Republican Senator Warner trashed by WND columnist, Freepers

Immorality and the Monogamous Myth

It may not be immoral but it is antithetical to the very paradigms that govern all mammals on material Earth, i.e. two sexes for production of life, and inmical code for the programing that guides each of those sexes.

This commenter obviously doesn't know much about nature. There are plenty of examples of a plethora of animal species that indulge not just in homosexuality, but polygamy, masturbation, adultery, and asexuality (and that's just the ones I can think of off the top of my head - committed monogamy for life is very very rare in nature, and it has been found that there are even exceptions in species we used to believe were monogamous for life - ex: swans).

Unchecked breeding is antithetical to the very paradigms that govern all mammals on material Earth... ie: Overpopulation of this planet is due to the fact that we're top predator of the tree. We have no natural predators, at least none that can compete with thumbs and tool use. Medical sciencce is getting better and better at keeping what would once have been unviable infants and foetuses alive. And yet humanity keeps on breeding. This is causing untold damage to the world, and is at the heart of most of the ills affecting Mother Earth, including Global Warming.

There is more to living than the just production of life. It's about time they woke up and realised that before it's too late (if it isn't already).

---

by: Zandilar @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 06:44:03 AM CDT

Biological Exuberance

Zandilar is absolutely right.  Any talk of same-sex activity being "unnatural" is based on religious dogma, not on scientific fact.  Bruce Bagemihl has a HUGE book on animal homosexuality called Biological Exuberance and it charts same-sex behavior in primates, mammals, birds, insects.  It's dense and partly offered as something of an encyclopedia but well worth reading.  Oh, I left out those happy feet guys, the penguins!  Two sexes are obviously necessary for procretaion, but same-sex pairs have a function, too, as in certain male bird pairs who adopt abandoned nests and hatch the eggs. BTW, isn't the title great?  Imagine saying, "I'm not gay, I'm biologically exuberant."

As for Hillary and Obama, what could be simpler than saying, right off, I disagree with Pace?  Yet they didn't.  How cowardly.  Shame on them! But Edwards did, as discussed in this NYT post:

http://thecaucus.blo...

So despite his difficulties with gay marriage, he was unafraid to state a core belief.


"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 08:05:54 AM CDT

Biological Exuberance is one of 4 books I have not been able to complete in my life.

After about 200 pages I was begging a friend to use the book like a brick and kill me because if I had to finish reading it I would probably have died from old died before I was done.

---

by: Alan down in Florida @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 14:49:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, I have some personal moral beliefs of my own

After living half a century among heterosupremacists, it seems to me that there is something immoral about anyone who seems to be so overwhelmingly interested in using their imagination to so overtly describe someone else's sexual activity. These projections aren't based on any "judeo-christian" tenets at all - but are manufactured scenarios from the perverted minds of (usually) men who believe morality dictates that they have exclusive rights to view all human beings as nothing more than sexual objects.

It seems like a rather obvious moral analysis here to presume that none of these Freepers should be lawfully allowed to enter any legal relationship with anyone. Their claim to special knowledge about the intimate relationships of others has no basis in their "judeo-christian" tenets, and they repeatedly show an obvious inability to engage in truly and biblically-sanctioned monogamous relationships. There should be constitutional amendments banning them from marriage and the production of children.

Perhaps the biggest reason that divorce rates are high, there are growin examples of heterosexual-based child sexual abuse and spousal abuse is not the presence of dissolution laws - it is the failure of con-servatives to embrace and live the very "old morality" they claim to support. These comments indicate an inherent disposition toward personal immorality among these people. No healthy, truly "moral" person, especially one grounding their beliefs in selected religious beliefs, would spend any amount of time attempting to reconstruct and project in their minds such detailed sexual activity among their neighbors.

That they believe General Pace has an obligation to inject his own personal moral beliefs into a public policy (and no one else is allowed) indicates that Freepers neither believe in freedom of religion or the basic tenets of this country. In fact, they regularly use the code word "moral" to demand other voices be censored or other citizens lives be restricted.

They refuse to embrace the idea that taxpayers have not hired General Pace, nor have they provided him with a career, as an entitlement based on his "upbringing" - and yet they strongly believe that an entitlement should be based on nothing more than adherence to the right to imagine and project the sexual acts of other citizens. This lines up perfectly with their twisted belief that there does not exist an inherent right to privacy - unless one of them is discovered in behavior directly contradicting their loud claims of moral superiority. Then they are suddenly adamant that their privacy is being violated.

What is most interesting here is that the "old morality" would prevent women and racial minorities from participating in military service. . .though Freepers are careful about treading too deeply into those waters. After all, if there is one thing these immoral cowards are wary of doing, it is actually having to put their own lives and their moral principles on the line. How could a Freeper be depended on defend this nation when he is preoccupied with imagining the sexual activities of the guy next to him?

When the Washington Post published their editorial condemning General Pace's remarks yesterday, two of the comments stuck in my mind. One described herself as an African-American who felt that General Pace had the right to "freedom of speech" and to state his own beliefs. I countered that, by her analysis, the President of the United States could stand before the Nation and freely use the word "N-----" without repercussion - as long as he just said that it was part of his "personal moral beliefs."

Namecalling and projecting fake morality seems to be the key to what little principles con-servatives have to use in public discourse. They have nothing else of substance. One "person of faith" (code for con-servative "Christian") contended that "moral" people should not have to be forced to "associate" with "immoral" people in the military. Of course, if you tell them that you find evangelicals "immoral," that's your own tough luck - they don't believe they should give up the privileges or responsibilities of citizenship because someone else finds THEM immoral.

General Pace should lose his job. His need to issue statements, while representing the country in his uniform and in his position, based on nothing more than his "personal moral beliefs" is an indication that he, like these rightwing con-servatives, are not willing to serve or defend their country - they are serving an imagined "moral" code which dictates that they infiltrate and attack the very citizens they take an oath to defend. As such, they have no moral ability to provide leadership because they do not subscribe to the Constitution of the United States.

This brings to mind two examples from the last couple of years which involve military personnel who believe their "personal moral beliefs" are more important than carrying out their mission. One was a picture on a military web site which featured an American tank in Iraq with a "Christian" message painted on it's nozzle. Another was the reported escapades of an evangelical officer named Boykin (I believe), who declared his God was greater than another country's God and that the United States was engaged in a holy war. Both people and situations were handled by the military because there is no place for "personal moral beliefs" which contradict the mission of the armed forces.

The military engages in immoral behavior by continuing to allow heterosexuals to insist they have an inherent right to imagine and talk about the sexual lives of other service personnel. If the Right is so concerned about the morality of the armed forces, then heterosexuals should be restricted from discussing any sexual relationship, told they cannot have pictures of their wives or girlfriends displayed in public, and that they cannot paint illustrations of buxom women on their bombs or their tank turrets. They should be forbidden from discussing sexuality in any form. After all, the "moral" American people have not hired them to rape, seek out prostitutes, make lewd remarks about female personnel or civilians, discuss what they'd like to do with women, or talk among themselves about their relationships. If it is moral for gays to keep their mouths shut about their relationships and their sexual orientation, then it must follow that there is something morally wrong in allowing breeders to endlessly obsess about their own desires.

This would disqualify pretty much every wingnut evangelical and most certainly the neo-con Freepers from serving in the military. Their inability to discipline themselves in their verbalized and imagined projects of sexual activities in others should be enough to disqualify them from any leadership position. And their mythical belief that "being a real man" is dependent exclusively on what images they ejaculate over indicates they don't have the ability to maintain proper discipline or fit into the "moral" military culture.

There are other indications that neo-cons, Freepers, and con-servative "Christians" are not morally fit to serve this country. Their inability to frame any discussion outside the scenario of war or violence indicates to MY "personal moral beliefs" that they view conflict, violence and murder (especially in combat) as another one of their own sexual fantasies. When violent sexual assault, rape, and killing another person for sexual gratification takes precedence over self-discipline, then their service has nothing to do with protecting this nation - it becomes a "personal moral belief" outlet for their private fantasies. There are not reported incidents of rape and sexual assault during wartime because the gays are present in the armed forces. They exist because of the "morally correct" who glorify and celebrate the existence of such destruction as another projection of their own fantasies. THAT is the basis of their claimed morality.

If General Pace wished to introduce a discussion of what is moral sexual behavior into the public discourse, he should be prepared to discuss the many incidents of violence and murder among the openly heterosexual service personnel who appear to hold "personal moral beliefs" which embrace such sexual fantasies. Clearly the Right believes that, rather than extending the ban on self-disclosure of sexual orientation to heterosexuals, that projections of imagined sexual activities of others is not only "normal" for heterosexual men only, but the highest governing factor in serving this country.

It is time to consider just what they really mean.

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 08:11:43 AM CDT

Oh my. . .that is much too long. . .

hahaha...sorry. I got carried away here.

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 08:12:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe

But you're always spot on and damn good with your words.

---

by: callie @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:00:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not at all, Kev

With commentary like that, type away, my friend!

---

by: JoshWatermanMN @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:12:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Still amazed

That it's the Republicans standing up against Pace.

What the hell's up with the spineless Democrats?  Oh, yeah, just answered my own question!

---

by: callie @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:01:44 AM CDT

No Sh**

I am totally pissed that I get more support from a right wing Republican than I do from the very Democrats that I am supposed to be excited about voting for.....

---

by: dcmsufan @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:20:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They're not all cowards

Edwards came right out and criticized Pace--see my link above.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:49:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not all of them!

Edwards came right out and criticized Pace--see my link above.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:48:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where?

Sorry, Lev.  I looked but don't see what you're talking about.

---

by: callie @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 14:08:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Idiots

Barf, he should spend a day in the hospital wards with gay men in their 30s and 40s who cannot even contain their feces anymore. Idiot Senators, dangerous Senators, its time for a stake thru the hearts of these vampires that run our country
__________

Where are these mythical hospital wards?  And why can't gay men contain their feces?  Is it because their butts are now supposed to be so loose they can't clamp down?  Got news from you, Freep, I know lots of guys that have had a lot (and I mean A LOT) of butt lovin, and they don't fill their undies with shit one bit, much less shit the bed in some hospital ward. 

And as far as the hygiene issue is concerned, obviously these Freeps don't wash. More negative body issues from the Ann Coulter wing of the Republican Party.  It might help not to use Paul Cameron as their sole source on info on gay people.

---

by: JoshWatermanMN @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:21:43 AM CDT

idiots for sure

Maybe he means end-stage AIDS and loss of control of bodily functions? But last time I looked at the stats, heterosexual women were the most new cases of HIV. I guess that means having heterosexual sex with a man is immoral?

I am really curious about where the Freepers get their information about what "most queers" do in bed. Is there some manual that I was not issued when I came out?

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 10:54:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

more about idiots

Maybe he means end-stage AIDS and loss of control of bodily functions? But last time I looked at the stats, heterosexual women were the most new cases of HIV. I guess that means having heterosexual sex with a man is immoral?
___________________________

In the Garrison Keillor thread, I mentioned that Keillor's description of gay men comes straight out of "Boys in the Band."  In this case, the Freepers' notions of gays and AIDS comes right out of the darkest, earliest days of the plague in the US, when AIDS was called GRID, we knew nothing what was killing mostly gay men right and left, and everyone was scared.  We don't have wards full of AIDS patients.  Thanks to improvements in care and medicine, people living with HIV and AIDS are doing just that: living, and living productive, meaningful lives.  They aren't shitting their pants or their beds (although some of the meds can have that side effect) in droves.  And while there is more that needs to be done to slow the rise in new HIV cases, the numbers of people with HIV progressing to AIDS in the US has dropped for the reasons I mentioned.

But the Freepers don't want to let go of this, for the same reason they don't like gun control laws: it takes a weapon from their hands.  The AIDS crisis was to the Ann Coulter wing of the Republican Party as 9/11 was to the Bush Administration: it became a reason to step up on a pedastal and look down on others, to do what they feel is necessary to deal with the problem.  AIDS was the best thing that happened to the right wing, because they got to put uppity queers back in their place.  They politicized a tragedy.

I was reading last year "And The Band Played On," about the early days of the AIDS crisis.  One account that is sharp in my mind was how the French scientists were amazed on the American attitude that gay people somehow "deserved" the virus for their behavior.  While mainstream French culture at that time wasn't all that liberal in regards to homosexuality, that the Americans took such a punishing viewpoint was abhorrent.  It was a disease, not the hand of God.  No one can "deserve" to get sick from AIDS, just like one can't "deserve" to catch a cold or have a stroke.  It's puritanical thinking at its ugliest.

One last bit:  it is so odd the Freepers instantly accuse the Senators for being gay just because their support for gay people.  The notion is that a "real" heterosexual could not support gay people; if they do, then they must have something to gain from it.  Paranoia at its worst.  They are more insulting to straight men as a whole than they are to Senator Warner or to gay people, in that they imply that straight men don't have the capacity to empathize with a group of people who are different.  I am sure our frequent Blender, Dan, could definitely tell them differently.  ;)

---

by: JoshWatermanMN @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:27:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

not uncommon

For many terminally ill people to lose control of their body functions, not just the gay ones.

---

by: callie @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:36:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A straight woman is 20 times more likely to contract AIDS via...

...vaginal intercourse than a straight man.  It's pretty difficult for AIDS-bearing vaginal fluid to course into a man's urethra.  So, one could say that straight sex for women is an unhealthy lifestyle.

As far as the Freeper comment about men eating shit, unfortunately, regardless of your partner, waste is involved.  The typical person carries a teaspoon of shit in their crack.  Sure, we all wipe, but it's a crevice with lots of folds.  Plus, piss flows out of a penis.  So, every straight man is putting piss into his female partner.  It's a minute amount, but it's there.  I think the proximity and overlap of genetalia and our excretory organs makes sex icky for everyone, if we ponder the reality.  And the vagina, in its reproductive function, is also a waste disposal mechanism. 

Thus, the quote: "Woman is a temple built atop a sewer."

I think, as I've written in the past, that homophobia is a self-loathing.  If men are so icky to homophobic men, then how can they comprehend their wives/gfs attraction to them? 

Why don't they say, "Honey, I'm repugnant.  I truly am.  Don't sleep with me.  Please.  Because when I contemplate sleeping with a man, I want to barf and I don't want to do that to you."

---

by: Holly Capote @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:20:43 AM CDT

Sex is messy business

It's messy for all of us.  Hygeine is important.  Gay men frequently "clean out" using enemas before "the big night" so to speak to minimize any unfortunate events.

Given that our reproductive systems are entwined with the "last stop" for our digestive tracts, it is amazing anyone brings up the "ickiness" of homosexuality at all.  Most humans get over the unpleasantness of elimination by the time they hit puberty--they accept it as part of life, and accept messiness as a part of life as well (So much for intelligent design). 

The "Woman built on top of a sewer" comment:  that quote just underlines the basic revulsion some have toward the human body.  Even if you appreciate the work of art that is the human form, you must dwell on the grossness that is beneath.  People who have this outlook are digging through diamonds, looking for dirt.

---

by: JoshWatermanMN @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:35:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sex is messy

But that's what makes it so much fun. ;)

---

by: callie @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:39:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I suspect that this is the best sentence I'll read all week:

"People who have this outlook are digging through diamonds, looking for dirt."

Yep, straight sex and gay sex are messy, but the homophobes seem the sort who will stand there and tell you what trees to plant in your lawn and how to cut your grass, and do so with secret skidmarks and pee spots in their drawers.

I think the design of our bodies, where the sex goodies and the excretion outlets have the same address, is kind of comical.  If there is a God, She's funny.

---

by: Holly Capote @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:59:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

As I've heard it...

An electrical engineer, a mechanical engineer, and a chemical engineer were arguing about what type of engineer God was. The EE pointed to the intricacies of the nervous system to bolster her case. The ME described the muscular and skeletal systems as his proof. The ChemE talked about the delicate balance of hormones that keep humans going.

Finally, someone said, "Look, it's obvious: God's a civil engineer. Who else would put a recreation area right next to a waste processing plant?"

---

by: Darkrose @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 14:59:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's a good one, Darkrose!

---

by: Holly Capote @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 15:12:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LOL r/t

---

by: JoshWatermanMN @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 15:33:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And another thing--

If Pace is right, then he should ask all the Republican adulterers running for office (like McCain) or those thinking of it (like Gingrich) to step out of the race so that pure people only can run.  That's the logical consequence of his thinking, because if adulery dissqualifies you from military service, it should certainly disqualify you from being commander-in-chief should you choose to lie the country into another war.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:53:01 PM CDT

You're the best, Lev!

---

by: Holly Capote @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 13:27:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So, in fundie logic (do those 2 words even belong together?) it's fine

for Gen Pace to express his personal view that homo=immoral, but not fine for Sen Warner to express his personal view that homo does not equal immoral?

Why, oh why am I not surprised that once again they are so two faced?

---

by: Scott_NC @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 14:20:16 PM CDT

Not only are they two-faced

They're sanctimonious and holier than thou - emphasis on thou.

What gets me is that anyone takes these bozos seriously!

---

by: Phil @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 18:49:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Aren't they adorable?

Who wants to send 'em some gay porn? Someone should go to their forum and post a whole load of Slash Fanfic Fiction - they'll be so greateful! ;)

Really though, they must have the worst luck with getting women.

---

by: Sophie @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 19:49:33 PM CDT

post a whole load of Slash Fanfic Fiction??

They gotta be able to read first! ;)

---

by: callie @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 20:18:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]