Saturday, June 04, 2011

Pride in Weakness

As some of you may know, June is the month our idiot-in-chief designated "Gay Pride Month". It's the one month of the year when the sexually confused and/or corrupted can celebrate their giving in to their deviant desires.

The rest of us are supposed to celebrate "diversity" and whatever contributions such people have made to society. Aside from adding to the general moral decline by forcing their perversion on the culture, demanding that good people pretend along with them that how they choose to get their sexual jollies should be viewed as morally benign and equal to that which takes place within the context of a real marriage, I don't see how their proclivities matter in any other contributions any of them may have made. Ellen DeGeneres is funny regardless of the fact that she is a lesbian. Her "coming out" is only an unnecessary distraction and frankly, I never needed to know it.

Few did. Those struggling with their own urges have not been served well by her coming out, or by any other celebrity doing so, as they now have a bad role model held up as a good one, so that they feel validated by giving in as well. It's no different than a favorite movie star being exposed as a smoker, or a favorite athlete know to cuss, or a rock star doing drugs or groupies. The fans will follow suit either in practice or approval. Those who already feel compelled toward such behaviors will feel there is no social objection to their own jump in the swamp.

So maybe we need a month to celebrate other bad behaviors as well. After all, liars have impacted our culture, haven't they? (Think liberals) So many lie as if compelled to. They were likely born that way. Greedy people have built empires that employ millions and the power hungry have held public office. Do they not also count toward our "rich diversity", as if diversity is a plus?

My state, the Pathetic People's Republic of Illinois, just passed a civil union law. Happy homos and lesbos have lined up to get their faux-marriage certified by the state because you know, there was no other possible way in which to change hospital policies and inheritance laws. Gov. Quinn knows how to celebrate Sexual Pervsion Pride Month.

So get out there and decorate your homes with rainbow banners and adorn you GLBT Tree with ornaments of the season. The United States of America now celebrates deviancy every year. What a country!

72 comments:

Jim said...

What a sick post! But don't worry.

It gets better.

Marshall Art said...

It is sick indeed, Jim. That there would be month dedicated to those who identify by their sexual deviancy quickens our cultural slide to oblivion. Frankly, any honoring of any group who identify by any sexual urge is sick. Imagine a "Prostitute Pride Month", or a "Adulterer Pride Month". How about a "Maturbator Pride Month" where we celebrate all the contributions of people who pleasure themselves on a regular basis. Would that be what you mean by how things might get better? Hopefully you mean that sanity will make a comeback and those obssessed with getting themselves off won't be seen as some sort of victimized class, but rather as the emotionally and psychologically confused people in need of help that they are.

Jim said...

Leave it to MA (AKA the Sex Nazi) to equate homosexuality with prostitution and adultery. And masturbation is a sexual deviancy?

No, getting better means that more and more people are learning to love and except their fellow humans as they are and BUTT OUT of their business. The Sex Nazis will eventually become such a small group that they will be ignored, as they should be.

Craig said...

If only the GLBTQXYZPDQ folks would just butt out, it would be just fine with me.

Jim said...

"If only the GLBTQXYZPDQ folks would just butt out, it would be just fine with me."

Butt out of what? Your personal life?

Marshall Art said...

Yes, Jim. They deviants butting out of OUR personal lives would be nice. Parents are already dealing with school systems that wish to propagandize deviancy, and in many cases, there are no opt out provisions. Decent people are prevented from thwarting the attempts of the enablers in teaching that this wickedness is equal to normal sexual relations within a normal marriage and morally benign when it clearly is not.

You can call me a "sex-nazi" if you like, but an honest person would give an example of when I've ever called for nazi-like policy to be implemented against homos. Don't think that I ever have. All I've done is to stand firmly for normal marriage, and the honest portrayal of human sexuality. I also stand for protecting children from the selfish sex-centric desires of corrupt adults in all its forms. More and more people coming to "except" (don't you mean "accept") and tolerate deviant behavior does not indicate a culture getting better. It indicates the worsening of moral decline in our society. Your own support for a "Gay Pride Month", homosex marriages, as well as your problem with the logical and obvious equating of such with prostitution, adultery and masturbation is evidence of said decline. What's more, to believe there is a need to celebrate any group based on their sexual desires, or any benefit to our culture in doing so, shows just how far gone you are.

But just in the hope of bringing you back a bit toward normalcy, you must first be reminded that anyone making a comparison between homosex and adultery (for example) is not to say that the behaviors are identical. Certainly, a man who has an adulterous affair with another man has committed two sins over he who has an affair with a woman. But the "sameness" is in how homos, prostitutes (and their patrons), adulterers and masturbators put their sexual desires at such a premium in their lives over moral purity and self-control. Far easier to pretend that the behavior is acceptable simply because one possesses the desire. How immature! How so like the liberal minded!

This is not progress in human understanding. This is not an elevation of our cultural character. It is giving in to base carnal desire. It is weakness.

Jim said...

How can masturbation be deviant behavior when apparently YOU are the only post-pubescent person in the world who doesn't masturbate?

You're right. I typed too fast. I meant accept.

Sex Nazi doesn't have anything to do with "nazi-like" policies regarding homosexuality. It's a play on Seinfeld's Soup Nazi.

"No sex for you!"

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Whether or not anyone masturbates is not the issue here. The same with the other various sexual preferences mentioned and not mentioned. In fact, it never really is when I expound on the subject. The subject, you see, is the promotion of sexual immorality as acceptable behavior. More precisely here, the promotion of people BECAUSE of their engagement in immoral sexual behavior. What's to celebrate? Why would anyone wish to celebrate the fact that this group of people, who comprise less than 3% of the population, are proud of the fact that they engage in deviant behavior? What idiot would? I mean besides Obama.

Craig's Build said...

Jim,

It seems strange for one tiny (less than 2% of the population) segment of society to spend so much time and effort to place there sexual activities in the public eye. So, I would be perfectly happy if the GLBTXYXPDQ folks would take their sex lives back into the bedroom and leave me out.

Craig said...

According to some recent research by Gary Gates 1.7% of those surveyed identified as homosexual. Now I'm not much for the maths but it seems as though 1.7 is actually below 2.

So, while no one is suggesting that tiny minority be persecuted, it does seem strange that such a tiny minority drives such a large amount of public discourse.

I've also been wondering how anyone could define a behavior engaged in by such a tiny percentage of the population as normal.

Jim said...

"the promotion of sexual immorality as acceptable behavior."

Maybe if you worried about whether or not your sexual proclivities meet your definition of morality and stopped worrying about what others do in private you wouldn't be bothered so much by people who refuse to be ashamed because you think they should be.

"the promotion of people BECAUSE of their engagement in immoral sexual behavior."

That's nonsense, of course. They are celebrating their pride in who they are and refusal to shamed by the Sex Nazi.

Marshall Art said...

Now I understand why Parkie won't try for serious discussion. Anyone see the foolishness of troll-boy's attempt to engage?

"Averaging across the U.S.-based surveys, I found that nearly 9 million Americans (3.8 percent of adults) self-identify as LGBT."

The above was said to counter the previous comment by Craig. See the difference? Craig spoke of the percentage of self-identified homosexuals, and Parkie counters it with total percentage of self-identified LGBT. That's the first inanity. The second is that a bump from 1.7% of the total population to 3.8% means we're still talking about an extremely tiny portion of the population.

Marshall Art said...

For a change of pace, I'm leaving Parkie's silly comments up on this post. He insists on demonstrating what an idiot he is. I feel like letting him for the time being. I'll respond to his other stupid blatherings later.

Marshall Art said...

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy!

"Maybe if you worried about whether or not your sexual proclivities meet your definition of morality and stopped worrying about what others do in private you wouldn't be bothered so much by people who refuse to be ashamed because you think they should be."

Is this the best you can do? I don't pretend I'm without my own dark side, Jimmy. That is NOT the issue and you damn well know it. There are any number of urges and compulsions that would be easy enough for any average human being to let out into the light of day. The world doesn't improve by human nature having nothing to rein it in. What's more, few people have any desire to interfere with the activity of perverts in the privacy of their own home, provided kids aren't involved or exposed to it. THAT isn't the issue, either, and you damn well know that, also.

All sorts of people engage in bad behavior without shame. Many who should know better, don't these days. Part of the reason is that for too long, those who DO know better have laid back and stopped standing up for character and morality and virtue. We are the worse for it. YOU don't even see it, because you are corrupted as well. This is evident in your statement I highlighted above and your attempt to insist I'm looking to monitor the private sexual behavior of consenting adults.

So lack of shame is a failure in our culture. Shame has a place in a civilized society and few people will acknowledge it these days.

"They are celebrating their pride in who they are and refusal to shamed by the Sex Nazi."

Exactly right. They are people who refuse to acknowledge the shame they should be feeling by people who understand character, morality and virtue. More to the point, they refuse to acknowledge character, morality and virtue themselves, never mind people like me who do. They are celebrating their wickedness and sick obsession with abnormal sexual behavior and their insistence that it is NOT wicked and abnormal. The same thing any crook or whore or evildoer would do. And the Obama you worship sets aside a month for the rest of us to join them. No thanks. I'll celebrate those homos who reject their compulsions, just as I'll celebrate any sinner who'll reject their former selves. I won't celebrate them while they sin and I won't celebrate while they insist they aren't sinning. (And if you like, I'll set aside the religious and speak only of the defective nature of their "orientation".)

Craig said...

Parkie,

Had you looked a little deeper you would have found that 1.7% identify as homosexual, 1.8% identify as bisexual, and .3% or so identify as transsexual. So I guess I'll stand by the 1.7% homo figure.

According to Dictionary.com.

nor·mal
–adjective
1.
conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
2.
serving to establish a standard.

As to spending the cash, are you really suggesting that people be prohibited from spending their own money to advocate for things they find to be important?

Still seems bizarre that this tiny minority has influence beyond their actual numbers.

Parklife said...

Poor poor Ma.. Craig was talking about LGBT. Then he used the percentage of gay people in the US. Sadly, Craig was wrong to use that figure. Try try try again.

But, we are talking about 1 in 20 or 30 people. A small percent for sure. On the other hand, most of us have LGBT friends or know LGBT people. And denying people we know or friends the right to engage in a contract with the state, such as marriage, is bankrupt. Worse is the time, energy and money spent stopping the LGBT movement.

"As to spending the cash, are you really suggesting that people be prohibited from spending their own money to advocate for things they find to be important?"

Sadly no. Spend away. Just seems not only anti-chirstian / anti-american to waste time and money on this issue. You might say it is equivalent to the time wasted masterbating.

"homo figure"

I'm pretty sure the homo figure is 100%

"nor·mal
–adjective"

Nice. Therefore people with blue eyes should not have the right to marry. Its just not normal.

One last note, the LGBT people that I know are some of the most wonderful on the planet. I would only hope that we could be half as kind and thoughtful as they are. Perhaps that is why such a small % of the population deserves to be accepted.

Parklife said...

Smokers = Drug Addicts = Sex Addicts = Prositutes = Masturbators = Adulterer = Homosexual

Interesting list you have going there MA.

Marshall Art said...

Thanks, idiot-boy. I'm glad you can see that they all equate in the sense that they are all bad behaviors. There's hope for your sorry ass yet. I'll explain where you went wrong in the previous comment later.

Parklife said...

"idiot-boy"

WWJD?

"I'm glad you can see that they all equate in the sense that they are all bad behaviors."

Okay.. Care to rank them?

Craig said...

Poor Poor Parkie,

No I used the "term" LGBTQXYZPDQ to describe those who are agitating. Then I specifically pointed to figures that suggest the % of the population who identify as homosexual is 1.7%. This is exactly what I wanted to say as the issue at hand is homosexual "rights". A bisexual (presuming that there really is such a thing)does not operate under the same self imposed limitations as a homosexual. A bisexual person is completely free to marry someone of the opposite sex and then do whatever they wish with whomever they wish. (this is in a legal sense, not a moral sense)

Now you cleverly move the goal posts. Personally, I have no desire to deny any two people the ability of entering into an agreement tha allows them a certain legal status regarding the person they agree with. But to define this type of contract soley by sexual proclivity seems caprecious. I do think that there could be a means to alleviate your concerns without redfining what marriage has historically meant.

You are free to argue with the standard English definition of normal all you want, just don't blame me for it. Unless you are actually suggesting that less than 2% of the population has blue eyes. Or maybe you see some sort of discrimination against those of us with blue eyes.

Finally, yes many homos. are nice pleasant people. Unfortunately that's not the issue. All sorts of nice pleasant people do all sorts of immoral stuff every day.
I would argue that all of the population needs to be accepted, unfortunately not all of the behaviors of the population should be.




What you seem to be suggesting is that we allow certain aspects of our scociety to be dictated by a tiny minority. Not sure that's a road I'm comfortable going down.

Parklife said...

Oh My..

"Now you cleverly move the goal posts."

? Okay?

"Personally, I have no desire to deny any two people the ability of entering into an agreement that allows them a certain legal status regarding the person they agree with. But to define this type of contract solely by sexual proclivity seems capricious."

Lol.. you mean marriage.

"I do think that there could be a means to alleviate your concerns without redefining what marriage has historically meant."

Who said anything about marriage? Or history? Or definitions?

"You are free to argue with the standard English definition of normal all you want, just don't blame me for it. Unless you are actually suggesting that less than 2% of the population has blue eyes. Or maybe you see some sort of discrimination against those of us with blue eyes. "

What percentage of the population is required to be relevant? 5%? 10%? 17%?

"Finally, yes many homos. are nice pleasant people."

Homos?

"Unfortunately that's not the issue. All sorts of nice pleasant people do all sorts of immoral stuff every day."

Wait.. Everywhere I turn there are homos. In fact, both you and MA are homos.

Honestly.. I was being honest. The question was why do people support / accept the LGBT community. My honest answer was that many people know members of the LGBT community. No matter the actual size of this community, they deserve equal rights. They are our friends or friends of friends. It makes it a little more personal. Expanding on that, many of the members of the LGBT community that I have met have been exceptionally kind people. This only adds to the desire to help them achieve their personal goals. I hope you can understand that, being that I presume you have friends.

"I would argue that all of the population needs to be accepted, unfortunately not all of the behaviors of the population should be."

Accepted based on what you think is "normal". How noble of you. Do you even read what you type before posting it?

"What you seem to be suggesting is that we allow certain aspects of our society to be dictated by a tiny minority."

Dictated seems to imply that a large portion of our society is not okay with same-sex partnerships .

It seems that you are okay with something if it supports your personal agenda.

"Not sure that's a road I'm comfortable going down."

Not sure that matters. Seems more and more states are granting these rights for same-sex partnerships. Time is on my side.

Parklife said...

Haha.. Fun Fact About the US:

"Non-Christian religions (including Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism), collectively make up about 3.9% to 5.5% of the adult population"

Craig said...

"Lol.. you mean marriage."

No, I mean something similar to but distinct from marriage. Civil unions perhaps. Or some arrangement that allows two platonic friends of whatever gender combination to enter into some more formalized contract.

"Who said anything about marriage? Or history? Or definitions?"

Since "gay marriage" is one of the current issues that the GLBTQXYZPDQ folks are agitating over it seems obvious. Historically marriage has been defines and between a man and a woman. Therefore to allow two folks of the same gender enter into some sort of similar arrangement one would either have to redefine the term marriage or to come up with a term for this new arrangement.

"What percentage of the population is required to be relevant? 5%? 10%? 17%?"

I have no idea, relevant isn't even under discussion here.

"Homos?"

No, "homos.". The little dot at the end (usually called a period) is an indication of an abbreviation.

Again, neither your honesty of the niceness of homos. is the issue here. No one has suggested that you are not being honest, nor has anyone suggested that homos. are not nice people. So what?

"Accepted based on what you think is "normal"."

Nope

"Dictated seems to imply that a large portion of our society is not okay with same-sex partnerships ."

Given the voting patterns when this issue has been on the ballot I think it is safe to say that a large number of people are not OK with same sex marriage. Be that as it may just because "dictated" seems to imply something to you does not make it so.

"It seems that you are okay with something if it supports your personal agenda."

You are basing this erroneous statement on your vast knowledge of what exactly.

"Not sure that matters. Seems more and more states are granting these rights for same-sex partnerships. Time is on my side."

I guess we'll see how it goes.

Marshall Art said...

Parkie tries about as hard as one with so few mental skills can, I guess.

""idiot-boy"

WWJD?"


Well, let's see. I recall Jesus referring to the Pharisees as a brood of vipers. He used that term a couple of times. But you're right. He'd probably be disappointed in me for mocking a clinical idiot.

""I'm glad you can see that they all equate in the sense that they are all bad behaviors."

Okay.. Care to rank them?"


I don't need to. They're already ranked as bad.

Before moving on, there's this:

"btw.. what is "normal"?"

Not surprised you need to ask. Here's a hint: Anyone who would "LOL" at the drop of a hat like you do is not normal.

Here, Parkie almost makes a point, but can only muster an opinion. And a half-hearted one at that:

"On the other hand, most of us have LGBT friends or know LGBT people. And denying people we know or friends the right to engage in a contract with the state, such as marriage, is bankrupt."

I do know (and have known) a few homos. I've also known thieves and drug dealers. All were kind and generous to me. I never approved of THEIR behavior either, and I would never support their desire to have their chosen behavior codified in law. I've heard a few old dudes talk about Al Capone and they thought HE was OK. But bad behavior is bad behavior and despite how nice a person is to you or anyone else, they don't get to demand that the world accept and tolerate the bad behavior in which they engage. If they wish to satiate their perversions in private, they are free to go ahead and do so. If they wish to pretend the are "married", they are free to go ahead and do so and there are corrupt priests who will act as if they can actually expect God to bless their unions, as well as fools like yourself who will go along with the charade. But the state is not obliged to do so if it sees no value to itself by doing so. And since the state is the people who live in it, and, as Craig mentioned, everywhere the citizens of any state had the chance to say so, they voted against the the notion every time in usually large numbers.

Marshall Art said...

"The question was why do people support / accept the LGBT community"

Who asked that question? I can't find it anywhere here. Maybe I missed it.

"My honest answer was that many people know members of the LGBT community. No matter the actual size of this community, they deserve equal rights."

Thank goodness they already have them, huh? They have the equal right to marry. Unfortunately, they want special rights to redefine the term to include their perverted attractions for each other. But if you truly cared about your friends, you'd not support their twisted desire as every serious study shows more problems within that community than compared with the rest of normal society, putting light on the lie that they are "just like us, except..."

"Expanding on that, many of the members of the LGBT community that I have met have been exceptionally kind people"

I've known alcoholics that wer exceptionally kind. I didn't support their self-destructive behavior, either.

"Accepted based on what you think is "normal". How noble of you. Do you even read what you type before posting it?"

It is you that isn't demonstrating much thought. Certainly nothing on the deep side. Normal is not a matter of what people like Craig or myself think it is. It's a matter of fact that is obvious to any honest person that wishes to see it. It's the same with whether or not a behavior is moral. We don't decide that. We only accept morality or, like you, reject it in favor of what we like or to spare the feelings of friends who engage in their own version of immorality.

"It seems that you are okay with something if it supports your personal agenda."

Except that, unlike you and the people you support, our "personal agenda" isn't based on the personal, but on what is best for society in general. It may be influenced by our faith, but our faith is in that which has never proven to hurt anyone. If you weren't a heathen, this would be easier for you to understand. But it kinda goes like this: Righteousness is something to which we seek to adhere. It isn't something we decide it is based on our base urges and desires.

Regarding your "fun fact":

Non-Christian religions, while worthless, are not necessarily harmful to society while they don't displace the overall Judeo-Christian sensibility that still pervades and influences our culture. What's more, unlike homos, they are not trying to work their will into our laws, changing thousands of years of tradition and understanding just to force acceptance from the majority.

Marshall Art said...

Craig,

You use a period? I don't. I also don't spend a whole lot of time worrying that those who engage in or support this bad behavior will be offended by the use of a contraction of a word that their "orientation" defines, period or no. They corrupted words of their choosing and now bitch about the proper use of a contraction of the proper word that describes them. Boo-freakin'-hoo.

As to civil unions and such, don't be fooled. This terms is just marriage by another name and a short step from being granted that word. They don't "deserve" anything more than anyone else as far as such arrangements being sanctioned by the state. If they want to whine about inheritance or medical decisions of their partners, then they need to deal with each of those areas separately. I agree with them as far as hospital visits and medical decisions. Those rules can be changed and likely should be. There are situations where normal people may need some non-family member to stand in to make important decisions. How do THEY do it? I'm sure there are avenues that are in place and if not, that is what is needed to be remedied, not a faux-marriage.

Craig said...

Marshall,

I use the period to make the point, and although Parkie is unaware of the distinction, I feel it is worth it.

As to civil unions, I guess I can see that there are situations where two people in a long term relationship (I'm thinking of a couple of single women who lived together platonicaly for their entire adult lives) should be able to avail themselves of some of the benefits married couples enjoy. Tax,End of life decision making, estate etc.

So, in the same way that I could live with abortion being legal, (in circumstances of rape and to protect the physical health/life of the mother) I could live with civil unions.

I also agree with you that the GLBTQXYZPDQ folks won't be happy with that, they also won't be happy with a subcategory of marriage (gay marriage), they want to be able to call it marriage. This has nothing to do with rights or anything else, it has to do with "normalizing" their behavior.

Which brings back my question. If we accept the standard English definition of normal, how can any behavior engaged in by only 1.7 percent of the population be considered normal?

Parklife said...

"I guess we'll see how it goes."

Agreed.

Parklife said...

As for the rest of your comments.. Yawn.

Craig said...

"As for the rest of your comments.. Yawn."

Maybe someday you'll actually post something worthwile, or just substantive. Until then we're just left with your mental gruel.

Perhaps is you were as nice as all the wonderful friendly gay folks out things would be better for you.

Marshall Art said...

"As for the rest of your comments.. Yawn."

The mentally challenged are often bored and distracted in the face of serious adult conversation.

Parklife said...

"The mentally challenged are often bored and distracted in the face of serious adult conversation."

LOL.. Ma.. you have that special way of making my day.

Parklife said...

"Maybe someday you'll actually post something worthwile, or just substantive. Until then we're just left with your mental gruel."

Crying? Already..

That didnt take long.

"Yawn"

All the following posts and comments to "prove your POV" dont "prove" anything. Much of the argument is that homosexuality is immoral. Often times your comments are laced with a homophobic term. Such is life.

"Perhaps is you were as nice as all the wonderful friendly gay folks out things would be better for you."

LOL.. thats just crazy talk.
Things are pretty good.. I cant complain. Hows your life?

"I use the period to make the point, and although Parkie is unaware of the distinction, I feel it is worth it."

omg.. Craig, right now.. right in this moment.. I'm praying for you. Ma.. not so much. Lol.. j/k Ma.. Lots of love for you too.

"As to civil unions and such, don't be fooled. This terms is just marriage by another name and a short step from being granted that word."

Oh my.. there are so many bat crazy comments. MA.. the state should never have used the term "marriage" in the first place.

Now you two.. try to focus.. like a laser. What is so horrible about two people signing onto a contract? Im pretty sure their agreement doesnt involve you. I know this may come as a shock.

Craig said...

"What is so horrible about two people signing onto a contract? Im pretty sure their agreement doesnt involve you. I know this may come as a shock."

Maybe, just maybe, had you actually read my comments you would realize that I had actually advocated this exact thing. Again, perhaps a lesson in nice from your homo. buddies would be in order.

FYI, the one homo. I interact with on a regular basis is a decidedly unpleasant person. So it would appear that not all gays are nice.

Maybe had you actually argued something more viable than "I know nice gay people" it would work better for you.

Parklife said...

"I had actually advocated this exact thing."

Did you? Lets go to the video tape..

"As to civil unions, I guess I can see that there are situations where two people in a long term relationship (I'm thinking of a couple of single women who lived together platonically for their entire adult lives) should be able to avail themselves of some of the benefits married couples enjoy. Tax, End of life decision making, estate etc.

So, in the same way that I could live with abortion being legal, (in circumstances of rape and to protect the physical health/life of the mother) I could live with civil unions."

So close! You were almost there. Sadly all the gay people that wish to be married are not lesbians in long term relationships. You even came back with your last statement saying you could live with Civil Unions. But, you defined what you could "see" in the previous statement. Really, you seem lost in a forest. If you can find in your heart enough to support Civil Unions, that is wonderful and I’m pretty sure the “argument” is over.

"So it would appear that not all gays are nice."

What? You have got to be kidding me.

My guess is that gay people stepping out has had a profound effect on this topic. Having friends, co-workers, ect. that are gay makes us more willing to support Civil Unions.

Meanwhile MA cant even find the intestinal fortitude to make space for a religion different than his own. Calling other religions worthless? Really MA... really?

PS. Craig, if youre going to try and make distinctions between “homo” and “homo.” Or “homos.”, please spell check the rest of your comment. Thank you.

Craig said...

So Parkie,

for all intents and purposes we agree that there should be some means for folks to enter into some marriage like contract and all you can do is complain about typos.

Weak and patty. But that's really about par for the Parkie course.

Craig said...

Sorry, should be weak and petty.

Feodor said...

The time has come, Marshall, to thank you. Honestly and gratefully to thank you and your cultic brothers and your leader, the simp. Because of a few hundred thousand people like yourself, carrying subconsciously racist, consciously homo-phobic, heretical, misogynist, and hate-mongering attitudes, because of all you people, the Republican party is fatally sundered.

No Republican public servant who is smart, compassionate, mature and grounded in decency, and proven in public leadership will run for the Presidency.

None will run.

Thank you, Marshall. Truly. Madly, Deeply.

Keep up the good work.

Marshall Art said...

Ah, gee. See what happens? I let Parkie's idiotic comments stand and feodor gets jealous and wants his time as well! Look at the unsupportable charges in one paragraph!

"subconsciously racist, consciously homo-phobic, heretical, misogynist, and hate-mongering attitudes"

...not to mention "cultic".

What the hell are you talking about now, false priest? You could not substantiate any of those charges if given unlimited time and money. There is no truth in you.

Craig said...

"If only you could read AND comprehend."

Fortunately I don't share that particular malady with you and most of your ilk.



"Craig.. you are an interesting Dude thats for sure."

Unfortunately I'm not sure I can say the same for you. I do however find the use of the capital D in "Dude" fascinating. Perhaps there is some secret "Dude" code of which I'm unaware. Perhaps you just have trouble with some basics of the written english language. Given your unfamiliarity with the use of the period to denote an abbreviation I just can't be sure.

But you be sure and let me know the next time I rewrite history.

It would appear at least some disagree with you.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html

Oh, and maybe you just made a typo, it happens and really isn't worth pointing out. Unless you're petty and weak.

Parklife said...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html

LOL.. it just keeps getting better. Craig.. once again, you have gone above and beyond.

...

Well.. one thing we do agree on is that even homophobic people like yourself can support civil unions.

Craig said...

Dear sweet Parkie,

I absolutely love the certainty with which you use your prejudices to characterize me. I only wish I had your superior knowledge of what is in others hearts and minds, but alas that falls to you. I wish you well bearing this heavy burden. Please use your gift for good, not for evil. You can truly make the world a better place with your magnificent gift. Your enlightening additions to these conversations literally have us all waiting in anticipation at your next pearls of wisdom. I so appreciate your in depth characterizations of both my self and others, it's like you are looking deep into my innermost being and read my deepest thoughts.

Please, keep up the good work.

Craig said...

Oh, and by the way, "you're a homophobe" really isn't persuasive. It's really not even an arguement. It's more of a surrender.

Nice white flag.

Craig said...

My using an abbreviation makes me "homophobic", and you think I'm rearranging reality. Again, I don't envy you the heavy burden you bear. The ability to read minds and discern intentions must be difficult to live with.

Or it's just name calling because you've got nothing else.

Marshall Art said...

Craig,

As you've no doubt noticed, Parkie (AKA troll-boy, AKA idiot-boy) makes statements with no support or evidence, just to appear like he has a thought. It's sad.

He doesn't realize that using the appropriate term for a group of people, in abbreviated form (period or no) is completely acceptable for honest adults. He hasn't as yet scolded me for using the term "hetero", which I use often for the same reason as "homo". I can't imagine what a homo would bristle at being called a homo if there was nothing wrong with being a homo. I certainly don't get all weepy over being called a hetero. It makes no sense. I've never even gotten upset at begin called a polack, which is supposed to be a disparaging term for a Polish person. If there was something wrong with being Polish, perhaps I'd be upset with the slang. That's not the case.

Troll-boy does, however, like to use inappropriate terms, like "homophobe". It's not so because of any problem I would have with being called it (since I don't whine over being called names), but because it simply can't apply in any of the ways he intends it.

It means an irrational fear of men or mankind. That would be closest to the original language that it suggests. It is meant to mean hatred for homosexuals. But except for the Fred Phelps crowd, the religious version of homos and their enablers, there is no hatred for these sad individuals.

So here we are using words accurately, and like all lefties, Parkie corrupts their meaning. (An odd paradox--lefties alternately corrupt words or demand a strict and narrow definition, such as "socialist")

All in all, Craig. Don't feel you need to respond to Parkie. He craves attention and will say whatever stupid thing comes to his 10 year old mind believing himself clever. It's so sad to see him prove otherwise with such alarming consistency.

Craig said...

Parkie,

Must be a flaw in your gift since you keep insisting I have somehow re-created some event somewhere without any support for your delusion. Keep trying though.

What have you got against abbreviations? I was under the impression that they were a normal part of the English language. Why would you insist that I not use them, I don't understand.

If it somehow helps your self esteem to name call as a response to my using abbreviations please feel free. I can take being referred to with a word that doesn't in any way describe me.

MA,

It's kind of fun to tweak Parkie. He can't help it.

Marshall Art said...

I've told you often enough, troll, that there should be no question, even in your 9yr old mind, where anyone should begin. It's with comments of substance. I would allow those without if the attempt at humor or cleverness was a good one. You've never provided a single example of good comedy (not on purpose) or substance.

Marshall Art said...

"back to this?"

Never left. I reserve the right to delete any comment at any time for any reason that pleases ME, the host of this blog. YOU, troll-boy, have worked tirelessly to acquire the titles "Troll-boy" and/or "Idiot-boy" and I see no reason to refuse to acknowledge you for what you demand of every reader. However, bearing in mind that auspicious distinction, I don't feel equal need to burden readers, nor especially myself, with lame attempts at cleverness. You're simply no good at it. It's too painful to witness and not deleting risks pain to anyone who stumbles upon them or stumbles upon them again. I could actually handle a pointed barb that showed some intelligence and creativity, some wit, some sense of that which is required to truly nail another with snark. I applaud an insult that leaves me speechless and incapable of comeback. Yours just leaves me with feelings of sadness that you can't see your own pathetic ignorance of your own impotence.

"MA.. as I said before.. Pick your comment and I will be more than hapy to devote some time to it."

If this was your blog, you could make such demands. That I've tolerated ANY comment of yours to be published has yet to be appreciated on any level by you. What you've said before is irrelevant. Do as I expect of everyone and as I do myself: provide a reason for your inane comments; some justification for your vastly inaccurate positions and opinions. Point to something in the words of your opponents that justifies a charge.

OR, get deleted once again.

A third choice is best: Don't comment, but read and learn. Actually think about the position of your opponents and see how it matches the real world. If you have any shred of intelligence, you'll soon see that your positions do not.

Craig said...

Marshall,

I was at one of the sites on your blog roll where I found this sentence.
"Fellow blogger Dan Trabue has one of those posts designed to drag the homo-haters out of their holes."

I will await with breathless anticipation for Parkie to rush over and accuse the author of homophobia for using the "H" abbreviation.

Or perhaps, the term homo is somehow vitiated by appending the term hater to it.

Either way love the double standard.

Marshall Art said...

I found the site, Craig, and I hope you don't mind that I credited you in my response with alerting me to it. The term "homo-hater" is indeed very Parkie-like.

Craig said...

So Parkie, you gonna go bash anyone else for using the "H" abbreviation or just me.

Craig said...

No, parkie I'm not the victim. I'm just in awe of the ability of those on your side to allow, tolerate, and even celebrate things from those who you agree with while remonstrating (better) those who disagree with you for the same things.

As for GLBTXYZPDQ, it's just a nod to the fact that every once and a while out of nowhere another letter gets added to the acronym. I just want to make sure I include every possible permutation, even those who don't know they're in yet.

Or maybe you could go get a sense of humor surgically implanted.

Craig said...

Parkie,

What planet are you from.

Craig said...

Unfortunately parkie, I wouldn't have the foggiest idea what you are babbling about.

Maybe your gift of knowing what others are thinking is on the fritz.

Jim said...

Start spreading the news! Hooray for New York!

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I will indeed start spreading the news that New York has joined those states that have welcomed sexual depravity. But that's certainly nothing to celebrate.

Jim said...

"No sex for you!"

Jim said...

BTW, the "sexual depravity" as you call it has been there for centuries. It's the commitment of one person to another that is welcomed and now legal.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

What does this mean:

""No sex for you!""

I'm in an actual marriage. A real one. One that reflects the true definition of the term and the only context in which sex can be enjoyed without being immoral.

"BTW, the "sexual depravity" as you call it has been there for centuries. It's the commitment of one person to another that is welcomed and now legal."

Greed, hate, lust, and other bad behaviors have been around just as long. So what? I suppose you would support the commitment of a mother to her son for the same lustful purposes, eh? Or perhaps a man and two of his daughters? Or perhaps a guy and his sister, brother and best friend? How about a man and a ten year old girl who really, really love each other and are committed to each other?

There's nothing to celebrate about giving in to lustful urges that are outside the bounds of moral behavior. And the fact that it is welcomed by other immoral people and corrupted people and poorly schooled people means only that the decline of our culture has picked up a little more speed. Your contribution will likely not go unnoticed.

Jim said...

"What does this mean"

Marshall, check this out.

"the only context in which sex can be enjoyed without being immoral."

So says you and a handful of your friends.

"I suppose you would support the commitment of a mother to her son..." yadda, yadda, yadda.

No. This is the same tired old argument that Bill O'Reilly and Santorum and their ilk try to pass off as a reason not to allow gays to marry. But there is a difference.

Gays want the same right to marry the one they love as any other person does. Nobody has a the right to have multiple spouses, marry a daughter, a child, a horse or a duck. Therefore disallowing duck-lovers from marrying one is not discrimination since such law would apply to all.

Feel free to disallow same sex marriage within your church. That's your business and your church's business. Fewer and fewer people care.

Marshall Art said...

Yeah, Jim. You've tried this "soup Nazi" schtick before. Here's the problem with it. I'm not condoning any governmental interference between one sick individual having perverted sexual relations with another sick individual providing no child is involved. So your "sex Nazi" crap is...crap.

All I've ever done is insist that the true definition of marriage as worthy of support as it is unique and beneficial to society in ways that fraudulent definitions will never be. When you can show otherwise with something more than anecdotal stories, you might be on to something.

""the only context in which sex can be enjoyed without being immoral."

So says you and a handful of your friends."


Didn't you once claim to be Christian? If not, forgive me for confusing you with someone with intelligence. In any case, morality is a matter of God's will. There is no basis for suggesting that there is any sex not considered immoral that does not take place between a man and his wife once married (as opposed to whatever they may have done before the vows were taken). That's simply a fact. As for what self-serving people might say otherwise, it is merely subjective rejection of that fact put forth in order to mitigate their misbehavior. Once again, this is not my opinion. This is fact based on Scripture. All else is human invention and subject to change based on the whims of other humans in power. It is worthless and not true morality.

""I suppose you would support the commitment of a mother to her son..." yadda, yadda, yadda.

No. This is the same tired old argument that Bill O'Reilly and Santorum and their ilk try to pass off as a reason not to allow gays to marry."


No. It is the logical consequence of redefining marriage to include unions of homosexuals. If you allow them to demand their version of marriage is equal to the real thing, then you must include any other arrangement of people who put forth the same argument. Who are you to decide that a mother and her son are not entitled to the same consideration, you bigoted creep? Who are you to decide that three or more people are not as sincere in their commitment to each other as two homos are? Try to take a moment and explain just how you can dare draw the line at homos and lesbos and not include incestuous, polygamous and bestial arrangements. Just what the hell difference do you pretend exists to exclude all these other alternatives?

"Gays want the same right to marry the one they love as any other person does. Nobody has a the right to have multiple spouses, marry a daughter, a child, a horse or a duck."

You bigoted creep! Who says no one has the right to marry more than one person? They want the same right to marry the ones they love as any other person does, whether any other person loves more than one person or not. Who are you to deny the true love between a father and his daughter or a brother and his sister?

Marshall Art said...

"Therefore disallowing duck-lovers from marrying one is not discrimination since such law would apply to all."

Therefore disallowing homos from marrying another homo is not discrimination since such law already applies to all. A homo can now marry any woman he wants to marry just like I could. I am no more legally allowed to marry a man than a homo is (in most parts of the country not already corrupted by the lies of the homo activists).

"That's your business and your church's business. Fewer and fewer people care."

Not proven by states that have allowed people to actually vote on the issue. New York's votes contained several Repubs who likely were seen as supportive of real marriage when elected. They have likely many constituents who feel betrayed. Polls continue to show the majority of this country is against this abomination.

Of course enough people have stopped caring about morality enough that not only perversions like this are supported out in the open, but hotels rent space for porn conventions that are three day events. Enough people have stopped caring that STDs afflict more people and younger people as well. Abortions are still counted in the millions per year. Yeah. Fewer people caring about morality is really a good thing, Jim. You must be very proud to count yourself among them.

Mark said...

"Nobody has a the right to have multiple spouses, marry a daughter, a child, a horse or a duck."

Really? Why not? Seems to me if men can marry men, and women can marry women, why stop there?

I'm not going to ask where is the line. I'm asking WHY is there a line?

Isn't that point of throwing the definition of marriage down the crapper? So anyone can marry anyone regardless of the coupling?

Geeez, Jim, if the only difference between what's morally right and what's morally wrong is the law, well, heck! Just change the law!

Oh, wait.

Mark said...

There goes Parklife, exposing his ignorance again. Apparently he thinks if one opposes homosexuality, that makes them a racist.

I would ask him to explain how homosexuality and tracism is related, but I know his stupid comment will be deleted, as well it should be.

What an idiot! Now I know why some animals eat their young.

Marshall Art said...

Don't waste your time with Parkie, Mark. Anyone with a shred of honesty and integrity knows you're no more a racist than Parkie is clever and witty. Don't feed the troll-boy.

Parklife said...

"All I could think of about the people around me all night was I feel sorry for you. I really feel sorry for you... you are so lost... and so convinced that you are absolutely 100% right, and you are helping build a system that is fueled by hate. You're being used and you don't even know it. And by the time you wake-up, it may be too late for you to get out."

Just loved that quote..

Marshall Art said...

So apparently, idiot-boy, you have no problem with a man and his family being harassed by total strangers simply because of his opinions? Are you seriously going to make the case that BECK is the one fostering hate simply because he puts forth his opinions on right and wrong? YOU are the type of person of which he speaks. YOU, and other leftists, are the people expressing hatred as you so routinely display by your lame attempts here to ridicule and mock, NEVER providing anything resembling a true argument for or against ANYTHING. The only thing that gives you any hope is the fact that your are a clinical idiot, a true example of mental retardation so obviously incapable of understanding your own pathetic nature. Go on and mock, troll. It's the perfect expression of what you truly are. You sad, pathetic loser.

Marshall Art said...

My name is Parklife and I make comments lacking substance and then whine about readers jumping to conclusions those comments provoke.

Marshall Art said...

Parkie,

If you've somthing to say, say it in full as if you have an opinion and are confident in it. Half-assed comments of yours will continue to be deleted no matter what it is.

Craig said...

Here's something to be proud of right here.

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/04/27/christians-mock-gays-at-shocking-easter-service/2/


Beware this may be offensive. But they're proud.

Parklife said...

Half-assed...

Ma.. you just cant lay off the ass comments

Marshall Art said...

"Ma.. you just cant lay off the ass comments"

Don't make them and I won't have to point them out. I know it's hard for you, but exert yourself and resist the inbred temptation to be an ass.