Janna Darnelle is a mother whose ex-husband destroyed their marriage because he became homosexual. Rivka Edelman grew up as the the daughter of a lesbian couple. Edleman describes how Darnelle was viciously harassed for criticizing the gay agenda:
Janna Darnelle’s recent Public Discourse essay, “Breaking the Silence: Redefining Marriage Hurts Women Like Me—and Our Children,” reveals what is behind the heartwarming pictures of gay families from a mother’s point of view. As someone who was raised by a lesbian mother, I would like to weigh in. I will comment not only as a former child who was once all smiles in those pictures, but also as an academic, a woman, a mother, and a feminist.
Darnelle’s essay struck a nerve and went viral. It is not surprising that, within a few hours, LGBT activists had taken up arms against her. Keyboard warriors manned the ramparts. Soon, the usual thugs took up their clubs and pitchforks.
For those of you who avoid the subterranean landscape of online same-sex parenting debates, it is useful to be introduced to Scott “Rose” Rosenzweig, a virulently misogynistic LGBT activist. As soon as Darnelle’s essay was published, Rose went into action, darting from the blog Good As You to other sites in an effort to destroy her personally. . . . Darnelle’s ex-husband even weighed in. A helpful fellow, he left her personal information in the comments section of several activists’ blogs, including her full legal name. . . .
Many families headed by gay male couples are built upon exploitation of women. Practically speaking, Scott Rose and his compatriots have formed a men’s rights group that seeks to use women as breeders. These egg donors and surrogate mothers supply infants for a bustling market full of same-sex couples, for whom reproduction is naturally and biologically impossible.
In the name of equality, groups such as GLAAD (which employs Jeremy Hooper as a consultant) have pushed through gender identity laws that have legally erased women. The term “woman” now legally can refer to the way that a man chooses to identify himself. Once women have been erased legally as a group and as individuals, it is not hard to erase “mothers.” This lends support to the practice of using one woman’s eggs and another woman’s womb to supply children for gay male couples, obscuring the concept of motherhood and making it seem dispensable.
Having spent months researching radical feminism, permit me to say that this idea of “erasure” will resonate very strongly with radical feminists like Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffreys who have spent decades criticizing both surrogate motherhood (women as babymakers for hire) and transgenderism (whereby men appropriate the female identity for their own perverse purposes). Raymond and Jeffreys (and other radical lesbians like Julie Bindel and Cathy Brennan) are certainly no friends of the traditional family. However, they also refuse to be pushed around by men, including gay men hiring rent-a-wombs to provide themselves with trophy babies and perverted heterosexual men who want to be “translesbians.”
All of which is to say that Rivka Edelman and Janna Darnelle should have support from hard-core feminists in taking on gay hatemongers like Scott Rosenzweig. Whether they’ll get that support or not remains to be seen. Rivka Edelman has been targeted now:
Since my essay was published, there have been hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts calling me a liar or trying to shame, discredit, intimidate, and threaten me. . . . People I do not know have gone directly after my family and my job. They have posted information, mis-information, accusations, and threats against me. . . .
As with other adults who have come forward to criticize their childhood with gay parents, I am framed as a bigot or a liar or in some other way “unreliable.” In this flip-flop, a children’s rights activist and feminist is called “anti-gay” and a “bigot.”
Jeremy Hooper, Mr. Rose, and a gang of the allies who congregate and exchange information on Hooper’s blog, “Good As You,” are concerned about an amicus curiae brief I wrote in the Texas case regarding same-sex marriage (Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals). Along with three other adults who were raised by same-sex couples, I came forward to push back against the assertion that children have no disadvantages when raised by same-sex couples. . . .
Once “activists” connected my Public Discourse piece of October 2, to the Texas brief, they went full throttle. Jeremy Hooper, the blogger at Good as You, uses his blog as a platform to harass, bully, and silence with impunity. Hooper published comments from his readers and thereby shared our home address and my daughter’s private information. They contacted other family members looking for information. They are not picky; true or made up assertions work for them equally. . . .
This cautionary tale should travel far and wide: a family threatened, people’s privacy invaded, harassment, threats, bullying, unwanted contact, abusive mischaracterization, incurred financial hardship.
These men may have revealed much more about themselves and the movement than they realize and damaged their credibility.
“I hope you are smart enough to understand that consent is a necessary factor here.”
That’s twice that you insulted my intelligence through condescension. It only goes to show your losing the argument.
I never even broached rape. You seem to think that rape includes being sweet talked or manipulated into taking an action. It doesn’t. What I’m talking about is teaching homosexuality as a normal behavior (which it isn’t, as any human biology and anatomy text book reveals) but then trying to wall it off as only to be practiced by homosexuals who are “born” as such. Again, if it isn’t a “bad thing” who cares if it is taught, or encouraged? How do you determine who is “born gay” or chooses it, for whatever reason? How do you even know it is a “born trait”?
“Its not a choice, it’s just a very confusing matter.” So how could the US federal court system have it all figured out to the point of lecturing the masses and compelling states on the matter? In order for a sexual orientation to obtain any type of legal protection, what it is and what causes it must first be determined, otherwise the pool of protected persons is too broad to enforce. Your own statements indicate that you don’t know what causes homosexuality. If neither you or I are geneticists, then a judge sure as hell isn’t either. So you don’t know if it is a natural trait, or a disorder, or a disability, or an illness, or a deviant conduct, etc., etc. If strictly practiced, it naturally forecloses sexual reproduction, making it an evolutionary dead end. That alone provides that it can not and should not obtain legal status or protection until it conclusively proves its origins enough to define its class. It is no coincidence that the “cause” hasn’t been found or even pushed because homosexual advocates know that they are getting their benefits without having to show it. Yet any group asking for benefits/rights/protections bears that burden of proof, and the homosexuals have shifted it unjustifiably without being called on it.
So a conversion therapy that turns gays straight is always an evil, but straights turning gay is ALWAYS a matter of personal choice, and should be applauded. You further bootstrap it by saying “they were always gay, even if they didn’t know it, living a lie”. Funny how anything that leads to homosexuality gets a thumbs up, but anything that leads away from it is discredited.
“Encouraging others to act against their character/demeanor. Encouraging a
straight kid to try homosexuality is wrong because they are not gay.
Just like encouraging a gay kid to be straight is wrong, because they
are not straight.” Are you serious? People are encouraged to act against their character all the time. Criminals are reformed, students are taught, people enter into disciplines to learn new methods of behaving or acting, laws are passed to mold conduct. You are acting like orientation is akin to race – it isn’t. “Encouraging” acts isn’t a problem – it isn’t brainwashing and it isn’t abuse. Hell, if you think it is, tell that to the lesbian couple mentioned on the other post’s comments that are having their (now) 11 year old sex re-assigned. Like that child can honestly make such a life altering decision with full consent at that age. I’m SURE his lesbian mothers had NO hand in encouraging that decision. I mean, what are the odds that lesbians would have a son that decides he’s really a girl at age 8?
“But to your mind it sounds like you are saying “open about sexual
activity” meaning be open to all types of sexual preference: gay,
straight, transgender, whatever.” My introduction to college, Day One, was a campus full of gay pride advertisements on damn near every pole and tree on campus encouraging people to come to their get-togethers to “experiment”. For someone who was always told homosexuality was a “born trait”, that really woke me up to what was going on. It might as well have been a recruitment poster with Uncle Sam in a rainbow boa.
“If that is the case, are you really incapable of understanding that
using words like “deviant, maladjusted, wrong” are all words based on
opinion and not fact, right? There is no Codex of Human Life that then would prove that any act in life is inherently deviant, maladjusted, or wrong.” Even when referring to murder, rape, pedophilia, theft, abuse, arson, war, etc. etc.? That statement is absurd on its face. Spoken like a true moral relativist incapable of discriminating between beneficial, positive conduct and deviant, abnormal conduct. Spoken like someone desperate to justify their own conduct that they know in their heart of hearts isn’t normal. What better way to solve that problem than by eschewing normalcy? The problem with moral relativism is that you never have any moral authority for your own opinion, and thus undermine it, because you hold to no shared morality, no standard, and thus, can’t say your opinion is any better than mine. And that statement alone means any continued debate with you is utterly wasted, as given that attitude, your own opinion or principles could change at a moment’s notice, since there is no rulebook, no code, no standard to determine objective right from wrong.
“That’s twice that you insulted my intelligence through condescension”
It’s because I can’t tell if you are trolling or are really this dull. You make arguments that are easily defeated BUT it feels entirely like you mean what you are talking about.
Again, you seem sincere about our dialogue, so I want to continue. But beyond the quote I cited for above, I did not read another single word you wrote.
You need to learn to be brief. If you have an ocean worth of ideas and arguments, then I am entirely willing to go through them with you. It’s just resembles chaos as opposed to order, to just list a 7-9 paragraph long statement.
Pick 1 or 2 arguments you would like to focus on for now and we can visit your other arguments later. (keep in mind that you might feel compelled to reply “i already presented my arguments”, of this is true, it still touches the problem at hand, which is that you don’t know how to reach your audience. IF you have true arguments they are completely lost in the huge vast amount of what you post. Being brief is necessary to convey ideas and emotions.) At this point I want to hear what you have to say, and I want o hear all of it, I just cant understand all of it when you are saying it all at once.
The insane part of the human race (e.g. you and those like you) have not grown. You’ve simply descended into depravity.
For the last time, all you’ve done is make a raw assetion. You’ve not proven homosexuality is normal. In that you’ve set yourself against the position the human race has held for millennia. Citing, and twisting something the dictionary says, then ignoring what it says, is not proof.
Your post shows you are utterly insane. The effects of divorce are widespread throughout society. It also shows you are a nihilist.
Yeppers! A nihilist troll.
You’re hilarious. You come here and troll, make bald assertions, say they are “proof” then make more bald assertions, then say I’m rambling.
Your last posts are not merely rambling with bald assertions, that have already been long discredited, you then whine that those that give you a chance to completely unmask your nihilism and sociopathic ways are “rambling.”
You’re simply projecting. Go peddle your depravity elsewhere.
“”Then this applies to ALL divorces everywhere.””
No, when two people mutually decide to end the marriage (which is how most marriages end), that is different than one person breaking their vow.
“”Her writing is one huge biased smear campaign. All she does is finger point her husband””
You have no basis to determine whether her finger pointing and smearing were justified. Her husband might come out and say she is exactly right. You are weighing in on her relationship with her husband without hearing from her husband. You are the one who is telling everyone they can’t judge her relationship with her Husband, as far as who the greatest wrongdoer in the relationship is, by what the wife says. Well, you can’t judge her either. He might validate everything she says. Except you don’t like her laying the blame of their failed marriage at the feet of his homosexual inclinations.
“”That is a fact but that is also not a point towards anything.””
You are veering into “the sky is not blue it is green” territory. The fact that homosexual sexual activity does not lead to procreation does point to homosexual pairings as a failed evolutionary path. Because a homosexual pairing can have no progeny to pass the DNA to. Evolution stops when a homosexual pairing occurs. That is a failure under evolutionary theory.
“”Or science. Evolution and abiogenesis are two separate things.””
Nontheistic (or atheistic, or for that matter theistic) evolution has to start somewhere. From a nontheistic worldview it starts with abiogenesis. There has to be something from which life forms evolve. Abiogenesis is the materialistic explanation for how it all began. (I guess I am explaining your own worldview to you, because you don’t realize it yourself). Except abiogenesis has gaps that can’t be explained, including the chirality problem. Yet you put your faith in it that somehow everything started, and then began to evolve. If you say that abiogenesis is not the beginning point for evolution from a materialistic worldview, then how do you explain where your vaunted single-celled organisms came from?
I completely oppose redefining marriage (eg, same sex “marriage”), but any clear thinking adult should be able to see that Janna is emotionally imbalanced.
“Janna Darnelle is a woman whose ex-husband destroyed their marriage because he became homosexual.”
I doubt Janna’s husband “became” homosexual in his 30s or 40s. He obviously married her under false pretenses. If this story makes it clear to more people that closeted homosexuals dupe heterosexuals into marriage, then that’s good – it will take away some of the undeserved “sainted” status that homosexuals currently enjoy in the popular culture.
That said, Janna does seem like an emotionally imbalanced person (which her husband no doubt took advantage of). Her ex is clearly an inappropriate, abusive creep – which had to be part of his personality long before he came out of the closet – and she’s still angry that he left her. Any normal woman, while initially feeling hurt, betrayed, humiliated, etc, would ultimately be relieved to have this disgusting person out of her life and acknowledge that her “marriage” was a sham.
I oppose redefining marriage absolutely and unapologetically, but Janna vindicates nothing for the marriage movement. If she’s somehow still upset that this horrible person left her, she should be angry about our easy divorce laws, which is what really made all this possible. Even if same sex “marriage” were not recognized anywhere, her ex still could have used the kids as props in a commitment ceremony or elsewhere.
“The fact that homosexual sexual activity does not lead to procreation does point to homosexual pairings as a failed evolutionary path.”
No it doesn’t, it just means it’s a different path. The act of procreation is not a point for or against anything about homosexuality. You’re essentially just narrating life at this point. Yea 2 men having sex can’t procreate…..and?
2 infertile straight people can’t procreate either. I guess being straight is a failed evolutionary path.
Good thing none of this has to deal with marriage though.
“No, when two people mutually decide to end the marriage (which is how most marriages end), that is different than one person breaking their vow.”
No it is not. Even if divorce is amicable, both people are still breaking their vows. The vows of marriage are for life and they are never to be broken.
“Well, you can’t judge her either.”
I can judge her own character based on her own writing though. It is aggressive, it’s finger pointing, and she is the complete victim her. Her writing is nothing more than biased garbage.
You keep saying I can’t judge her without hearing her husband out, thats incorrect. I can’t judge THEIR RELATIONSHIP without hearing her husbands side of the story. But hearing her side of the story, I can judge her.
. . . .and . . its a failed path from an evolutionary perspective. Because if early man had only engaged in homosexual conduct, there would be no humans now. Here don’t argue with me, argue with Professor Chris Stringer, head of the Natural History Museum:
(Excerpt taken from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jun/19/human-evolution-africa-ancestors-stringer)
“Linnaeus said of Homo sapiens “know thyself”. Knowing ourselves means a recognition that becoming modern is the path we perceive when looking back on our own evolutionary history. That history seems special to us, of course, because we owe our very existence to it. Those figures of human species (usually males, who become increasingly hairless and light-skinned) marching boldly across the page have illustrated our evolution in many popular articles, but they have wrongly enshrined the view that evolution was simply a progression leading to us, its pinnacle and final achievement.
Nothing could be further from the truth. There were plenty of other paths[e.g., a homosexual path] that could have been taken; many would have led to no humans at all [e.g. a homosexual path], others to extinction[e.g. a homosexual path] and yet others to a different version of “modernity”. We can inhabit only one version of being human – the only version that survives today – but what is fascinating is that palaeoanthropology shows us those other paths to becoming human, their successes and their eventual demise, whether through failure or just sheer bad luck.
Sometimes the difference between failure and success in evolution is a narrow one.”
I added the [e.g., a homosexual path]. Look if you want to engage in homosexual activity, it’s a free world, go ahead, but looking through evolution colored glasses, homosexuality is not just a different path, it is an end of the game path for humanity.
By the way, I noticed you did not answer my question — how do you explain where your vaunted single-celled organisms came from?
“. . . .and . . its a failed path from an evolutionary perspective.”
It’s not a failed path, its just a different path.
“Because if early man had only engaged in homosexual conduct, there would be no humans now.”
This is correct, but it’s irrelevant. Humans cannot just choose to be attracted to what they want. So yes, if everyone stopped procreating then our species would die out, but that is not a reality that will ever happen.
“but looking through evolution colored glasses, homosexuality is not just a different path, it is an end of the game path for humanity.”
It is not. Homosexuals can factually procreate. If I find a willing surrogate then she will take my sperm, carry it for 9 months and birth a child. Part my DNA, part hers. That is procreation. It can be accomplished whether straight or gay.
“By the way, I noticed you did not answer my question — how do you explain where your vaunted single-celled organisms came from?”
Strings of self-replicating RNA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
There are a 1138 rights and benefits that come with marriage and the US Supreme court has already ruled marriage is a civil right.
The fact you can’t comprehend that pedo and beastiality bring harm to a child or an animal is hilarious and the fact that neither can consent shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.
That’s when 28 U.S. Code 144 will come into effect.
This is not responsive to my last post.
Actually it is but of course I figured you wouldn’t get it.
Oh, you mean you ignored the first part of my post, where I asked for clarification? That means that I correctly interpreted what you meant by your initial post?
Ok, then, I want to ask you — Do you believe that states have the police power to limit who gets these benefits of marriage, or do you believe that the 14th amendment trumps states’ police power, anda persone should be able to marry another person he or she loves?
“I would like to weigh in” A widely used phrase that is obscene. Its referent is from the lower orders of Rome when a man would enter a house or temple and, literally, weigh his reproductive organs on a scales to indicate the degree of his virility.
There is also “making [his/her] mark,” which of course, refers to a dog or cat urinating to make their territory. More low-life. Not our language.
There is some debate that the “gay uncle” may serve a survival function for his partial progeny, from a genetic perspective, due to having excess time, attention, and material resources to contribute to child rearing. A MGTOW “bachelor uncle” would serve the same function.
The homosexuals could have straight sex outside of their pairing (whether before, after or during). That would provide an alternate natural explanation.
Just sayin’.
That is just tragic that you see it that way. Before Divorce Corp., the whole point of marriage was to direct the school of fish to raise their spawn to be the new school, which was worth it, since it’s a bad metaphor and humans take a lot more training.
I can grant you one thing, I am disgusted by divorce. What kind of vow is “until I change my mind, and then you still have to pay me for the rest of my life.”
I believe we should get rid of no-fault divorce. Whether you think marriage is good or bad, you should be able to agree that it’s bad to have it half-assed.
Nice twist on words, you left out the part consenting adults that don’t bring harm to anything. Under the Due Process Clause, no state can deprive its citizens of life, liberty or property (which has been interpreted to include rights and freedoms) without due process of law. This means states cannot deprive their citizens of rights contained in, guaranteed by or extending from the U.S. Constitution. Under the Equal Protection Clause, a state must provide equal protection under the law to all persons within its jurisdiction. This means that if a state enacts a law that has an adverse impact on one group of people, it may not do so arbitrarily and there must exist a compelling need for the law to be enacted. There is no legal argument against same-sex marriage without relying upon religious doctrine which is inadmissible. The US Supreme Court has ruled 14 times that marriage is a right.
So the state then has no power to prevent cousins from marrying, or brother and sister from marrying. Because those groups of people are not receiving equal protection, if they want to marry? Or, the state has no power to prevent polygamous marriages. What about their equal rights. Either the state has the police power to establish what relationships get to receive state sanction (and it does under any rational construction of the Constitution, as recently articulated by the Judge in Puerto Rico) or it doesn’t, and everyone has the “right” to get married.
Also, religious doctrine has nothing to do with comprehensive union, which is a philosophical concept that goes back to the Greeks. No kind of gay sex can accomplish comprehensive union which includes the “generative act” — coitus. That is why throughout the history of US matrimonial law, consummation of a marriage only took place through sexual intercourse, not through oral sex, sodomy, or anything else.
True, but the relationship would have no evolutionary purpose, which I would argue makes the relationship aberrant, from an evolutionary perspective.
Wow you really don’t understand how the constitution works in this country nor the US Supreme Court. Marriage was never defined the way you are trying to define it but it made for a hilarious read. As for your other argument incest and polygamy are illegal, being gay is not.
Kalcen, what a sexist, misogynist comment.
A “gift” doesn’t have to be paid for. A “gift” doesn’t have to come from poorly paid 3rd-world women of color.
It’s not a gift–it’s a purchase.
It’s a business. How many women are being surrogates for free, out of love?
“The only reason APA quit listing homosexuality as the mental illness it is was politics pure and simple”
There is no proof of this matter
Yes there is:
http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/
Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San
Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out
of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA
directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In
1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be
declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but
they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses
by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed
by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed
in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.
There was no new research that changed the DSM IV designation of homosexuality. It was a reaction to political protest.
You do realize that none of that is proof that it is a “political” matter. All you did was copy and paste a portion of our history. Not to mention that you are copying/pasting, essentially, from a blog.
“How many women are being surrogates for free, out of love?”
Carrying a child and it being a free task is not a requirement for it be done out of love.
It’s not sexist or misogynist at all, it’s just accurate. She is bitching, finger pointing, and villanizing gay people because her husband left her. Boo hoo, no one cares.
Aahh, we finally got to bedrock. You are a drone liberal and you gave a classic drone liberal response. When you don’t want to give an answer, you engage in answer avoidance, such as insulting the other person. That is what you did when you say basically I’m an idiot and I don’t know how the constitution works.
I have practiced divorce law for the past 18 years. I know what I’m talking about. Are you going to answer my question or spew some more insults?
I’m going to let you in on a little secret, at least it’s a secret for you, not for everyone else. Homosexual sex used to be illegal too, and those laws were upheld in a Supreme Court case called “Bowers v. Hardwick”, a 1986 case.
Then a case came along in 2003, called Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court magically changed its mind and decided that states don’t have the police power to declare homosexual sex illegal, because the laws invaded into the privacy of consenting adults.
So, I’ll back it up a step, and ask you about sex now and not marriage, because you opened the door, and ask you why consenting homosexuals who want to have sex should be able to, but consenting related people should not?
Then you can answer the question about why homosexuals who love each other should be able to get married, but not polygamous family units, for instance — because from your point of view the state should not have the police power to declare what relationships can be sanctioned by the state.
“”Strings of self-replicating RNA””
The theory of how these strings of self-replicating RNA came into being is called “abiogenesis” That word is even mentioned in your link. So you do believe in the atheistic creation myth. You have no business criticizing me for believing in God; you exercise faith too.
“So you do believe in the atheistic creation myth. “
It’s not a ‘myth’ if it factually has happened. Do you also think it is a myth that the sun will rises in the east and sets in the west?
“You have no business criticizing me for believing in God; you exercise faith too.”
Ah, thats the difference you don’t understand. Self-replicating RNA is something we can see, observe, track, record. Your god, however, has no proof of existence.
Kalcen, there is no proof that nucleotides floating around in the water polymerized into self-replicating RNA. That THEORY cannot be replicated in the laboratory, because of the chirality problem. The Miller-Urey experiment always produced a racemic mix of nucleotides.
There is no proven, materialistic explanation for life arising out of primordial goo, only theories. Or maybe I need to back this up and have you explain where you think the self-replicating RNA came from?
You are putting your faith in unproven theories. No different than my putting my faith in God, but I have plenty of proof that God exists. You make the choice to not validate it though.
Furthermore, the only way you can know that God does not exist is if you are omniciscient. You are not arguing that you know everything are you?
“Kalcen, there is no proof that nucleotides floating around in the water polymerized into self-replicating RNA.”
Yes there is. Yourself, myself, and all the living things around us are scientific proof that we all originated from self-replicating rna.
“There is no proven, materialistic explanation for life arising out of primordial goo, only theories.”
Factually incorrect. All life originated from single celled organisms, which originated from self-replicating rna.
“but I have plenty of proof that God exists. You make the choice to not validate it though.”
In this entire discussion thread you have not given any evidence that proves gods existence.
Ok, then tell me where self-replicating RNA came from.
“”Yes there is. Yourself, myself, and all the living things around us are scientific proof that we all originated from self-replicating rna””
That is circular logic. Where did self-replicating RNA come from?
I get what your end goal is here. If i was to say that RNA came from activation of sulfur in the air, hot gases, water, and thunder that ignited it….you’ll then say “well where did sulfur or hot gases comes from” and I’ll say “earth” and then you’ll say “where did earth come from”.
So lets just get to the first instance of all this: the big bang. Of which you’ll say there is no proof that that event ever occurred, of which is correct. However the large hadron collider proves that an event like the big bang is indeed probable.
Still no proof of your god though.
Are you going to answer where you think self-replicating RNA came from or not?
I already told you, the activation of cell life from sulfur, hot gases, water, and electrical activation from thunder.
I’ve already played out this whole conversation already. Then you’ll ask where did sulfur come from, I’ll say “earth” then you’ll ask where did earth come from and I’ll say the big bang. Then you’ll say that there is no evidence that the big bang ever actually occured. Then i’ll agree but also point out to you that the hadron collider proves that the big bang is an even that is probable.
Still no proof that your god exists.
No I really don’t care about the big bang etc, at this point. Actually I think the big bang could be how God created the physical universe.
I just wanted you to admit that you believe in abiogenesis, that life came from what the Miller-Urey experiment tried to recreate, although I think you mean “lightning” not “thunder.” See I could score a cheap point off your accidental misuse of the word thunder. I know what you meant. I’m not interested in scoring cheap points. I just want you to be intellectually honest in recognizing that there is no scientific proof of the theory of abiogenesis. Science only has unproven theories about the polymerization of nucleotides into self-replicating RNA. That is why crackpot theories are coming out now, like RNA coming in on comets, because science can’t explain how it would arise on earth.
We finally got down to bedrock. You are a liberal drone and you gave a classic
liberal drone avoidance response, which liberals give when they do not want to
answer a question or engage in a substantive dialogue – you launched insults.
I have been practicing divorce law for 18 years. I know what I am talking about, what comes to
the question of consummation of a marriage.
Are you going to respond to the question I posed in my previous comment
or not?
By the way, I will let you in on a little secret that you
apparently do not know, but most people do– homosexual sex also used to be
illegal. In 1986, the Supreme Court even
pronounced an opinion in a case, Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld states’
police power to determine what sexual relationships were illegal under the law.
That remained the law of the land until the 2003 case
Lawrence v. Texas, when the Supreme Court magically found that it was wrong in
Bowers, and decided that states don’t have said police power, because
consenting adults have a right to privacy over sexual matters that states don’t
have the right to intrude upon. Your
point about the illegality of incest begs another question – why should two
consenting adults who are related not be able to engage in sexual conduct,
regardless of their blood relationship? Do
you advocate the state having the power to interfere with such relationships?
If you do, then you advocate for the same police power of
states to establish which relationships should have the official sanction of
the state.
I spent the morning reading the ‘Sex Trouble’ posts on radical feminism and now the plight of women like Janna Darnelle and Rikva Edelman and their families. And I can’t help but feel confused. Radical feminist lesbians want to do away with men, but radical gay activists want to do away with women. Can someone please explain this to me?
[…] The Gay Hate Machine Batshit Crazy News That Mr. G Guy […]
Double posted because disqus was messed up. I thought I lost my original post, which is below