Hypocrisy Meter Explodes
| Fri Jun. 27, 2008 10:46 AM PDT
If you were to identify the two senators least qualified to take bold action in defense of marriage, who would they be? Well, no matter what side of the aisle you're on, you'd probably point to the guy who was caught trying to have gay sex in an airport bathroom and the guy accused of being a serial john, right? It's hard to deny that they are the two members of the Senate who have done the most to wreck their own marriages.
Well, it's funny how things work. Ten senators have introduced what they call the "Marriage Protection Amendment." It would, if passed, change the federal constitution to define marriage as a "union of a man and a woman." And lo and behold, Larry Craig and David Vitter are two of the ten sponsoring senators. No one in the Republican leadership pulled them aside and said, "Hey guys, why don't you sit this one out? You know, for the sake of our credibility."
If conservatism isn't dead by 2009, irony will finish it off.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality ? for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice.
Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality ? for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice.
yea, but click on the link that lists the entire group of ten; not exactly the most popular group of guys on the national level. i'm guessing republican leadership figured these ten culturally tone-deal clowns couldn't alienate themselves any more than most of them already have.
Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice.
dan, Taoist physicians regarded homosexuality among men as a dangerous practice- for several reasons. First of all, Yang is by nature an active, aggressive force, and, when two aggressive forces meet, a fundamental conflict of energies and intentions result. Male homosexuality requires that one partner yield to the other by adopting the female role, both physically and psychologically, and when this practice becomes a habit it completely undermines the fundamental role of Yang in the order of nature. Looking at this situation of Yang conflict at a microscopic scientific level, when sperm from two different men are mixed together and observed under magnification, they may clearly be observed fighting one another in a desperate struggle for supremacy.
Psychology aside, the greatest threat posed to men by homosexual practices are physiological.
Anal penetration, the mutual exchange of Yang sexual fluids, and frequent uncontrolled ejaculations are the culprits. Ancient Taoist physicians noted a pathological condition called 'Dragon Yang Syndrome' which occurred exclusively among promiscuous male homosexuals. 'Dragon Yang' (lung-yang) is a common Chinese euphemism for male homosexuality, equivalent to the English word 'gay'. Symptoms of this ailment included weakness and fatigue, skin ulcers and boils, low immunity, and impotence.
So what exactly does this existential metaphysical blather have to do with the state of the world? Homosexuality is responsible for the downfall of the human species - or a precursor to it? Gay sex in NYC will cause typhoons in indonesia because of sperm fights upsetting the balance of universal energy? Reee-diculous. And bringing socio-economic theory into the mix too? WTF
GOP presidential candidate John McCain has endorsed the November ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage in California.
The endorsement, announced Thursday night on ProtectMarriage.com, the Web site of the Protect Marriage campaign, was not a surprise. The Arizona senator previously said he was happy Californians would be voting on the measure, which the secretary of state's office designated Friday as Proposition 8.
"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona," McCain said in a statement released by the Protect Marriage campaign. "I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."
Mary Jo, as for myself, I support the Constitution of the United States, and for the life of me I don't find any enumerated power in it that would, by any stretch of the imagination, give the Federal Government power to define what marriage is.
Nor any statement in it that even appears to hint that that is a role the framers wanted central government to involve itself in.
That should be enough to cause ANY American to tell the Feds to keep their noses out of Californian's (..& Iowan's & Nebraskan's & North Carolinian's & Minnesotan's & Hoosiers' & Floridian's & New Mexican's & New Yorker's...) personal business!
