It makes front page news when conservative elected officials are accused of selling-out to monolithic corporate lobbies like “Big Oil” or “Big Tobacco.” Yet the media rarely take notice when liberal politicians toe the line for extreme ideological special interests.
Case in point: Within minutes after swearing in, President Obama had the White House web site updated to declare his unconditional support for every demand of the politically powerful and very well-funded homosexual lobby (a.k.a., “Big Homo ”). By announcing to the world his pro-“gay” agenda, Obama has thrown gasoline on smoldering culture war embers, generating a firestorm of controversy.
But amid the heated national debate over both religious liberty versus newfangled “gay rights” and the sanctity of natural marriage versus so-called “same-sex marriage,” something occurred to me. Either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality – period.
63 comments
"Big Homo"? BWAHAHAHA. I'm sorry, that's just too fucking funny.
By the way, your logic sucks.
"But amid the heated national debate over both religious liberty versus newfangled 'gay rights' (...)"
Is it just me, or does it also get a bigger laugh from the rest of you when someone uses the word "newfangled" in serious conversation, than when s/he uses it when telling a joke?
Your firestorm of controversy is as real as your god. You are a tool for allowing politicians to use your non-issue to mask the real and immediate problems of this country.
And, yeah, Big Homo is going to get you, dipshit.
I consider the term "morality" to be a loaded phrase, since it's laden with religious connotations. What one religion might consider moral, another might consider immoral, so I choose to talk about what is ethical in terms of sex.
It's unethical to rape someone.
I could go on, but that's a reasonable start....
"Either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality period."
Repeat after me:
INFORMED CONSENT.
I'll break it down if that'll make it easier:
IN-FORMED CON-SENT.
That's all it takes to determine if a particular sexual act is ethically justified. If everyone participating has given informed consent, it is acceptable. If anyone involved has not, it is immoral. THAT'S IT.
Apples and oranges, genius.
Obama supports gay rights because it's a human rights issue. He is a former constitutional law professor, so he cares about such trifling things as the equal protection clause. There is no comparison between a large coprporation which pays off politicians to increase its profits, and a minority group that is asking that they be upgraded to full citizens rather than second-class. One is a pay-off for profit, the other is about constitutional rights. Do you need charts and pictures?
get over yourself matt, you will not win this, its too late.
"“Big Oil” or “Big Tobacco.”"
"homosexual lobby"
You seriously are not comparing the two here?
extreme ideological special interests.
natural marriage
Either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality period.
"Within minutes after swearing in, President Obama had the White House web site updated to declare his unconditional support for every demand of the politically powerful and very well-funded homosexual lobby"
I think you are a fucking liar, oh yea and a fucking racist.
"Yet the media rarely take notice when liberal politicians toe the line for extreme ideological special interests."
Yeah. I call bullshit on this. Especially with the controversy now with some of Obama's apointees.
Consenting adults is now immoral? How so? I mean it isn't like they are Catholic priests going after children.
"Either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality period."
Logic fail, false dichotomy.
[Yet the media rarely take notice when liberal politicians toe the line for extreme ideological special interests.]
Are you serious? Does the phrase "Don't ask, don't tell" mean anything to you?
[the politically powerful and very well-funded homosexual lobby (a.k.a., “Big Homo”).]
You have GOT to be joking.
[...amid the heated national debate over both religious liberty versus newfangled “gay rights”...]
How does giving somebody else rights equal to your own infringe on your freedom of religion?
[...and the sanctity of natural marriage versus so-called “same-sex marriage,”...]
I see that you've conveniently overlooked divorce as a threat to the so-called sanctity of marriage.
[Either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality period.]
False dichotomy. Period.
Your logic isn't just warped, Matt. It's bent.
"Yet the media rarely take notice when liberal politicians toe the line for extreme ideological special interests."
A) No.
"By announcing to the world his pro-“gay” agenda, Obama has thrown gasoline on smoldering culture war embers, generating a firestorm of controversy."
Yeah, we all know Matt Barber just wishes we could let the controversy die. You know, by giving Matt what his side wants.
"Either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality period."
Why?
Mudak has explained immoral sexual acts better than I could ever hope to, so I'm going to stick to making fun of "Big Homo."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! BIG HOMO? Freudian slip, perhaps?
Ok, more research:
1.) You can find a picture of the nice matt barber at this link: http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/02/matt-barber-the-conservative-movements-liability-in-waiting.html
2.) You can also read quite a few of his statements on this site. But nothing is as funny as his "Big Homo" statement, the rest is rather depressing verbal gay bashing of varying degree.
3.) He was Director of Cultural and Social Policy for the "Concerned Womens of America". Need I say more?
Not much, but perhaps it's interesting for some of you here to have some background info on this guy. I think we will read more about him in the future.
RE: Concerned Women For America
Yes, he was a leader of this group but he seems to be trying to distance himself from it now. Can't see why. They're exactly as homophobic and willfully ignorant as him.
As for the morality thing... isn't it just royally fucked up to care more about obedience than whether or not something hurts somebody?
Yet another frustrated wannabe theocrat, whining because he's not allowed to tell everyone else how to live. Nothing to see here.
Still, I like that twist at the end: "Agree with me or give up all claim to morality!" Like they've got some kind of monopoly on it.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
