Comments on: Andrew Sullivan dishes outrageous comments!

By: dcmale

dcmale — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:25:59 +0000

There used to be some shred of respect for Mr. Sullivan and his writings before he became unhinged. His “conservative” mantle actually was a nice bridge on how a homosexual could and should use their mind and talents instead of their genitals to integrate with society. He showed some restraint and compassion for the philosophical and religious beliefs of others even when he disagreed. Then when the “marriage” issue started to work against the gay movement it became appararent that he was just a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing pretending to be conservative. And because they couldn’t get their way, he started with horrible anti-catholic rants and then turned on republicans and conservatives also. Now he’s nothing more than a whiney bigot and a poster-boy of why the gay agenda is harmful.

By: Black Dragon

Black Dragon — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:08:43 +0000

You’re so right,MC! Sullivan is a Wuss!

By: Museum Curator

Museum Curator — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:01:17 +0000

Sullivan can hope and pray about it all he wants, but men are never going to stop using terms like that to belittle other men. I doubt there is a straight man alive today, who hasn’t used such a term such as that to describe another man he didn’t like. Does that make us all anti-gay?

They say us men need to get more in touch with our femine side. I say Sullivan needs to get more in touch with his masculine side, and just shrug this one off and get over it.

By: jdpen74

jdpen74 — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 06:30:47 +0000

Sullivan says ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ “an actor who was married to, and had children with Kim Basinger, who has had any number of relationships with any number of starlets”

Of course Mr.Levin is not anti-gay.

More importantly, this statement by Sullivan is suggesting to me that Alec Baldwin as a man whore.
Just thought I’d make some light of this idiot’s comments.

By: StevetheConservative

StevetheConservative — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:22:39 +0000

Andrew Sullivan is an idiot. Mark does not bash gays. Mark, however, does not want the goverment (specifically the Supreme Court) to endorse a particular lifestyle when it comes to the point of endorsing sodomy (Mark wrote a chapter in Men In Black that talked about the goverment taking sides on the gay marriage issue).

I am against gay marriage because, like twiggy said, marriage is for reproduction and to create families (which is an obstacle for same sex couples since you need someone of the opposite sex to create life). I also don’t like it when the government tries to endorse an unnatural practice.

The people who take gay bashing to the extreme are Fred Phelps and his Westboro Church of Hate (he and his family spits on our soldiers at funerals and attacks this country in the name of gay bashing and a faith in predestination) and Weiner Nation, who we know compared VP Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter child announcement with the problems with our country.

Another worst case of gay bashing would be the liberal left themselves.

By: John in Dublin

John in Dublin — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:08:21 +0000

Marriage begun largely as a RELIGIOUS ceremony. In that, it was one man and one woman. Then the government got it’s hands into it with marriage licenses. So, if the government wants to change the definition of marriage, then they are passing a law messing with religion.

Bottomline, they are looking for SPECIAL rights. They have equal rights. hey have equal rights in that they can MARRY anyone they want, within the definition of marriage.

As a former soldier and unit commander, I have seen what open homosexuality in the military can do to unit cohesion and morale. This is the liberal way of destroying our military.

By: task

task — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:25:05 +0000

I am anti-special rights for married couples or for anyone else. including gays, for that matter. We are all human beings with Constitutional rights that, I believe, do not permit one personÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s property to be confiscated any differently than another person. I guess I could be construed as anti-heterosexual on that basis.
When it comes to raising children traditional marriage very probably has a biological/social basis and children have the right to have parents that parent within that context. People do not have the right to make human beings without the ability and motivation consistent with what Homo sapiens, the biological animal that he is, requires for development. It is about children not parents.

By: twiggy

twiggy — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:33:48 +0000

I would prefer to do this in private…this last comment is all over the place. Wow! Very enlightening and upsetting all at the same time..not to mention unexpected.

By: DrWhoFan65

DrWhoFan65 — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:21:40 +0000

One other thing…the military service issue is a trojan horse in this construct. If what I’ve heard in the past is correct, homosexuals tend to be more well off financially and better educated as a demographic group, and hence less likely to find the enlistment incentives attractive. Never mind the fact that most align themselves with the political left, most of which despises our military. These activists want the RIGHT to join rather than the ABILITY to join. It’s chipping away, a foot in the door. When is it okay to enact a policy which in reality would benefit only a relative few?

By: twiggy

twiggy — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:17:28 +0000

To the good Dr! (this from your friend Twiggy) I totally agree with you. None of our tax dollars should be spent to check this out…I think churches that challenge this should also be made to relinguish their tax exemption. You don’t get to make these decisions…WE do. And I DO have problems with these ceremonies. I think any same-sex partners should be allowed legally to be with their loved ones in crisis situations..If I want YOU to have my benefits whoever you are…I should be allowed to say that. My say-so should determine that! Not a court decision.