If this keeps up, I might have to change my mind:
Mitt Romney’s prep school classmates recall pranks, but also troubling incidents
The underlying point here is to paint Romney as a bully and a homophobe. Remember that the gay lobby is pouring unprecedented amounts of money into this year’s election campaign. With Obama’s open and unambiguous endorsement of gay marriage, and now this Washington Post hit piece, I can only conclude that the Democrat party has concluded that national sentiment on marriage has turned enough that they can hang their campaign on the issue.
I’ve already said my peace on the gay marriage issue and my thoughts haven’t changed much.
We are called to hate what God hates. Marriage, by definition from God and ordained by Him, is between a man and a woman. So I think we need to be bodly speaking out against gay marriage and any other sins that go against God’s ways. Just because the church’s divorce rate is high doesn’t mean we shouldn’t preach God’s ways. We still need to teach the sanctity of marriage. If gay marriage is passed, what is to stop a man marrying 4 wives or 2 brothers marrying each other. My blog is mostly dedicated to teach women to love their husbands so there are many in the church trying to restore Christian marriages. I will also continue to speak out against any evil I see being done in our society. I hope I am not coming out as atagonistic towards you or your opinion. I have no intention of offending you but I have heard this argument from other Christians and I just don’t understand it. Blessings, Lori
Lori,
I assume you are reacting to my older post that I linked to. It seems you are assuming I think it’s acceptable for Christians to condone gay marriage. I am not. I agree that as individuals we are to stand for what’s right. All I’m saying is that the church needs to get the beam out of her own eye first.
And don’t worry, I’m not offended. I appreciate your passion for marriage as God intended. I share it.
People would be wise to frame the gay marriage issue around the no fault divorce laws and setting up gays as the next lackeys for the divorce lawyers. It would serve the purpose of showing everyone why the institution itself is corrupted with both the government and religious organizations turning a blind eye to it. Marriage is DOA for straights and the reasons are not being told. Hell, the whole American culture is built upon lie after lie.
Hell, the whole American culture is built upon lie after lie.
Unfortunately Jim, I think you’re right. If the church would become a more cohesive family the way it was intended, back away from marriage as a state-sanctioned institution with all that that entails, and hold one another accountable for keeping sound, permanent marriage as the standard, perhaps we’d recover the moral authority to speak out the way Lori wants us to.
As I said, framing the issue not around marriage but divorce would make people start to think. Right now divorce is rationalized and thought to occur because people are not able to cope with being faithful or selfless. Yet the laws themselves aren’t being blamed for the incentives it lends to the break up of marriages via no fault.
I live next door to a gay couple and had this conversation with one of them. While he was all about marriage, I kinda put the notion in his had that while his intentions are good, the intention of others aren’t. There are plenty out there that want this to pass for selfish reasons that go way beyond “rights”. This especially holds true of the lawyers who are just salivating at the fact of having fresh meat to scalp for money. Made his wheels turn for sure. That needs to be discussed out in the open and correlated to the demise of heterosexual marriage because it has a direct impact on what killed it. The issue of gay marriage can do a lot for society if put into that context.
If you are against gays marrying, and I am, you really have no one to vote for in this election. While the President supports marriage, troubling, his opponent, Romney supports gay couples adopting children, even more troubling. What Christian can support a candidate that supports that? How is one better than another? It’s not okay to marry but it is okay to raise children together as a family??? Logic??? http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-hes-fine-gay-couples-adopting-children-180004105.html
That should read, “while the President supports gay marriage.”
Hey Mrs. Henderson. I already know that I have no one to vote for in this election, LOL.
I was simply pontificating on the lengths the media was willing to go to stretch a high school prank from 50 years ago into a homophobic attack.
That is all.
So God does not hate bullying and mistreating others? If you are called to hate what God hates, you are called to hate Mitt Romney. BTW, he supported gay marriage until just last year–look at his voting record. He has no problem with gays marrying, he just wants to have a little fun at their expense.
How this was interpreted as an “I love Mitt Romney” post, I do not know. Maybe because I threw it together in 5 minutes, LOL. Whatever your thoughts about what Romney did when he was 16, I am sympathetic to him in this case and fail to see the relevance to his current campaign, which I do not support.
He has continued to act as a bully in adulthood, based on reports from people who worked with him both in business and in his church. That is the crucial factor for me. The bullying in high school is part of a pattern that he has continued throughout his life.
He has continued to act as a bully in adulthood, based on reports from people who worked with him both in business and in his church.
I was unaware of that. I was simply opining based on my belief that it is rather repugnant to latch on to a 40 or 50 year-old high school prank as evidence to undermine a candidacy (ANY person’s candidacy) today.
I could not in good conscience vote for Mitt Romney for a whole hosts of reasons (how many times and ways do I have to say that, LOL?).
However, I would be sympathetic even to President Obama if this were him, and my disdain for his positions is very well documented on this blog. I fail to see how an objective opinion on whether a teenage prank is relevant 50 years later becomes tantamount to an endorsement.
I will definitely do my homework on whether he is currently a bully, but only because I don’t like to think my sympathy was misplaced.
Hey Terry! I think you have made it really clear you can not support Romney. What I think you are seeing in some of the comments is exactly how repugnant many conservative leaning voters find this man. It is for many, myself included, just impossible to stay silent. Romney is in so many ways down right scary. I honestly don’t know who the true candidate is, on just the issue of gay marriage alone he is misleading. Not for gay marriage but it is ok for gay “couples” to adopt? So he would allow innocent children to be placed with two gay parents as long as the parents don’t have a civil ceremony stating they are married?? This man plays fast and loose with words. I don’t like much of what our president stands for and I don’t want to vote for him but at this time I think he is being more honest about the direction he will take our nation than Romney. I don’t have any clue what a Romney administration would look like and I don’t think most Americans do.
Bottom line don’t take the comments made here to mean that people think you (Terry) are supportive of Romney, take them as an overflow of strong feelings and concern about what this man truly stands for. Even though these bully accusations are REALLY old, I think there is so much concern about this man and his record TODAY that even 50 year old accusations seem relevant, just my two cents.
Sometimes I can be bombastic in my comments. This is one of those times.
Many of the comments on this post are very stupid. Terry can’t say that because she’s caught in the middle. As a person who has laid out plainly that she can’t vote for Romney (without SAM’s prompting), she is in no position to tell the commenters they’re being stupid. In her place, I submit myself.
1. On its face, homosexual behavior–particularly male homosexual behavior–is a noxious perversion. This topic never gets talked about truthfully. It’s all buzzwords, and inference, and misplaced compassion. So let us ask the question plainly: Should we, or should we not, extend the privileges of marriage to two men who don’t have the sense to keep their respective penises out of each others butts?
2. The concept of “homosexual marriage” is not important because it might encourage more people to homosexual relations (it will or won’t happen anyway); or because it will demean the state of marriage in America (that ship has already sailed). It’s important because it’s a test and an ultimatum: Can the hedonists, anarchists, and atheists–that is, the Satanists–force us to accept what is otherwise a naturally-occurring, and nearly universal abomination as a normal behavior? If so, then we can be made to do anything. To give in on this is to give up on civiilization…at least ours.
3. Anyone who fails this test (whether through political pressure, evolving emotions, or as a practitioner) is wholly unfit to be president of an orderly people.
4. It would be natural to think that it must follow then that I am against homosexual couples adopting. You’d be right. However, a pretty good case can be made that imperfect people in an imperfect world have to make choices between two imperfect solutions. Orphanages and foster-homes are routinely nightmare scenarios for children. If someone produced a study that showed children raised by homosexuals suffer less abuse, and better coping skills, than children raised by the state, I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest. One should be very cautious about placing a boy with two male homosexuals, but otherwise I could persuaded that it works out better for everyone; in comparison to the state-run programs.
5. But let’s say I’m wrong in point 4. From a mathematical perspective, Romney is still a better choice than Obama. You know Obama supports homosexuals adopting, right? Score: Romney 1; Obama 0.
6. Still entertaining the fantasy that I’m wrong: from a tactical perspective Romney is the better choice. Let’s say whoever gets elected passes federal homosexual adoption statues. Are more homosexuals going to apply to adopt–and be approved to adopt–if they’re married, or if they are not? Largely, if you win the battle on marriage, the problem of gays adopting goes away.
A round of applause for Cane.
Good morning Joanna and Cane, LOL.
I think we all agree on the perverseness of homosexuality. And we all agree with most of what Cane presented. Except that I would have to assume that both Lori and Mrs. Henderson disagree on whether Romney is a better choice than Obama. They would say that Romney isn’t very far apart at all from Obama on social issues and I would have to agree. But Cane’s closing point is excellent and one that I have to agree with wholeheartedly:
Are more homosexuals going to apply to adopt–and be approved to adopt–if they’re married, or if they are not? Largely, if you win the battle on marriage, the problem of gays adopting goes away.
This is true. Once the marriage hurdle is overcome, the adoption issue vanishes like that. Of course, gays are already allowed to adopt in Florida (if I remember correctly GOP governor Charlie Crist signed that into law).
Okay are you saying that if gays can’t marry they won’t adopt??? That is CRAZY!!! As an adoptive parent I know that to be untrue. We adopted our youngest daughter twelve years ago. At that time MANY single parents were adopting and MANY were gay. In fact in the course of our adoption our adoption worker was going through a disciplinary process with her employer because as a Christian she refused to work with the MANY SINGLE adult gays who wanted to adopt. She spoke to us in detail about how many of these, mainly men, she had been forced to work with. She told stories about men coming in with VERY specific ideas about the features of the child, often male, that they were looking for. Skin color, eye color, hair color, even the size of the child’s lips. Background checks would be performed on them just like they would on any person adopting and if they had no record they could adopt, and still can and they do so in record numbers without being “married.” I really can not understand why anyone would think gays that aren’t allowed to marry would not adopt that is simply not true and not at all logical.
Am I stating that I think all gays are pedophiles, absolutely not but I am saying if as a Christian you believe a gay lifestyle is wrong, how in the world can you vote for someone who would put kids with a gay parent who will model the lifestyle everyday of that kid’s life and teach them it is a legitimate and even honorable way to live!!! To do that is utter hypocrisy! If we can not protect the youngest members of our society, who can we protect? Allow kids to be raised in gay families, shocking that any Christian would vote for such a thing!
I don’t want to speak for Cane, but I made it clear already that gays adopt down here where I live. I think his point was (and I agree with it), that once you change the legal definition of marriage on a national scale, the question of gay adoption becomes rather moot. Not because gays won’t adopt kids. They are already doing that as you rightly noted, but because there are states where gays are not legally permitted to adopt.
Florida was one such state until quite recently. Gays were legally barred from adopting if they were up front about their sexual orientation. I’m sure there are other states with such laws on the books. If DOMA is overturned and gay marriage is forced upon the nation as a legal civil right, those states’ laws prohibiting gay adoption become null and void.
I think that was the point being made on the connection between legalization of gay marriage and a potebtial increase in gay adoptions.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil and as a Christian I am not able to do that. One of these men thinks it is okay to legalize what the the Lord says is sin, the other thinks it is okay for families created in this sinful way to raise, nurture and, form, and mold our next generation. These things are both evil and the Christian should not support them. I think when we start trying to weigh which one is more evil we are headed down the wrong path. Sometimes we need to sit back and acknowledge the fact that our citizenship is in heaven not here on earth and therefore when things on earth become increasingly sinful we may have to step away. Which one do we vote for rape or murder? Smoking crack or injecting heroin? Do we lie or cheat? Is it worse to steal or vandalize? It it better to vote for gay marriage or gay adoption???? OR in the interest of keeping ourselves pure do we follow the bible and not raise our hands to support ANY evil.
I was just talking legalities and the natural outgrowth of certain legal advancements, not excusing one sin over another.
I have long discontinued my belief that there is anything I can expect from my American citizenship that will be beneficial in the long run. I have a well documented trail of my skepticism with the GOP, certain factions within the Tea Party, all of it. Nevertheless, there is nothing inherently wrong or sinful about examining possible outcomes and implications of certain legislation.
It certainly doesn’t necessitate that one is planning to vote for one person or another. It is just discussing the how’s, why’s, and what if’s.
Let me speak to you in Christianese, so you’ll understand:
The Lord is leading me to tell you that your heart is wrong about this. True Christians don’t vote for the lesser of two evils. We prayerfully consider the better of two humans–stained with sin just like the rest of us–and then ask God to direct our fingers in the voting booth. We can do this because we know God has a plan for even our pinkies! Or do you deny God’s will in your life?
When you’re done feeling convicted, consider what Elspeth wrote about the other day: God chose David to be king knowing that he’d do evil. God chose Moses to lead the Jews out of Egypt, knowing he was a murderer. God chose Abraham as the father of the Jews knowing he’d sleep with Haggar, and twice try to pass his wife off as an available sister. God chose Sarah to bear the nation of Israel after she laughed at Him.
Why is God choosing the lesser of two evils instead of choosing the perfect people? He’s either evil, or you’re very foolish.
Cane that was very demeaning and mean spirited. I hope it made you feel better. So sorry to see this blog turn into a place where people call each other stupid and seek to demean when they disagree. It used to be so much better than that. Have a great day all doing what the Lord called you to. I hope that is more than spending time with the latest blog disagreement dujour. I am out!
Mrs. Henderson,
So sorry to see this blog turn into a place where people call each other stupid and seek to demean when they disagree. It used to be so much better than that.
In your first comment on this thread, you questioned whether I was capable of using logic. I didn’t get offended or call you mean spirited.
I’m sorry if you think my blog has turned into a place where only you can come on and call someone stupid. It saddens me because I have truly appreciated my interactions with you over the years and I think you are a fantastic person. I appreciate everything I have learned from you particularly the homeschooling advice you gave me. I’m sorry to see you go.
However, this is my blog and it has never been a place where I heavily censor unless there is profanity or direct insults. I will not censor tone and I will not allow anyone else to attempt to scold or shame me into abiding by their definition of what is Christian enough for the discourse on my blog.
Be well and take care.
If you think you have done what is right in the Lord’s eyes that is all that matters Terry. God bless!
It was mean-spirited to use Christianese. It’s so vulgar. Just know that It hurt me more than it hurt you.
Cane Caldo, you’re so nasty and mean, you big meanie head!
Here, come sit by me.
Hi, Joanna (jumping up and down, waving), how are you?
So, Elspeth, you don’t like Mitt Romney? Why the very idea….
Do y’all remember the Letterman top 10 from the ’08 campaign where BO said he’d make Mittens his Secretary of Lookin’ Good? Well, if he was smart, he’d have done exactly that. Mitt would have fit right in around there, sadly. I do think he’s a capable capitalist, but he’s sooooooo Republitard it’s hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.
The ghey thing – meh. I was all worked up about it, and then I wasn’t. People are going to do what they’re going to do. I can get real red in the face or I can spend that energy in prayer – I can’t DO anything about it, other than that. As much as my nature is inclined to the former, I’ll opt for the latter. (this is me doing my best Dorothy Day imitation – don’t blink or you’ll miss it).
Hi, St. Velvet! It’s nice to see you!
Mittens! HA! That’s funny. And “The ghey thing – meh. I was all worked up about it, and then I wasn’t. People are going to do what they’re going to do. I can get real red in the face or I can spend that energy in prayer – I can’t DO anything about it, other than that.” That really sums things up for me. I’m done with fretting about whether they’re going to legalize gay marriage, because it’s obviously going to happen and we don’t really have any moral ground (as a country) to stand on and say, “DON’T.”…as has been thoroughly canvassed on this blog before.
Just so I’m clear: saying things like, “The ghey thing – meh.”‘ is the buzzwords and inference I was talking about.
It’s a an interesting phenomenon. Ask someone you know if they support gay marriage, and you’ll likely get an equivocation, or maybe an outright yes. Ask them if the support the state legally and morally sanctioning the activity of one man sticking his penis in another man’s butt until death do them part, and you’ll get a quite different reaction.
Not that we should get red-faced about it. My point is that the homosexual agenda is ABSURD, and nearly everyone is against it in practice. They know this, too. That’s why it’s a test. How obvious a truth can they get us to capitulate? How willing are we to be subjugated, generally?
Cane, I’m not sure I’m following you (but pleeeeze don’t speak Christianese to me, I promise I’ll try harder).
I don’t support (that’s not the word I want) gay marriage because it’s an impossibility. You can’t call something by a word and then it magically becomes that thing. Separate from that, sexual perversion of all sorts abounds, it’s sin. Even so-called married hetero people participate in all kinds of perversion ,covered, they perceive, by the undefiled marriage bed clause. I’m pretty sure most people wouldn’t be down with some of that nastiness, either. “meh” isn’t apathy, it’s more like lack of surprise. They can have a wedding, they can call themselves whatever they want, but they will never be married. I am disinclined to get worked up about (anymore) it because it’s like getting mad at a unicorn. I see situations like this as a call to mind my own obedience, which always needs reinvigorating.
My point is that the homosexual agenda is ABSURD
Agreed. I think it’s a strategy employed by the radical left at large, though, it’s one element of their Solution for the rest of us- gays are conveniently vocal this go’round and it’s easy to tie “tolerance” to their bandwagon and hop aboard. I guess I see two separate issues: 1)sexual sin is rampant among the population at large, always has been, and 2) the liberal agenda is absurd, and they’ll use whatever group is convenient to install it. I’m much more concerned with the latter, as it would seem that gays are being used as the generational gateway of sorts to encourage people to act in deliberately self-destructive ways (abortion being the previous generations self-annihilation of choice) It’s really sinister when you think about it.
Fine, no Christianese this time–but keep it up and I will be forced to pray for you.
I don’t think we disagree on anything. This is what I’m talking about: It’s really sinister when you think about it.
Yes, it is! Let’s think about it, then, and when we talk about it, let’s talk about it in those terms. Part of the reason the abortionists won, I think, is because they were able to frame the debate with the very word “abortion” instead of infanticide, or plain old murder. It’s a front in the cultural wars that we ought to have easily won–and we’re losing.
When I first went to TC, I made a comment about how I find the chauvinism of the RCC appealing. But the bad side of that chauvinism is when we relegate the unbelievers to the devices of the world. “Hey, people are going to do it.” I don’t think we have to get worked up and upset to make it a point to speak plainly on a subject–particularly when the subject is an evil inherently understood as homosexuality. Children disapprove. Pagans disapprove. Even more damning: gays look down on it. It’s one of those laws written on the hearts of men that spans ages, cultures.
My real concern is the Orwellian doublespeak as capitulation tactic that is being taken to the Nth degree.