Monday, January 05, 2009


Mike Adams on Townhall:
When the Mormons were told in the 19th Century that they had no right to polygamy, they decided to modify their religious practices and curtail their sexual behavior. That is why today they are among our most valuable citizens. But gays in the 21th Century have responded to similar dictates by storming into churches and impeding the religious rights of their peaceful neighbors.

I don’t really care where gays get the impulses underlying their sexual identity. But I do ponder the origins of their smug moral condescension.
(via Conservative Grapevine)


Anonymous said...

I heard the Mormon religion was created as a joke and for dinner time conversation by an upstate New York man whose family had interesting dinner table discussions for which this gentleman wrote the Mormon stuff that, when found years later in a dresser being sold, was mistaken for a religious document, when it was just created for interesting dinner time discussion.

OBloodyHell said...

> But I do ponder the origins of their smug moral condescension.

Simple: A generation of being told they were victims of religious discrimination by idiotic believers of leftist moral relativism.

As I have commented before, the real problem here is that, in a tolerant society, homosexuality probably ought to be "accepted". There is a big, fat line between being accepted and being encouraged which is what the whole L&GR movement (what, Lesbians aren't Gay, now?) is all about -- getting society to encourage their lifestyle, rather than to merely accept it.

Geoffrey Britain said...


In the interests of clarity, I don't think that the LG&R movement is demanding encouragement, per se.

My perception is that for them, acceptance means utter neutrality.

Neutrality defined as full and unfettered access to all means necessary for the championing of their lifestyle, such that and until it is viewed by everyone as, as valid an 'inclination' as heterosexuality.

That position of necessity means the unequivocal assertion that a heterosexual child does NOT need either a mother or a father but only an adult who loves them.

Anything less, invariably places homosexuality as 'inferior' to heterosexuality.

That of course is anathema to the movement because at base, they are at war with reality.

Carl said...


Acceptance means more than neutrality--they're seeking the state's imprimatur in the form of marriage.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Anonymous - you heard? Have you also heard of google?

I agree with Carl on this. While many gays do indeed seek neutrality and nothing more, those in the advocacy sector are seeking an imprimatur.

Geoffrey Britain said...

Carl and AVI,

I fully agree that L&GR advocates are seeking the imprimatur of the 'state'.

My perception is that they claim only the states imprimatur will render onto them neutrality.

That in every way, homosexual relationships are no better and no worse than heterosexual relationships.

That other than the arrangement of physical organs, a difference that they maintain to be inconsequential, essentially there's no difference.

Thus, that any 'discrimination', as in marriage, actively prevents them from attaining the neutrality/acceptance they seek and thus only the imprimatur of the state will counteract the discrimination endemic to society.

OBloodyHell said...

> That in every way, homosexual relationships are no better and no worse than heterosexual relationships.

Right. So the government will magically wave its hand and suddenly male-male relationships will not involve more crime** (i.e., excluding "sex" crime where such may still apply) than male-female relationships?

That homosexual relationships tend to be far more likely to involve cheap and ephemeral contact than heterosexual ones?

"Deluded Idiots" is the term that comes to mind.

Homosexuality does not tend to be of benefit to society.

"Neutrality" is a bad deal, right on the surface. "Acceptance" is all they should be provided.

**(and yes, I'm aware that lesbian relationships tend to have still less than male-female ones)

Geoffrey Britain said...


Of course neutrality is a bad idea.

I simply contend that they seek neutrality, to achieve acceptance.

And that to attain full acceptance necessitates the complete equivalence of homo and hetero sexuality.

But there you and I go again, confusing the issue with facts...;-)

Carl said...


I think you accurately state the logic of some. Yet, at root, acceptance is a matter of private, individual belief not mandated--or capable of being mandated--by the government.

I find myself in the odd posture of being accepting but opposing legal equivalence. So, to my view, their strategy is backwards.