CBS Deletes Blog After White House Denounces Column Alleging Kagan Is a Lesbian

There is a firestorm of controversy this morning over a piece that ran on the CBS blog by Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer. In his blog, Domenech alleged that Solicitor General (and possible Supreme Court nominee) Elena Kagan is a lesbian. The White House went ballistic and called the story false. CBS stood by the blogger and then issued an apology, saying that it was based on pure speculation.


In his online column Domenech said that Kagan’s selection would please Obama’s base as the “first openly gay justice.”

Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, attacked Domenech as someone “with a history of plagiarism” who was “applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers.”

Domenech has a short lived stint (three days) as a Washington Post blogger when he quit after allegations of plagiarism.

After the White House called the story false, Domenech added an update to the post: “I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted — odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles.”

CBS finally withdraw the column after receiving an email from Domenech. Dan Farber, editor in chief of CBSNews.com, wrote that “after looking at the facts we determined that it was nothing but pure and irresponsible speculation on the blogger’s part.”

Domenech added his own apology: “I offer my sincere apologies to Ms. Kagan if she is offended at all by my repetition of a Harvard rumor in a speculative blog post.”

When I teach defamation, we often discuss allegations that someone is gay under the common law. It is an example of part of the evolving social standards of what constitutes a per se category of defamation. At one time, it was considered such a category, but, as society has increasingly accepted homosexuality (and after criminal laws on homosexuality were struck down after Lawrence v. Texas), that is changing. Certainly an Obama official is unlikely to claim that being gay is defamatory — even though this blog would likely meet the test under New York Times v. Sullivan and the actual malice test (requiring knowing falsity or reckless disregard).

Domenach is the co-founder of the RedState blog and writes for Human Events, and other conservative publications.

For the full story, click here.

58 thoughts on “CBS Deletes Blog After White House Denounces Column Alleging Kagan Is a Lesbian

  1. This just smells like something an operative would do. I would say it sucks, but not a chance in hell for that to happen.

  2. The fact that Domenech is a co-founder of RedState blog seems more offensive to me than whether or not Ms. Kagan is a homosexual. Regardless, Domenech is obviously an A-Hole for publishing speculation on someone’s/anyone’s sexual preference. Says more about Domenech & our prejudices than it does about Kagan.

  3. Oh whoops, formatting got messed up….

    Classic defamation trick: “It is well known that [insert slander here]. [Do not provide evidence here].”

  4. “Domenech added his own apology: “I offer my sincere apologies to Ms. Kagan if she is offended at all by my repetition of a Harvard rumor in a speculative blog post.”

    **************

    Oh, silly, why would she be, of course?

    I hate non-apology apologies and contingent apologies. Is it so hard to say, “I am sorry for what I have done. You have the right to be offended by it. I will not do it again.”

    “Classic defamation trick: “It is well known that [insert slander here]. [Do not provide evidence here].”

    ***********************

    FFleo, nice pick up on the fallacy of alleged certainty.

  5. She is what he says. She’s probably a nice person. But we don’t want a deviant in such an important position.

    She’s probably a left wing-liberal-Democrat.

    W

  6. wobe:

    “She is what he says …”

    ****************************

    Thanks wobe for clearing that up. Have you reached any conclusions on what happened to Amelia Earhart, Extra-terrestrials, crop circles, or Bigfoot yet?

  7. Here’s the real unanswered question: given Domenech’s propensity for plagiarism, and his inability to hold a job at any mainstream media outlet for indulging in exactly this kind of rumor-mongering, partisan abuse, why the hell did CBS give him a job?

    That’s one question. Here’s another. I mean, shit, Condi Rice was living with another woman for her entire tenure at Stanford and nobody felt the need to go and shove her out of the closet. Why does Ben Domenech feel the need to be the Queer Police for one party, but not his own?

  8. It’s obvious that she is what he says.

    Just looking at her photo she’s probably a nice person.

    But we don’t want left leaning deviants in such an important America shaping judicial job/position.

    She’s probably a left wing-liberal-Democrat.

    We really should be giving a job like that only to our very best normal legal scholars who tilt center/right as is the normal state of sanity and cleanliness.

    It’s not normal, against natural law to live that way!

  9. Dom said:

    “I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted — odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles.”

    Is he just making that part up?

    That’s why I said it’s obvious…

    from that part of his response to their complaint.

    Is that true what you said about Condi Rice?

    Never heard that before.

    I always wondered how she could have anything to do with the ultimate corrupt criminal war monger politician though.

    Maybe that explains it, she was corrupted also.

    A real go getter!

  10. It is well known that … The oligarchy is scared of Elena Kagan which means their next move will necessitate bribing a blue-dog to further impair her chances. Can’t wait to see which democratic senator takes the pay-off … unless, of course, he just verbalizes his bought and paid for objections behind closed doors which means we’ll never know his identity.

    I wonder what it is about her that has put such a desperate spin on the oligarchy’s circle of distress … for it is well known that …………………………………

    Maybe Ben Nelson will disclose the creep’s name ….

  11. Didn’t anti-American Bill and Hillary Clinton do enough damage/destruction/dismantling to the USA and its people.

    Betraying/warmongering in the Balkins,

    Janet Reno-Waco Randy Weaver,

    Bill giving our top secret classified military satelite launching/ballistic missile launching/military super computer technology secrets to the horriffic animal abuser/torchurer atheistic nation Communist China?

  12. benson

    Didn’t anti-American Bill and Hillary Clinton do enough damage/destruction/dismantling to the USA and its people.

    Betraying/warmongering in the Balkins,

    Janet Reno-Waco Randy Weaver,

    Bill giving our top secret classified military satelite launching/ballistic missile launching/military super computer technology secrets to the horriffic animal abuser/torchurer atheistic nation Communist China?

    ================================================================

    TEA BAGGER ALERT … CODE RED! … HIDE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN … LOCK UP YOUR LAWN CHAIRS …

    Since you’re so hung up on the 90’s, here’s one just for you:

    “Sell crazy somewhere else, we’re all stocked up here” (As Good As It Gets)

  13. Why won’t Obama show his birth certificate?

    Because he’s from another country?

    Ha, ha, ha, Obama the ACORN Muslim communist!!!

  14. CEJ–

    It’s tough having to live under a bridge where it’s so dark and dank all the time. Those who do often contract a disease known as mildew of the gray matter. Sometimes, just popping one’s head into the sunlight a few hours a day can help cure one of the condition.

  15. “It’s not normal, against natural law to live that way!

    (…)

    Just looking at her photo she’s probably a nice person.”

    *************

    Wonder why its been around so long then and is found in many species of mammals? Must be “unnatural” law, I suppose.

    I am more impressed by your observation that you can tell she is probably a “nice person” from her picture. Pray tell, what does a probable nice person look like exactly? Smiling, maybe!

    Tell what you see here Svengali:

  16. I do not want Ms. Kagan as the next U.S. Supreme Court justice for many reasons, including a few that are not founded on her legal expertise (my preference is Diane Wood). However, I just found this today from Constitutional Attorney Glenn Greenwald, who is one of the best legal minds around, from my non-lawyer’s perspective.
    ________________________________

    Quote:

    The case against Elena Kagan
    By Glenn Greenwald

    “There will be more than enough Republicans joining with the vast majority of Democrats to confirm her; no proposal ever loses in Washington for being insufficiently progressive (when is the last time such a thing happened?). If a Kagan nomination is to be stopped, it can only happen before her nomination is announced by Obama, not after.”

    Kagan’s lack of a record

    “One of the difficulties in assessing Kagan’s judicial philosophy and view of the Constitution is that direct evidence is extremely sparse. That’s not only because she’s never been a judge, but also because (a) her academic career is surprisingly and disturbingly devoid of writings or speeches on most key legal and Constitutional controversies, and (b) she has spent the last year as Obama’s Solicitor General, where (like any lawyer) she was obligated to defend the administration’s policies regardless of whether she agreed with them. As Goldstein wrote at SCOTUSblog: “it seems entirely possible that Elena Kagan does not really have a fixed and uniform view of how to judge and to interpret the Constitution.”

    End Quote
    ________________________________

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan/index.html

  17. Mespo,

    Don’t you get it, Wobe’s just showing they’re not a bigot. I bet Wobe also has good friends who are gay.

    Remember, if you say something mildly complimentary it means that any vile and hate filled rhetoric that follows it must be true and not fueled by ignorance and prejudice.

  18. John A.

    That video was actually going to be my next post and it illustrates one of the main reasons I oppose Ms. Kagan.

  19. maverratick,

    Man, you have let this be open for abuse. I think for certain that, whatever sexual orientation a person maintains would not affect a ruling/decision that had to be made based upon the law of the land.

    One of the most flaming males that I have ever met, he was a nice guy was rich and republican. He was flaming, he eventually got appointed to the bench. So what ever decisions he made, they were based upon the prevailing laws. Not a ideology of what someone would want.

  20. Former Federal LEO,

    That particular testimony is one of the reasons I support her. I think it comes down to a question of what constitutes an action in defense of the nation. If the Executive has overstepped his authority, a constitutional check in the form of funding is within the power of Congress. If that is not effective, impeachment is an option. We have had a President from each of major political parties take the same action. I think the opinion of the majority is that waiting until the invader is on our doorstep would render us unable to facilitate a proper defense.

    You should read “War powers of the Executive in the United States” by Clarence Arthur Berdahl (1921)

    “The action of the Convention of 1787 is significant in this connection. The Committee on Detail had reported a clause giving to Congress the power “to make war”. During the discussion over this proposition, it was suggested that the wording of the clause gave Congress practically unlimited control over all the operations of war. Hence Madison and Gerry moved to strike out the word “make” and insert “declare,” with the avowed purpose of leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks. The suggested change in language was adopted with little opposition, and there would here seem to be some constitutional sanction for the power of the President to wage defensive wars without direct authorization from Congress.

    That power of the President is now at least a generally recognized and well established principle of American constitutional law, the validity of which was vigorously asserted in 1907 by our delegates at the Hague Conference. When the proposal was made for an article requiring that hostilities should not begin without a previous warning, in the form of a declaration of war or of an ultimatum accompanied by a conditional declaration of war, the American delegation expressed its entire sympathy with the purport of the article. It called attention, however, to the fact that Congress under the Constitution had exclusive power to declare war, and that the delegation could enter into no agreement to modify that power in any way. The statement of the delegation then went on to say: “While this is true as to aggressive military operations, it is proper to say, however, that it has been the unbroken practice of the Government of the United States for more than a century to recognize in the President, as the Commander-in-Chief of the constitutional land and naval forces, full power to defend the territory of the United States from invasion, and to exercise at all times and in all places the right of national self-defense.” The delegation announced its willingness to support a proposition favoring a formal declaration of intent to engage in hostilities, providing it were non-mandatory in character.

    The power of the President to wage a defensive war without a formal declaration and without specific authorization by Congress is thus, according to all authority, clearly granted, if not in so many words, at least by implication and the inherent purpose of the Constitution. The questions still remain as to what constitutes a defensive war, and to what extent the President may exercise these powers of defense. They are best answered by some references to history.

    President Washington had appointed General Wayne to succeed St. Clair in command of the western department, and in the spring of 1794 Wayne was ready to move against the Indians. Meanwhile, the British had established a fort at the rapids of the Miami, twenty miles within American territory, near which the Indians took their stand. The action of the British was, of course, entirely unjustified, and technically constituted an invasion of American territory; but it is not clear that any aggressive act of war was intended. Washington recognized that an attempt to dislodge them would probably bring on a conflict, which he was especially anxious to avoid. He seemed, however, to have no doubts as to his power in that regard, for, after weighing carefully the expediency of such action, and without consulting Congress, the following instructions were issued to Wayne by General Knox, the Secretary of War: “If, therefore, in the course of your operations against the Indian enemy, it should become necessary to dislodge the party at the rapids of the Miami, you are hereby authorized, in the name of the President of the United States, to do it.” Fortunately, Wayne was able to defeat the Indians without becoming officially involved with the British, and a conflict was for the time being averted.

    The question of the extent of the President’s powers in the case of a war begun by another nation was more clearly raised in Jefferson’s administration, with regard to Tripoli. Tripoli had declared war on the United States because of the latter’s failure to comply with demands which Jefferson said were “unfounded either in right or in compact.” Jefferson apparently had no doubt of his power to take certain defensive measures without special authority from Congress, for he immediately dispatched a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean, with orders to protect our commerce against attack. A conflict ensued, as a result of which one of the Tripolitan cruisers was captured together with what remained of her crew. But further than to fight in the strictest defense, Jefferson felt that he had no constitutional authority, and so, as he explained in his message to Congress, “Unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense, the vessel, being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew. The Legislature will doubtless consider whether, by authorizing measures of offense also, they will place our force on an equal footing with that of its adversaries. I communicate all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.”

  21. In fairness to wobe, I believe that he was voicing opposition to lesbian judges because he was reluctant to express his true concern for fear of being ridiculed. So it’s time to lay the real issue on the table. Do lesbians possess more empathy than heterosexual women?

  22. Mike A.–

    “So it’s time to lay the real issue on the table. Do lesbians possess more empathy than heterosexual women?”

    I’d have to ask: More empathy for what?

  23. I admit I know little of Ms Kagan. I have heard that of the original three names put forward (all women, I believe) right after Justice Stevens’ retirement annuncement, Ms Kagan is considered the most moderate or the most conservative or simply the most palatable to Republicans of the three. That makes her my third choice.

  24. Mike A.,

    I can’t believe that someone is so stupid to think that a persons sexual orientation would somehow make them a deviant. I guess because I don’t think that it does that I am some sicko deviant for accepting them as a person. I must be one of them.

    I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I will say I don’t care what you do with your sheep (Child Abuse, Rape and Murder excepted) don’t expect me to pay for your counseling. If you like horses instead of women, go for a ride, that is your business.

    I think you get the point. I remember years ago a big time Houston developer was on 60 minutes. He was a drag queen when not designing some major piece of Real Estate. He flamed, he was rich and Republican. Go figure, someones life choices. When the Real Estate market was bottoming out in the 80’s in Houston, his stuff was still rented out at top dollar, while others flat lined or went broke.

  25. My belief is that there is an infinite range of possible sexual identification lying between heterosexuality and homosexuality. We simply have not put all of the scientific pieces together in the puzzle as yet. Therefore, whether they like it or not, people ultimately will have to accept as fact that one does not “choose” one’s sexual orientation any more than one chooses the color of one’s eyes. Those who will continue to resist the truth due to contrary religious beliefs will be their generation’s counterparts to today’s creationists.

  26. My earlier point was that Ms. Kagan’s sexual orientation (and I have no idea what it is) may be fodder for those who wish to argue that homosexual judges are more likely to favor the positions of litigants who have been victims of discrimination or oppression. After all, we can expect that during confirmation proceedings Senate Republicans will continue to promote the myth of objectivity in the process of judging.

  27. Amen, Amen, Amen I say unto thee….

    Did not some doctor many years ago try and change the color of peoples eyes’? I may be mistaken but Mengele comes to mind. so, if this is read in Germany am I guilty of being subversive. I did not see it personally, nor have I seen an affidavit to the fact. I have just read about it and accept it as true.

  28. What does it matter? Is she qualified or not? I would say no but that would be based on my opinion of her basic philosophy not who she shares a bed with.

    Seems simple enough to me. Conservatives better have a better argument than she likes women better than men. That is not even in the ballpark of the realm of ideas.

  29. John A. wrote:

    “The power of the President to wage a defensive war without a formal declaration and without specific authorization by Congress is thus, according to all authority, clearly granted, if not in so many words, at least by implication and the inherent purpose of the Constitution.”
    _________________________________

    I am steadfastly opposed to the authorization of such broad powers granted to one individual in today’s world, especially after living through the abuses of G.W. Bush (I am an old, registered Republican) and now having viewed Mr. Obama’s untrustworthy character (I voted for him).

    Regardless, thank you for your well-reasoned, informative, and interesting reply.

  30. Former Federal LEO,

    I apologize for the confusion. Only the first paragraph of my comment was my own opinion. The additional quoted portion was from Chapter IV “Power of Defense” from the book I recommended.

  31. John A.

    Thank you. Such accidental ‘misplacements’ of attributions easily occur within online fora, especially when the attributer is himself well written.

  32. It says it right in the bible.

    ‘You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is an abomination’

    Oh, so now you’re going to say that you don’t believe in that part or the the conventional interpretation of that part of the bible.

    But that applies only to men because it is specific.

    But according to what I read two women might be ok if it’s within a man woman situation/relationship.

    But 2 women living together as a man and a woman do is just plain weird/abnormal because of all the effort that goes into making believe that its normal/ok.

    So in a way their is that same defiance or intent to continue doing day in and day out that which is totally unnatural/abnormal/weird.

    That being 2 men or 2 women living together as a man and woman do. Not just the sex part but the whole thing.

    On a purely sexual basis it’s the man on man thing that is condemned outright in the OT bible.

    For example it is fine, no problem for a man to have any amount of wives. In a situation like that two women fooling around might be ok, because there is no weird role playing, overdoing it, or a woman acting like a man.

    Because the overall and constant influence of their man/husband keeps what they do within his involvement and/or interest, such as the man seeing them doing it and laughing or joining in. It’s just one big party amongst them, but it always still definitely within a man woman thing.

    A man and his women, who are just being turned on by eachother.

    Ah hah grasshopper you have kicked me and I have responded with the wisdom of the ages.

    And I thank you for that. And you have now been given the truth on this matter.

    Women with women within a mans household or presence might be acceptable as a sensuous addition to everyday life.

    But when woman on woman is seperated unto itself as a lifestyle choice it’s sort of like a copy of the strange unacceptable weirdness of two men doing what only a man and woman should be doing with eachother.

    So with two men it’s the actual physical part that the bible says is an abomination.

    But with two women it’s the making believe that it’s normal or ok to shun men and then to be getting physical with eachother on a regular basis, as if it were a legitimate or normal substitute or alternative for a man woman relationship.

    In other words they’ve carried it too far.

    I bet you’ve never heard it explained quite that way before.

    What do they say in tennis,

    point, set, match!

    In the new testament their is reference to this topic:

    Romans 1:26
    That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;

    27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

    Do you see here it’s talking of men and women going into it in a far off unnatural way, referring to some kind of weird and/or homo activity for the women, and homo activity for the men who have lost interest in the women.

    As opposed to normal man woman relationships.

    Her’s another reference to this topic:

    Deut 22:5
    The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are an abomination unto the LORD.

    Again the importance of a man or a woman not overdoing acting like the other!

    Emphasizing the importance of a man acting like a man and a woman acting like a woman, as nature naturally proscribes.

    In other words don’t be acting weird, stupid, or nonsensical by trying to mess with this aspect of who you are!

    I’m not against gay judges altogether, but not on the federal level, because they rule on politically motivated cases, and their unconventional, weird, abnormal lifestyle might influence their decisions, because they might over sympathize on certain issues that they should be more impartial on.

    And at the federal level we shouldn’t have people who are engaging in such weird abnormal behavior on a daily basis, we wouldn’t want to make believe that it’s normal/acceptable.

    On that level we must set an example so as to teach our youngsters about basic common sense, decency, cleanliness, and right from wrong.

    Civil and criminal courts should be ok for them. But nothing to do with politically motivated cases.

    If you are gay you have been deceived and are living a lie.

    Some researchers have made the hypothesis/claim that there are alot of/way too many unnaturally occurring man made chemicals in our food and environment in general, that we do end up absorbing in one way or another,

    that have cumulative estrogenic affects, thereby pushing alot of suceptible men over the line to gayness, that otherwise might not have gone down that road.

    Don’t let your anger at me cause you to miss out on the really good undeniable parts of this post/reply!

    You’ve helped me to figure all of this out because it only says no man on man in the OT, and I’ve never really had reason to research it so much.

    So woman on woman might be ok if it is done as an activity in a mans home/presence, and not as a lifestyle alternative.

    You should cease and desist, get some serious religeous reading under your belt and maybe some counseling too and someday you’ll get over the mistake/what you’ve done someday!

    Stevie Nicks,

    “When the rain washes you clean you’ll know, you will know, oh oh oh you’ll know oh mmm”

  33. benson,

    My ‘terpretation of that bible quote “‘You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman…” means you shaint tell a lie with a man (say in a beer joint plannin’ a conspiracy) but you cain lie with a woman if’n ya ‘member that other bible quote, “hell hath no fury like a lied with, scorned woman”.

    (I think that last quote is in the Old Testament Book of Proverbs)

  34. Threads within the thread … boggles a poor reader’s mind.

    I’m still studying the discussion between FFLEO and John A. … I usually agree 100% with whatever FFLEO says but John A. is making some real sense … but, once again, FFLEO’s argument has convinced me to change my mind as it regards Elena Kagan … I have moved her to the bottom of my list … I must call Obama and tell him.

  35. benson,

    I’m happy for you … finding so much certainty in one’s chosen faith must make life easy.

    I have known several homosexuals throughout my life … I have worked with them, welcomed them into my family, partied with them, cried with them, mourned with them, given and gotten presents from them, shared secrets and kept secrets from them, shared apartments with them, and fought with them.

    Guess what … they is no difference … none … as human beings, homosexuals and heterosexuals are exactly the same. I’m surprised your god hasn’t let you in on that

  36. Blouise,

    This blawg is an exceptionally informative experience for me and others have changed my mind on various subjects from what I have read herein. In fact, just earlier today, I was unsure of Mr. Liu’s suitability for an appellate judgeship based on his age and supposed lack of experience.

  37. “But according to what I read two women might be ok if it’s within a man woman situation/relationship.

    For example it is fine, no problem for a man to have any amount of wives. In a situation like that two women fooling around might be ok, because there is no weird role playing, overdoing it, or a woman acting like a man.

    Because the overall and constant influence of their man/husband keeps what they do within his involvement and/or interest, such as the man seeing them doing it and laughing or joining in. It’s just one big party amongst them, but it always still definitely within a man woman thing.

    So woman on woman might be ok if it is done as an activity in a mans home/presence, and not as a lifestyle alternative.”
    ****

    Source: Penthouse Forum 22:5, The Gospel According to Bob Guccione

  38. Former Federal LEO

    Blouise,

    This blawg is an exceptionally informative experience for me and others have changed my mind on various subjects from what I have read herein. In fact, just earlier today, I was unsure of Mr. Liu’s suitability for an appellate judgeship based on his age and supposed lack of experience.

    ================================================================

    The information and the learning experience are the two reasons I read this blog … the contributors challenge one to think and to organize one thoughts into a cohesive paragraph (or two, or three …) It is a stimulating and humbling experience.

    FFLEO, Do you think the legislators, the ones actually charged with performing the important duties we discuss, give these nominees any real thought or are they only interested in the bling?

  39. Your being able to get along with them shows that you are a very strong type. The type that would defend the innocent from a bully.

    I also would never agree or go along with a prankster who said, hey lets do something to shake up that gay guy over there, follow me?

    But it does say in the bible that it’s prohibited behavior.

    It is also common sense that it’s weird, abnormal, unclean, and very unheathy.

    I try to follow the bible as close as I can because I feel we must, or else, get it?

    I also find that most of the bible does make common sense. It’s is the user/owners/guide/shop manual/rule-law guide book for the human race.

    So I would never want to hurt in any way a man or woman homo/gay. I would rather defend them from any kind of abuse.

    But I will also always tell it like it is.

    Now listen up, the bibles laws were designed to keep man/woman in an upright/clean/pure state, condidering that they would be increasing there numbers from day to day, etc.

    For example alot of the rules in the bibles purpose is to seperate mans behavior from what animals do.

    The bible has within it the rules/laws that govern the minimum standards that are expected of us to be upright at the minimum level as per our purposed design standards.

    Why then if it’s just common sense as I’ve said then don’t you find being around gays alot too much to handle?

    It’s because you are a woman and have alot of sympathy for people in general.

    Whereas I am a man who reads the bible and would not let anyone persecute or hurt a homo/gay. But I don’t like being around them because it hurts me so much that they are hurting themselves so much, day in and day out, and because if I told them the truth they would not feel at ease around me anyway.

    You are very tolerant. But you also are not heavy into the bible either.

    The key to this whole thing is to tell the truth and the overall effect of too much liberalism in too many places.

    Some might be ok, but too much and the society/culture crumbles.

    And especially to tell the children and teenagers the truth.

    Physical closeness is only normal between a man and a woman.

    Two women touching is something they could figure out for themselves as adults. It might ok in the context of experimenting or when a man is also involved, but not as a substitute for reality.

    I’m telling you with certainty that the laws/rules in the OT bible were designed to keep you healthy, clean, strong, and blessed.

    It’s not your enemy, it’s your freind and guardian.

    Is there anything that’s important that doesn’t come with a set of rules or list of recommended best practices.

    Prople who are homo/gay are so deep in their sin that they can’t get out of it. It’s part of the punishment, that it’s not easy to get out of it.

    But if they realized that we have all been decieved in one way or another to different varying degrees or levels of lower/higher criminal value/guilt.

    They would then be able to realize that what they do is just another form of sin, albeit just about as low as you can go.

    And then just like the very overweight person who one day decides to stop eating for a few days and then gets very serious about what and what amount they will then be eationg from then on, and who succeeds in their quest for a healththy weight.

    So too must a homo/gay do.

    They must be revolted by their own behavior and then just stop doing it cold.

    Then go about cleansing their soul and body, learn how to forgive themselves and somehow get over the defilement that they have brought upon themselves.

    In order to do that you’ll have to go on a very tumultous road of studying the OT and NT bibles.

    You can do it alone, but when other people are there to help you, the guilt part might be easier to deal with because you are reminded that all people are guilty of something, and that there are millions who have made different kinds of mistakes on different or the the same level that you have too.

    It’s a process of admitting your guilt and suffering the shame
    upon reflection.

    You will suffer for awhile or longer as you read the OT and NT bible over and over again and continuously repent for your highly unrecommended sins.

    In time you will be forgiven and you will be a new man/woman.

    And you will be free from the chains of the guilt and be able to proceed as a normal person.

    Because you’ll be able to chart back to what/who tricked you into the mistakes.

    You’ll then realize that the guilt and shame even if you were to blame, is part of the universal shame and guilt shared by all.

    Only then will you be able to forgive yourself, shed the shame almost completely, and consider yourself as normal as one who committed a crime and then paid the full sentence.

    The new day dawns and you are a new whole clean and worthy person again, finally!

    It’s amazing but true.

    The OT alone won’t do it. You need the NT also.

    The key to all of this is found here:

    Mathew 5:18
    For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    Luke 16:17
    But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.

    Matthew 24:35
    Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

    These two passages show that most modern Christians have been highly misled, decieved, and lied to.

    We are still supposed to follow the OT as our users/owners/guide/shop manual/rule-law guide book.

    The NT just helps us to interact with it better and to achieve much better results from both.

    The harsh punishments listed in the OT were designed to keep the race clean and pure. Worthy of the level at which they were designed for. It’s not about being harsh because of lack of sympathy.

    It was about reality. Impure abhorrent behavior defiled a person and lingered on so they had to be eliminated pronto so as not to comtaminate, ruin, and destroy the potentially blessed, but highly infallible, easily corrupted and/or polluted race.

    It’s not our fault.

    It’s just the way it is. We were designed higher than but similar enough to animals that we had to follow a higher code that was written down or spoken.

    To bring us to our proper higher role than the animals who we should not be mistreating by the way.

    As we evolved we developed sympathy, not for the sin, but for the sinner, the person.

    But over time we too have become corrupted by the pleas of the sinners, for us to accept their behavior so that they can be a part of normal society,

    and so as not to make them feel so bad about who they are and what they do.

    As you can see where our liberalism, non-adherence, and ignoring the OT law has led us to.

    Not harrassing homos/gays is ok as long as the truth be told.

    But you see the behavior was considered so bad by the author of the bible that it was written that it should be shut down anywhere it was found so that it would not spread, game over.

    So we are within the letter of the law only if we don’t want to be that harsh on them personally, but we also make it clear to all that it’s weird, abnormal, unclean, unhealthy, unnacceptable behavior, not in any of our best interests, and not appreciated by a/the higher power.

    I am saying to be kind to all people, not to harrass homos/gays and to crack down on anyone who tries to hurt them or get in their space.

    As long as they don’t display it out in the open they should be protected from discrimination in society.

    But people/businesses should also be able to protect themselves from being near or around them if that’s how they feel about it.

    Because of the disturbing, unnatural, biblicly and common sense rules proscribed behavior that they engage in, and the people being all too aware of it.

    You can’t expect all people to be aware of the truth and then want to be around them.

    We must not only hold that it’s; weird, wrong, abnormal, unclean, unhealthy, abomination, and 100% sinful,

    But we must go out of our way to teach that it is 100% sinful, wrong, weird, abnormal, unclean, unhealthy and an abomination to our children, teenagers, and adults!

    So as to undo all of the damage caused by the leftists, liberals, Democrats, and fake, phony, fraud moderate Republicans regarding this subject.

    It is not in our; countries, societies, and cultures best interests to say the least, to be overly liberal and kind on this well pre-defined matter.

    This is what our owners/users/guide/shop manual/rule-law guide book the OT and NT bible says on this subject.

    Whats the point of trying to mess with what is right and true and will always be that way?

    Mathew 5:18
    For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    Luke 16:17
    But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.

    Matthew 24:35
    Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

    Leviticus 18:22
    You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is an abomination.

    In the OT bible it carries the highest penalty.

    In our modern civil society it should at least still carry adequate teaching for prevention and the heavy burden of moral guilt for those associated with the proscribed behavior.

    Duet 22:5
    The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a womans garment: for all that do so are an abomination unto the LORD.

    For all those looking for a way to deny the truth and to find an in to ridicule this lesson in basic common decency and morality, that might not include pants, shirts, or any clothes that are designed for women.

    It’s meaning was to say that a woman or man should not wear clothing that was geared for a man if you were a woman and vice versa.

    Romans 1:26
    That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;

    27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

    men with men committing indecent acts
    and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

    He who has ears let him hear!

  40. I am in favour of more of my kind in the power. You will have better treatment, because we are aware of the looks, stares and general displeasure of people opposed to US because of my life choices.

    I have been with the same mate for 15 years. We prefer monogamy as well. You have the misogynistic that are married that continue with serial dating.

    All we ask for it to be treated as a fellow human being, is that too much to ask? For some it is. If your God is a god of fear and damnation, you haven’t much of a God.

  41. maybe you’re right, our country should start to go more towards the center-right.

    Put into the highest court in the land an experienced highly qualified politically middle of the road judge who is at least married or also has a family, to help restore hope for American families and all of it’s people!

  42. You can live as you please and we will defend your right to be left alone.

    Anyone who would try to do you harm is not following the bible and they will have to pay for the error of their ways.

    So the main disagreement we have is on whether the bible is right or not on this subject.

    One way to have helped this problem is if the homo/gays came up with their own official document defending their case in every instance and claim against them that is found in the bible.

    Then to be fair that document and a similarly compiled document with the bible based viewpoint should alway be presented together, whenever the subject is discussed in a publicly funded venue.

    Neither should ever be taught at any kind of publicly event/meeting without the other documents presense.

    These two documents would be under review just for somew level of guidlined accuracy purposes, ie quality control.

    Over time the truth would rise to the top in the society as a whole.

    This way their would be alot less misinformation floating around and clouding up the whole issue.

    The 2 issues addressed are your being protected from bullies and the non-desemination of inaccurate/false information on the nuetrality or merits of homo/gay activity/lifestyle.

    That being a fair statement because the 2 documents produced would be the tool for all preople to go by,

    when judging for themself and their families whether such deseminated information was true or not.

    In other word this debate really should be in the public arena and widely debated amongst highly qualified biblical and secular scholars.

    To say that fear, discipline and reproach are not normal is not normal.

    Are you saying that from on high and parents should say as their rules that anything goes.

    And if you do something really bad that you were warned not to do for the good of yourself and the whole family-nation that we’re only going to put you down a little bit for doing that.

    C’mon get real!

    Don’t we have all kinds of/a full range of/level of/1000’s of laws/rules/regulations/penalties on the books throughout the land?

    Are you saying that their should be no moral code/rules/laws for peoples actions/behavior in addition to that?

    Then why have any religeon at all if the state is the only body who has a say on what’s right, wrong, and any penalties that can be meted out for engaging in the wrong parts.

    In our society religeon can only be practiced and preached within the law of the land.

    But it does have wide and heavy influence on peoples beliefs and attitudes.

    So it ends up being very intertwined in their political outlook/views too.

    So consider yourself lucky or actually unlucky for that matter that homo/gayness is not against secular law in most countries.

    But you still haven’t even come close to proving the bible wrong on this subject.

    And it’s moronicly stupid, malpractical, negligent, deceitful, deceptive, corrupt, criminal, and self destructive for the society, culture, and people as a whole to let the big lie that homo/gayness is ok in any way.

    To be taught in any publicly funded venue, event, gathering, or meeting or any left wing/liberal influenced former mainstream religeous school gathering, or meeting.

    Without the complete opposition biblical view to be presented at the same time, so as not to misinform anyone who has not fully heard both sides of the argument on an equal basis.

  43. Your description of what or who should be a judge just described/profiled a qualification for a pedophile. Why do they have to be married, with a family, to even be considered?

  44. maybe you’re right, our country should start to go more towards the center-right.

    Put into the highest court in the land an experienced highly qualified politically middle of the road judge who is at least married or also has a family, to help restore hope for American families and all of it’s people!

    ————————————————–

    What part of this statement did you derive that from, it’s nowhere to be found in there.?

    I said highly experienced and qualified. Married with a family just as a good example for our people in general, couldn’t hurt, might help alot!

    What’s your obsession with being single?

  45. I have been with the same mate for 15 years. We prefer monogamy as well. You have the misogynistic that are married that continue with serial dating.

    All we ask for it to be treated as a fellow human being, is that too much to ask? For some it is. If your God is a god of fear and damnation, you haven’t much of a God.

    ——————————

    You mean there are different ones to choose from?

    Is there not just one?

    The same one who is yours too, whether you are disilusioned by his; laws/rules/whether he is ok with what you do or not.

    And you are now the judge of him, because you don’t like his laws/rules?

  46. Gays and Lesbians are nothing more than unnatural creatures. And as we all know, unnatural creatures don’t deserve a position of that caliber.

  47. I don’t care about Kagan’s sexual preferences. However, if the rumor is true, it would make me wonder if she has a hidden agenda to advance issues that I find morally objectionable.

    I’m sick of reading about people who say her sexual orientation does not matter because it does not impact her performance as a Supreme. That is just plain garbage.

    Frankly, it is the most important factor to consider if she should be appointed. Teddy and the liberals rejected Judge Bork, a well qualified candidate, and now, if the rumor is true, it is time the conservatives “Borked” Kagan.

Comments are closed.