and Clinton took that punishment on himself.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf07f)

  220. I offer this video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX19sAudmic

    AIRCRAFT CARRIER ARRESTING CABLE BREAKS

    When I grew up, I grew up as a Navy brat. I’d go to the hospital for routine procedures like inoculations, and walk by lines of guys who were horribly burned or were maimed because a fire broke out our a cable busted.

    When I did my 20 I knew what I was signing up for. At the moment gay marriage is the issue. The time honored notion that marriage is between a man and a woman is now suspect. I’m going to change my position because of some name calling? Don’t think so.

    Aphrael, my gay cousin would expect better of me. And I do mean better. Would you expect me to abandon my station so easily? What kind of Sailor would I have been?

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  221. 192. Comment by Hoagie (511e55) — 3/30/2014 @ 10:04 pm

    All religions “frown” on homosexuality, not just Christianity. Christians do not kill homosexuals as do Moslems.

    What’s important to some of them, and especially to the Catholics among them, is that their religion, not say that it is wrong.

    Or at least the religions of people they associate with.

    Christians are today not just asked to “tolerate” homosexuals but now we are told that if we do not “accept” them and joyously celebrate their gay marriages we are intolerant homophobes akin to Nazis. Sorry, I ain’t no Nazi and I ain’t no commie but I will not celebrate homosexuality. That’s because I am a Christian and as such I understand my religion does not “frown” upon homosexuality. There is no frowning, it’s a sin pure and simple. But being a sinner is not easy…unless you’re a homosexual and have a major network of sycophants covering your ass (pun intended). Today homosexuality is a protected class like blacks, Hispanics or child molesters ( see recent Democrat politicians). But it still does not make it right.

    Or does it ?

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf07f)

  222. Hoagie said a mouthful

    Colonel Haiku (ec903e)

  223. Sorry – didn’t delete that quote.

    There is a tendency to think that if it is a disease it can be cured, or if it is a sin, a person can repent. That makes things easy for people.

    I think it is a developmental disorder, which is not inborn, and was not inevitable at birth, and was a choice at some point after, but usually very close to, the beginning of puberty, even though the person making the decision did not think he was making a decision as to what his sexual orientation was going to be.

    I think a person can’t stop just like child molesters cannot, and that it is not inborn just like child molesting is not inborn – - and if homosexuality is inborn, so must pedophilia be. They both have to have the same etiology.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf07f)

  224. It’s interesting to me, in light of this convo, that Proverb’s Top 6 list (6:16-19) of things God abhors (7 Deadly Sins) has pride at the top of the list.

    16 There are six things the LORD hates,
    seven that are detestable to him:

    17 haughty eyes,
    a lying tongue,
    hands that shed innocent blood,

    18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
    feet that are quick to rush into evil,

    19 a false witness who pours out lies
    and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

    Pre-emptive strike: What follows does not negate God’s comments on homosexuality. It does, however, speak to me that I better make sure my own house is in order before condemning. And it should speak all the more to those presuming to stand in the pulpit and instruct the Christians on how to live. The pulpit fairly breeds hypocrisy, especially when it comes to moral judgements. It is simply much easier for a pastor to point at, and condemn, outward homosexuality, rather than the more easily disguised hidden sin of pride and arrogance.

    In essence, pride is the biggest stumbling block we all face. I believe that it deserves far more attention and address than anything else within a church context. Love covers a multitude of sin, and that includes pride and arrogance – but people have to be willing to recognize it and admit its existence in their own lives, first.

    Dana (9a8f57)

  225. Dana – As you point out, pride is typically at the front of lists of the seven deadly sins for good reason.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  226. Healthcare.gov crashed twoce today so far.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf07f)

  227. I dunno. You start out with just one Commandment, “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth”, which is not a bad one at all. Fun, even. Then comes the first conservation law, “Don’t eat from that tree”, with pretty dire punishments. Then some guy comes along and he says he has just Ten Commandments, and by the time he’s finished talking, you’ve got two Books full, and to make sure you got it he says it twice. And then everybody gets into the game and by the time you’ve finished reading through all the chronicles, prophecies, proverbs, psalms, parables, and epistles, complete with a song and a dance, you need a lawyer to tell you if you can have buttons on your clothes or if that’s too prideful. It’s regulatory creep that’s what it is, and Somebody should do something about it.

    nk (dbc370)

  228. nk- Somebody did do something about it by reemphasizing you can sum it all up in two, with the later confirmation that love covers a multitude of sins as Dana pointed out.
    But it is kinda like that tree and fruit thing, people sometimes don’t listen.
    Hey, you remind me that some things never change, nk. There’s the old lawyer joke that the first profession mentioned in the Bible was being a lawyer, as that was the source of the chaos out of which God brought order. Now you point out that the lawyers come in at the end and mess things up again.

    Dana- (a pre-preemptive strike, or is it a preemptive-preemptive strike? I did not take your comments as a rebuke but a good reminder.) My stand about homosexuality is not to be in judgment, but to cling to what I see as the truth with God’s promise that it is the truth that can set us free. Too often out of pride we do indeed say, “Hey, look at your sin, I’m better than you.” What we need to say, when we say it, is, “I see you caught up in something that is not good for you, is there something I can do to help, as I sometimes (often) need help too”, which is included in the passage about love covering a multitude of sins.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  229. MD in Philly – I saw Dana’s comments as you did, a reminder. I’m at a loss to see how anybody could have interpreted aphrael’s commentary as “smug” unless they were bent on deliberately misinterpreting what he said and being a douchebag:

    As a taoist, I’m not really entitled to opine on whether the ostensibly religious people are in fact acting in accord with the tenets of their religion; that’s not my place, and I have neither the knowledge nor the skill to render the judgment.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  230. i am Maoist
    i say politics is war
    without teh bloodshed

    Colonel Haiku (ec903e)

  231. i was kicked out of
    Dirty Mike’s Gang i wouldn’t
    put my “D” in “A”s

    Colonel Haiku (ec903e)

  232. No, Mark, I don’t want Hoagie to go away because of political correctness. Everyone here knows that I’m the least politically correct commenter around.

    I want Hoagie to go away because he can’t civilly express his politically incorrect opinions and he is rude to my friend alphrael.

    SPQR (768505)

  233. SPQR – It’s not Hoagie’s fault. He has dyslexia and he doesn’t want to be a commie, or something.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  234. I am just looking for the truth, here.

    My counter to that would be that for the overwhelming majority of people, sexual attraction is such an integral part of who they are that the rest of them cannot be understood in isolation from it.

    It is a poverty for anyone who feels that they cannot be understood in isolation from their “sexual attraction”. Not only does one make the mistake of putting “being understood” (selfishness) before “trying to understand” (self-giving), but one also makes sexuality so important that it displaces that which is truly important to understanding one’s true identity; that one is made in the very image of God.

    To ask what value my homosexuality brings to the table as opposed to what value the rest of me brings to the table is to ask an unanswerable question

    No, discussion is just shut down and the question is just avoided. I suggest that the discussion be had, and the answers discovered.

    the correct question would be to ask what value *I* bring to the table as a whole individual.

    No, the more comfortable, safe, question will be permitted – As long as *I* get to define “a whole individual”

    felipe (6100bc)

  235. these words you are using;

    http://minx.cc/?post=348252

    narciso (3fec35)

  236. Outlier

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  237. felipe, I agree that there is more to a person than sexuality, but in some sense being image bearers of God includes sexual identity, and marriage is seen as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His church.
    When I spoke earlier of being “messed up”, that is another way of saying that God’s image in us humans is corrupted. All of our corruptions are both an offense to God and death to our own souls, but there are myriads of variations on how one is corrupted, some we consciously choose, some is the result of what others have done to us without our being able to cope properly.
    I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you as much as looking from another angle.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  238. You are correct, MD, we are not in disagreement. All who hear the truth recognize it. I recognize it in your words, and in aphreal’s words. Heck, I even recognize it in JD!

    felipe (6100bc)

  239. Heck, I even recognize it in JD!
    Comment by felipe (6100bc) — 3/31/2014 @ 4:39 pm

    No reason to get carried away! ;-)

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  240. “You are correct, MD, we are not in disagreement. All who hear the truth recognize it. I recognize it in your words, and in aphreal’s words.”

    felipe – But again, taking Dana’s earlier words to heart, I don’t believe I receive redemption by confessing what I perceive to be the sins of others unless I have kept my own house clean.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  241. Defining virtue by delineating vice is nothing new nor unique to religion. It has always been one of the bases for laws worldwide. “This is a bad thing, you do that thing therefore you are a bad person, I do not do that thing therefore I am a good person.” It’s a human thing, and a trap easy to fall into.

    nk (dbc370)

  242. “Defining virtue by delineating vice is nothing new nor unique to religion.”

    nk – Almost sounds like pride, or something.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  243. I’ll just be humble and say that we did not delve that deeply into it in Criminal Justice 102.

    I’m not comfortable with the Christian sin of pride as the priests tend to preach it. It strikes me as “you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them”. What about that “only lower than the angels” stuff? Yeah, I guess I should not brag out loud in the temple that I’m better than the tax collector. That’s pretty easy. But was sending men to the Moon the same as the Tower of Babel? Yeah, we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No s**t? You don’t say. But what next? I’m not washing no able-bodied grown man’s feet and I’m not kissing no leper’s sores, I’ll tell you that right now.

    nk (dbc370)

  244. “I’m not comfortable with the Christian sin of pride as the priests tend to preach it.”

    nk – But as you said, you do not have to label it a religious sin. Excessive pride amounts to the same thing in a secular context.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  245. @ daley,

    MD in Philly – I saw Dana’s comments as you did, a reminder.

    Yes, a reminder in line with the old log and speck admonishment. We are rarely without a log of some sort or another to address…but, hey, it’s so much easier to go after the speck.

    Dana (9a8f57)

  246. but in some sense being image bearers of God includes sexual identity

    I’m hesitant to insert too much religiosity into the controversy of human sexuality, but certainly homosexuality, because I think a disquiet about aberrant behavior transcends all sorts of boundaries, religious ones included.

    I recall being innately bothered by what’s now known as gay behavior when I still was so young that I didn’t even understand what human “plumbing” was all about, or what human genitals were all about—much less knowing what the Bible was all about (with its stilted or arcane language and all). I recall friends of my youth pointing to the prefix of “homo” in the word “homogenized” on milk cartons and making a crack about it. Again, even with having only a vague sense of what that smirk was based on, I kind of got the joke.

    When it comes to having an inherent discomfort about homosexuality — or a reaction that predates or transcends one’s religious training, or a lack of such — I don’t think I’m the exception to the rule.

    Mark (38186e)

  247. Mark–do you sense even the tiniest bit of hypocrisy in yourself in that you admit you were “innately bothered by what is now known as gay behavior” as a young child but before you were even old enough to understand human plumbing–yet when gay people insist they knew they were gay or at least different from as far back as childhood you seem to have a hard time believing it and/or think that is not possible or logical for them to have known so young since it is a “choice”?

    elissa (0666e5)

  248. Elissa, I’ve never said that I didn’t buy into the claims of those people who say they were aware of their homosexuality at a young age. I think that’s a perfectly valid description they can make about themselves. But by the same token, there are a variety of emotions and attitudes that they or others have in their youth — including political orientation — that can change as they grow older.

    There are interesting cases out there of people who during the first half of their life led a totally gay existence, but then, later on, switched to a more traditional lifestyle. And apparently not due to any type of social pressure or cultural conditioning on their part, but because their own free will led them in another direction. I guess the opposite is true too, but it seems that just as more people than not move from left to right politically as they grow older, a similar direction towards the tried-and-true is evident in other aspects of many people’s lives.

    Mark (38186e)

  249. Mark, two questions, then:
    1.Would you clarify what point were you trying to make when you said you were “innately bothered” as a young child before you even knew about “plumbing” or “what the bible was all about”?

    2. Were you even remotely aware of a “political orientation” at that young age which you just described? Do you think others are? Sure, even very little kids know that daddy’s a “bemocrat” or mommy’s a “publican”–but do you think they register anything beyond that until they’re considerably older (if ever)? I see in your response to me @252 you mentioned “youth”. But that is clearly not the age group you were talking about in #250.

    elissa (0666e5)

  250. Sounds like time to restate …

    I am not so arrogant as to try to claim that the Deity made a mistake in creating homosexuals … I tend to believe that the Deity, being the Deity, probably knows what the Deity is doing *waaaaaay* better than us mortals …

    Who knows ? One of these millennia, we may even learn the Diety’s purpose in creating homosexuals … (after all, do we really have any clue why the Deity created any of us ?) …

    Alastor (28af0b)

  251. To claim to know the mind of God on something is indeed a heavy thing. But if we are careful to stay within what He has Himself told us, then we can do so. In general this is “the big picture”, with the more specific pictures being understood (at least perhaps) by those in them.
    In the beginning God made humans in His image to enjoy a relationship with Him. At the end of the Book we find humans dwelling with God in relationship where there will be no more tears. In the middle is how things got messed up and were made right again.
    The reason a person with same sex attraction was made is the same reason a person with opposite sex attraction was made or a person who doesn’t know who they are attracted to or the person who is not attracted to anybody was made; to come to know God in a direct way. But knowing God is not to be affirmed in what we are in our being messed up, but to know His love in spite of our being messed up and to know His salvation from our messed-up-ness.
    A good example is “the woman caught in adultery”, who was loved in spite of her sin and told to go on living in the power of being forgiven. A big part of this story is that she realized that she was messed up and needed help, and perhaps the bigger part was realizing that by God’s grace she didn’t need to stay under the harsh yoke of her messed-up-ness.
    The details of how one person’s messed-up-ness gets delivered from a yoke that is harsh to one that is light is a story that is much less accessible to our knowledge; we don’t usually need to know, unless it is in relationship helping one another.
    I have found C.S. Lewis’ The Weight of Glory to be very helpful, inspiring, and challenging in regards to thinking from this perspective.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  252. 1.Would you clarify what point were you trying to make

    Elissa, I merely wanted to illustrate how a negative reaction towards homosexuality can be intrinsic and supersedes things like religiosity, the Bible, one’s upbringing and even politics too. By the latter, I mean even among various liberals, if they’re being honest with themselves, they also will flinch at the thought of homosexuality. Even the most leftwing of parents probably won’t proclaim: “I’m thrilled to learn my son is gay!” Or “my children being homosexual is just as good as their being straight!”

    As for my sense of politics at a young age, I do recall once being asked by a kid whether my parents were Democrats or Republicans. As with sexuality, at that time I had only a vague, fuzzy sense of what ideology was all about. But I remember having at least a vague awareness of the stereotype that Republicans — and presumably people of the right — were dull and unhip while Democrats were party animals, and presumably fun-loving, cool people, who were of the left.

    BTW, someone like Hoagie underestimates the complexity of human nature and, for religious or other reasons, inadvertently buys into the line happily promoted by the left. Or the downplaying of the issue of free will, free choice. He implied homosexuality totally precludes natural procreation of the species and thereby is a genetic dead end. By so doing, he sidesteps all the instances of even self-described gays having, at least on a few occasions during their life, so-called conventional relationships, and, in turn, the biological dynamics (including resulting pregnancies) that go with that.

    Mark (38186e)

  253. MD in Philly, at 216:

    My apologies for taking so long to respond to this.

    This is a tough issue, because it really goes to the heart of tthe difficulty of living in a diverse society.

    On the one hand, I agree that in general people should not be forced to do things that are against their conscience. On the other hand, I think there’s a reasonable social expectation that if you’re going to do $x *commercially*, that you will do business with anyone who can pay.

    Let me use a hypothetical example.

    I’m a gay man. I think I have a reasonable expectation that if I present at a hospital with pancreatitis, that the hospital will provide medical services regardless of my sexual orientation. If I can’t rely on that expectation, then I’m severely disabled in my ability to function in society, and I’m not really a full member of society.

    Emergency medical services are an extreme example, but I think this generalizes. I think it’s a reasonable expectation that the guy at the bodega will sell me a coke regardless of my sexual orientation, or that the taxi driver will pick me up and take me to where I want to go, etc, as long as I can pay.

    That’s the point to general nondiscrimination laws, right?

    The difference in the case of the baker is this: the baker is being asked to *directly assist in the gay marriage*. There’s a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay customer and refusing to sell a cake to be used in a gay customer’s gay wedding, and while expecting the first is reasonable, expecting the second isn’t.

    But: how do you craft a law that allows the baker to do the latter without allowing the baker to do the former? And if you allow the baker to do the former, you’re also allowing the taxi driver, the bodega owner, and the surgeon to do the same thing.

    And yet: forcing the baker to bake the cake for a gay wedding is wrong.

    So i’m really ambivalent about this, because I see strong arguments on both sides.

    What really gets me, though, is that people who are upset about the baker being forced to make a cake for a gay wedding are not also up in arms about the baker being forced to bake a cake for an interracial marriage or an inter-sectarian marriage, if those violate his religious beliefs.

    Which leads me to conclude that for many, there’s something *particularly priviliged* about religious objections to gay marriage that makes them more important than other religious objections.

    And that makes me very, very uneasy.

    aphrael (c5786e)

  254. Steve57, at 217: I wasn’t aware that we were talking about gay marriage. I was talking about the question of whether homosexuality *per se* is of value. :)

    Steve57, at 224:

    no, of course I wouldn’t expect you to abandon your station just because someone is calling you names.

    And you’ll note, I hope, that I *don’t* call you names :)

    aphrael (c5786e)

  255. MD in Philly, at 218:

    I think that in general, humans have flaws, and I am aware of many of my flaws and struggle to overcome them; but I don’t think my attraction to other men is a flaw.

    I am not a Christian, so the notion that I am fundamentally a sinner who is in need of God’s mercy does not move me, but neither does it offend me, and I understand that a Christian means no offense when he says that.

    That said, I have known a few Christians in my life who, in their behavior and words, show themselves to believe that *they* are not sinners, even though they think other people are – and *that* offends me.

    aphrael (c5786e)

  256. Felipe, at 238:

    > Not only does one make the mistake of putting “being understood” (selfishness) before “trying to understand” (self-giving)

    Sometimes trying to be understood is the correct thing; sometimes trying to understand is the correct thing. I think my history of comments here shows that I’m reasonably good at trying to understand where conservatives are coming from; I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for the same in return, and to note what I think would or would not be useful in that regard.

    > It is a poverty for anyone who feels that they cannot be understood in isolation from their “sexual attraction”

    I don’t think *anyone* can be understood completely in isolation from their sexual attraction.

    I don’t think it’s the only thing. I don’t think it’s the most important thing. But I think it’s interwoven with everything else and that it’s very, very difficult to tease out as a seperate strand and removed.

    > that which is truly important to understanding one’s true identity; that one is made in the very image of God.

    I understand that for a Christian, that might appear to be the truly important thing. As a Taoist, I find it to be a meaningless statement. :)

    aphrael (c5786e)

  257. we are sinners, only man was not, and he died about 2,000 years ago, sexual sin of all sorts, are objectionable, they are forms of missing the mark,

    narciso (3fec35)

  258. I think it’s a reasonable expectation that the guy at the bodega will sell me a coke regardless of my sexual orientation, or that the taxi driver will pick me up and take me to where I want to go, etc, as long as I can pay.

    Why? What makes it reasonable expectation?

    But let’s accept that for the sake of argument, even if we are starting the slippery slope. Even so, the storekeeper does not need to stock beer, cigarettes, or playing cards for you; and the taxi driver should not be compelled to drive you to a brothel. Which are more better closer analogies to the wedding cake and wedding photographer. And they should not need a religious reason for either. It should be because that’s how they make their living, and their work should not be forced to be unpleasant to them.

    nk (dbc370)

  259. And that being forced to do something unpleasant to me is what I see as the militant gay agenda. That it (the militant gay agenda) considers it reasonable that the relief of its unbearable urges creates a moral obligation on my part to assist it in that effort.

    nk (dbc370)

  260. is that people who are upset about the baker being forced to make a cake for a gay wedding are not also up in arms about the baker being forced to bake a cake for an interracial marriage…

    I guess unless a person is overtly androgynous, or where one can detect a type of physical ambiguity from even a mile away, sexuality and basic racial characteristics are a case of comparing apples and oranges. A better parallel type of hypothetical question would be wondering why people aren’t just as upset about a baker being forced to cater to a group of polygamists or spouse-swapping swingers. Or why aren’t people just as much up in arms about a baker being forced to cater to a guy who has both a male and female partner and wants three little figurines — of two males and a female — on the top of a wedding cake?

    There was once a time when such a hypothetical could have easily been discounted as no more than the raising of an absurdly slippery slope. I don’t think that’s quite as true today.

    a few Christians in my life who, in their behavior and words, show themselves to believe that *they* are not sinners, even though they think other people are – and *that* offends me.

    You should be. That’s because one of the most accurate and sound concepts in the Christian faith is the idea that “we’re all born sinners.” That reflects the reality of human nature far better than does the philosophy embraced by those people, mainly on the left, who believe that humans in general are innately good, reliable, stable and trustworthy. Or that the average person is easily resistant to negative trends in the greater society around him or her.

    Mark (38186e)

  261. Some of the articles on this website might be of some interest to some people here:

    http://www.thenewatlantis.com

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  262. Thanks Sammy. It does look quite interesting, and I saw a link to an obituary of Dr. Edmund Pelligrino, who I had the privilege of meeting and talking with on a number of occasions. A giant of a man… He thought to be a physician was to be called to be ethical, not to debate bioethics, which most of the field has done since his early example.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-good-doctor

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  263. aphrael,

    As a doctor who routinely cared for people with HIV from SS behavior I certainly agree that a person who has SS attraction needs to be treated with dignity and respect like anyone else.
    If there is a problem with how to write a law that acknowledges a valid religious objection to something, maybe there is a problem with trying to write a law on the given topic.
    As said above, I also don’t know who is objecting to interracial marriages on a religious basis or interfaith marriages, but I actually would say that a baker who claimed a religious opposition to interracial marriages shouldn’t be forced to make them a wedding cake. I think the person would be terribly misguided and wrong, but I don’t think the person should be forced to perform a non-essential task.

    I realize that not being a Christian you do not feel constrained to buy into my line of reasoning. I don’t necessarily expect you to, but I offer it as the explanation behind what my views are.
    Now the bigger question in terms of religious belief, while people are free to believe what they want, does that mean what they believe is equally “true”, or is there religious truth as objectively real as mathematical truth.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  264. This is just a general comment not aimed at anybody in particular, but Doc’s comments just above did prompt me to try to write it. One of the many many useful things I have learned from discussions on a variety of subjects over several years on this blog is that “Christian beliefs” or “what the Bible says” or what constitutes “sin”, often does not mean exactly the same unequivocal thing to all who were raised as Christian or consider themselves good Christians. It is clear that in their churches Catholics, Mainline Protestants, Pentecostal Christians, Eastern Orthodox, etc., don’t necessarily focus on the same things from the pulpit, don’t always interpret the Bible verses in exactly the same ways or with the same importance, or see the exact same path to their own (and others’) salvation. That’s why so many different denominations came to exist.

    So, sometimes when people make blanket statements like “Christians believe XYZ“, or “the Bible says”, it makes other Christians go, “well, that really does not reflect the religious truth I live by”. I think this suggests that beyond the Trinity doctrine which identifies and unites all Christians, there is not an objective religious truth as real and perfect as mathematical truth.

    elissa (0666e5)

  265. Certainly true, elissa. Any disagreement I with you on this, which really may not be a difference of opinion but of emphasis, is that I do think there is objective religious truth, but I eagerly confess that much of what it is, I don’t know or am wrong about. Even though there is mathematical truth, there is certainly a lot of that which I do not know, either.
    The one thing I think of as uniting all Christians is, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,(of whom I am the foremost).”
    Once upon a time, when young, I thought I was a Christian because after all, I wasn’t something else, and I lived in the USA, but I had no concept of Jesus saving sinners.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  266. Later on, by the way, the judge reversed herself.

    When?

    That was perjury, a crime for which people go to prison,

    Not too often

    The NYT published a list of eight people who were at that moment serving time in federal prisons for the exact thing Clinton did: perjury about their sex lives in a civil case. I thought that if he had an ounce of decency he would have pardoned those eight people, but he didn’t.

    (Bill Clinton wanted that lawsuit, so he’d have a publically acceptable reason to have a legal defense fund.)

    That’s an interesting idea I hadn’t heard before, but it makes sense.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  267. The difference in the case of the baker is this: the baker is being asked to *directly assist in the gay marriage*. There’s a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay customer and refusing to sell a cake to be used in a gay customer’s gay wedding, and while expecting the first is reasonable, expecting the second isn’t.

    But: how do you craft a law that allows the baker to do the latter without allowing the baker to do the former? And if you allow the baker to do the former, you’re also allowing the taxi driver, the bodega owner, and the surgeon to do the same thing.

    It’s actually quite simple to craft such a law. The law can easily distinguish between a refusal to sell cakes to gay people, at any time and for any purpose, and a refusal to sell one (to anyone, gay or straight) for a gay wedding. They are quite different things. And as it happens the baker in New Mexico said openly that she would be quite happy to bake the plaintiffs a cake for any occasion but this one.

    Of course when someone refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, it’s possible that their motive is animus against all gay people. But so what? What business is it of yours or anyone’s, let alone the law’s, what someone’s true motive is? How is anyone worse off if the baker does this for a “bad” motive than for a “good” one? All that can possibly be anyone’s business is the baker’s objective actions, and refusing to participate in a same-sex marriage — or in any kind of event to which the person claims to object — should not be illegal, no matter what lies in the person’s heart.

    Then again, I don’t believe even ordinary anti-discrimination laws can be justified. Engaging in commerce is not a privilege granted by the government, to which conditions can be attached. It’s an inherent human right, and therefore includes the right not to do so, just as the right to speak includes the right to be silent, and the right to free association includes the right not to associate with some people. I don’t understand how anyone can really believe that “commercial speech” deserves less protection than any other kind, and the same applies to “commercial association”; it’s as if these people think there’s something dirty or unworthy about commerce.

    If you really think “there’s a reasonable social expectation that if you’re going to do $x *commercially*, that you will do business with anyone who can pay”, then surely it applies equally to customers. Do you really think that if you’re going to buy something you must be equally prepared to buy it from any seller? Must you accept the lowest price, even if it comes from someone you don’t like?! Should it be illegal to boycott a vendor, or to give preference to a vendor you like even if his prices are higher?! I don’t believe you really think this, and yet why the distinction between buying and selling? Why the distinction between exchanging goods and services for money or money for goods and services?

    Further, do you believe it should be illegal to turn down a job because you don’t like the employer? I assume you don’t. Then why should a baker be any different? What difference does it make whether the job you turn down for an “improper” motive is to last half an hour or half a decade?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  268. I also don’t know who is objecting to interracial marriages on a religious basis or interfaith marriages

    Very few people nowadays object to interracial marriages. It’s almost an extinct prejudice. But lots of people object to at least some interfaith marriages. For one thing, all Jews who take the Torah seriously regard marriage between a Jew and a gentile as very wrong, and would not want to be an accomplice to such a thing. I know that if I were a baker or printer or florist or caterer, etc., I would refuse to provide my services to such a wedding, just as I would refuse to drive the getaway car for a bank robbery. And I would defy any law that purported to compel me to do so.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  269. SF: Later on, by the way, the judge reversed herself.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 4/1/2014 @ 10:46 pm

    270. When?

    I think it was after the impeachment. She ruled that the questions were irrelevant, after all. I could check. I need the name of the judge, then look up that name and Clinton and Paula Jones in New York Times index or online. Or maybe even just a web search.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6505 secs.