Governor Christie betrays people of NJ again

Chris Christie of New Jersey: did he learn anything?
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

One has to wonder if the people of New Jersey will ever wake up from of their zombie stupor. Governor Chris Christie once again proves he is no better than any wacko liberal Democrat. In fact he gives new meaning to the term RINO. Blunderbuss is all over the place! He’s Conservative, liberal, progressive, and environmentalist, anything for a vote. In fact he’s New Jersey’s own Al Gore, inventing new ways to destroy the fabric of New Jersey.

Governor Christie breaks a campaign promise

Have you ever attended a Republican Club meeting and listened to Christie’s establishment stooges? Notice that, when the topic of judicial activism comes up, they  tell you the governor is try to change the courts to return sanity to the judicial process. He hopes to end the judicial activism of judges legislating from the bench.

I remember his campaign promise:

I’ll nominate well-qualified New Jersey Supreme Court judges who will rule without prejudice.

If you believe that mantra, you’ll believe that Obama is a Conservative Tea Party activist that stands for God, Family, and Country.

The Bruce Harris appointment

Once again “Blunderbuss” betrayed the people of New Jersey, not only those Republicans that voted for him, but Democrats and Independents that hold for traditional family values as well as adherence to Constitutional law. This brings me to his nomination for New Jersey’s Highest Court, of Mr. Bruce Harris.

This coming Thursday, May 31 at 10: o’clock AM the NJ Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Blunderbuss’ candidate Bruce Harris to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The hearing will take place in Committee Room 4, 1st floor, State House Annex. Trenton. Let every organization, church, synagogue, and mosque know. Come if you can. Tell the Senate that such a candidate is unacceptable, and not merely because he is a homosexual.

If ever a candidate were unqualified, Bruce Harris would be. He doesn’t understand the Constitution, and holds a prejudice that conflicts with the views of most people in New Jersey and for that matter the nation.

Why Bruce Harris would make a poor Justice

I don’t care about Mr. Harris’ lifestyle. I care much more about his openly homosexual activism and his avowed prejudice against religious freedom and traditional marriage. He mistakenly holds that anyone deprived of the “right to marry” a “partner” of the same sex, has lost his civil rights. He compares his homosexual stands to interracial marriage, slavery and segregation, and the subservience of women. Such views clearly show that he could not adhere to or understand our laws, statutes, or the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Harris’ political ideas show how little he understands the First Amendment. Like many progressives he has a distorted view of what “separation of church and state” means. Can he show us where in the Constitution, or any essay or letter by our Founders, where these words even appear? (With one exception: Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists. And Jefferson was talking about why they would not want the federal government to prefer one church to another.)

Obviously he abhors the religious teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. This would surely and profoundly influence how he would decide a case about the First Amendment and individual and collective rights in respect of religious freedom.

What was “Blunderbuss” thinking? Harris has no experience that would qualify him for New Jersey’s highest Court, He never served as judge even on the lowest level. Nor did he teach law at any College or University. In fact, even in private employment, no law firm he ever worked for ever took him into partnership.

Christie shows lack of judgment

Chris Christie vetoes a same sex marriage bill, after nominating a gay Supreme Court candidate. Contradiction, anyone?

Chris Christie holds a town hall meeting in Hillsborough, NJ, on March 2, 2011. Photo: Bob Jagendorf, CC BY 2.0 Generic License

Yet, Governor “Blunderbuss’” appointment of Mr. Harris shows, once more, that he is out of touch with the American people. He panders to another section of the populace for future votes. This is not the first time “Blunderbuss” has shown such lack of judgment. He made another gaffe when he appointed Suhail Mohammed, a clown who believes we should adhere to Sharia law, to the Superior Court. Christie has made other questionable appointments, to appease the New Jersey Democrat Party. The Democrat-controlled legislature in New Jersey couldn’t have asked for a better choice for Governor if Christie had been the Democratic candidate himself.

Sadly, the enthusiastic “Anorexia Annie” (Ann Coulter) will continue to tout Christie as a Constitutional Conservative that ought to run for Vice President. These two remind me of Laurel and Hardy. In fact the joke was on all of us. In the words of Ollie:

This is another fine mess you’ve got us into, Stanley.

According the “Anorexia Annie,” Governor Christie is the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. Also, this country needs Mitt Romney to pick Christie for his Vice President. Boy, what a cruel joke on the American people! (Editor’s note: not so long ago, Ann Coulter wanted Chris Christie to run for President, to stop Mitt Romney.)

If the American people knew Blunderbuss’ true record, that knowledge would shock them. I guess Christie, with his big ego, enjoys New Jersey’s title as number one in the nation for the most activist state courts. He believes being number one is good, whatever you are number one at. On an upbeat note, the people of New Jersey would be happy to see him go. I’ll save his record for another story.

What you can do

Call “Blunderbuss’ office and sound off – 609 292 6000. Contact the Senate Judiciary Committee members:

  • Nicholas P. Scutari, Chair
  • Nia H. Gill, Vice-Chair
  • Christopher Bateman
  • Gerald Cardinale
  • Michael J. Doherty
  • Joseph M. Kyrillos (running for the U.S. Senate – let them know a vote for Harris will be a no vote for them in 2013).
  • Raymond J. Lesniak
  • Kevin J. O’Toole
  • Nellie Pou
  • Paul A. Sarlo
  • Bob Smith
  • Brian P. Stack
  • Loretta Weinberg

If you live in their District contact their office. Tell them you will not vote for them again if they let another activist judge sit on the bench.

The Eagle

Related:

Same sex marriage: empty veto?


53 Responses to Governor Christie betrays people of NJ again

  1. CJFREEDOM says:

    Fantastic article. It’s about time someone told the truth about our fake, phony, fraud governor. We continue down the path of progressive politics….and Christie is compliant. What a scam and a shame that the GOP STILL does not get it. From local level….to national level we are being fed the fantasy that these people really care. And all awhile they care only about themselves, their next higher position and the next pay day……on our dime. Nothing changes…and nothing will, until the people wake up and see the truth.

  2. Christie has clearly shown himself to be a RINO. Rather than being a Conservative, Christie amounts to being no better than than a two timing Republican political whore. He should be over and done with it, and switch political parties. At least he could be somewhat honest, like Arlene Specter was………

    Nathan M. Bickel
    http://www.thechristianmessage.org
    http://www.moralmatters.org

  3. rpeh says:

    Observe the “Christian” mentality in action. This article is nothing more than a set of ad hominem remarks and undisguised bigotry. “Blunderbuss”? “Anorexia Annie”?

    Then we get “I care much more about his openly homosexual activism” when most of the rest of the article is an assault on Harris’ homosexuality, along with Purpura’s usual inability to understand the law.

    At least Purpura didn’t say “Some of my best friends are gay”.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Do you admit, then, that to be homosexual is to seek special privileges for homosexuals? And to uphold the choice of homosexuality and recruit new members into that lifestyle?

      • DinsdaleP says:

        To be homosexual doesn’t mandate that one automatically seeks special privileges under the law. It does mean that as a United States citizen, one expects to receive equal treatment under the law rather than be subject to discriminatory action from others based on religious principles that have no basis in civil law.

        You can talk about “preserving traditions that have stood for thousands of years” all you want, but racism and slavery were also in that category, and we’ve thankfully moved past that as well.

        I agree with rpeh that while Mr. Purpura is entitled to express his opinion, the name-calling (seriously – “Anorexic Annie?”) and assumption that a judicial nominee can’t separate their own backgrounds from the deliberations they need to make are pretty poor in style & substance.

        Might has well have assumed that Clarence Thomas would likely have been an activist judge in race issues, or that female nominees would likely be activist judges on gender issues. That’s just argument by stereotype.

        The better arguments Mr. Purpura put forward had to do with Harris’ professional qualifications. This is entirely relevant, and I’ll be looking into his background further. Trust me, I’m no fan of Christie either, and I question many of his motivations.

      • Fergus Mason says:

        That depends on whether or not you define equal rights as a “special privilege.”

        Homosexuals tend to believe that people are born that way, incidentally (and the evidence tends to agree,) so they’re not generally interested in “recruiting.”

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          Homosexuality is a choice.

          And marriage is another natural-law institution that no act of positive law can change.

          • DinsdaleP says:

            “Marriage” in this context is a legal status conferred on couples by the governments they live under. If the adherents of a given religion do not want to perform or recognize same-sex marriages they are free to do so, but that should not prevent couples from going to city hall, getting a marriage license, and enjoying all of the legal benefits of that civil status.

            If you’re equating “Natural Law” with Judeo-Christian tradition, consider this. Adultery is explicitly forbidden by God as one of the Ten Commandments, which were upheld by Jesus as well, and yet it’s not illegal. Christians have no problem allowing their governments to issue marriage licenses to people for their second, third and fourth marriages without regard to the circumstances. Basically, it’s no one’s business, but to claim that “Christian values” demand that a civil government deny the legal status of “married” to couples because it offends their religious values is just hypocrisy.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “Homosexuality is a choice”

            Being actively homosexual is a choice. Having homosexual inclinations appears not to be.

            “And marriage is another natural-law institution that no act of positive law can change.”

            What Dinsdale said.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Appearances can be deceiving, especially to them who deliberately deceive themselves.

            To anyone having homosexual inclinations, I say:

            Straighten up and fly right!

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “To anyone having homosexual inclinations, I say:

            Straighten up and fly right!”

            To which I reply, “How is someone else’s sex life any business of yours?” It’s all about freedom, Terry – a concept which, not being European, you can clearly have no understanding of.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            They make it my business when they demand the considerations due a married couple, that they have not earned and can never earn. They also make it my business when they complain that they are somehow “stuck” with their orientation. That I cannot and will not accept.

            Obviously your idea of freedom is “free as in beer.” My idea of freedom is “free as in speech, thought, action, and (non)association.”

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “They make it my business when they demand the considerations due a married couple”

            Why does that make it your business? It would be your business if they were trying to reduce your rights, but they’re not.

            “They also make it my business when they complain that they are somehow “stuck” with their orientation. That I cannot and will not accept.”

            Again, how does that make it your business?

            “My idea of freedom is “free as in speech, thought, action, and (non)association.””

            As far as I can tell, the only freedoms you have that I don’t are to sing the Englandlied in public while giving a Nazi salute and to build a model Bf109 with a Swastika decal on the tail. Personally I’d rather have a health care system.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            And what makes you think they don’t want to reduce my rights? Say if someone were to lay a probate claim against a relative’s estate, claiming to be more than a mere roommate? And the proper environment for child-rearing is everyone’s business.

            It is also my business when someone tells a lie in order to lay a claim to a government benefit, or to secure, by means of the government, a weakening of a natural institution.

            “Born gay” is a lie. Anyone has a choice, either to remain inverted or perverted, or to seek treatment to straighten out. They don’t have the right to expect me to regard them as straight and myself as perverse.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “And what makes you think they don’t want to reduce my rights?”

            The fact that none of them have ever made any attempt to do so or said that they’d like to?

            “claiming to be more than a mere roommate?”

            If I lived with my girlfriend would she be more than a mere roommate or not? I only ask because I’ve had lots of male roommates and I consider her to be much more to me than any of them.

            “And the proper environment for child-rearing is everyone’s business.”

            Unless the subject under discussion is homeskooling, right?

            ““Born gay” is a lie.”

            The evidence says otherwise. In any case, even if people CHOOSE to be gay it would be none of your business. What next? Do you want to ban sex between couples who’re not married, or pass a law that says “missionary position only”?

            “They don’t have the right to expect me to regard them as straight and myself as perverse.”

            They’re not asking you to. They want everyone to be regarded as people who’re following their own sexuality. I have no problem with that and I really don’t see why you do.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            You conveniently ignore incrementalism, according to which: “Let’s see how far we can push it this year, and the push it a little more next year, and a little more next year, and…”

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “You conveniently ignore incrementalism,”

            And you conveniently ignore every actual point I made. Come on Terry: what actual rights do you think gay people want to take away from you?

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Inheritance rights, for one thing. To solemnize same-sex roommate relationships would be to destroy probate law as we know it.

            And though this would not affect me, it would affect a certain class of persons for whom no one else will speak but me: children. Potentially adopted children.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “To solemnize same-sex roommate relationships would be to destroy probate law as we know it.”

            Oh rubbish. It would no more destroy it than giving inheritance rights to wives did. If a gay couple are married then their assets would be treated exactly teh same way as a straight married couple’s. If not, then not.

            “a certain class of persons for whom no one else will speak but me: children.”

            Modesty becomes you, Terry.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            I don’t see anyone else doing it.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “I don’t see anyone else doing it.”

            Then you should broaden your reading. The world is full of agencies, charities and individuals who speak out in defence of the rights of children.

            Not that I see how these rights would in any way be harmed by allowing gay marriage.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Let me re-phrase: I don’t see anybody else telling the truth about how this threatens children.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “I don’t see anybody else telling the truth about how this threatens children.”

            OK then. How does equal rights for gays threaten children?

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            By making children subject to adoption by same-sex roommates sharing bed, to be raised to be same-sex roommates sharing bed themselves.

            Did you know that the prevalence and incidence of homosexuality in any society varies directly as the toleration of homosexuality by that society? In ancient Greece, homosexuality rates hit fifty percent in both sexes.

            Now I know that you don’t give a rat’s tail about that, but I, for one, would like to keep a lid on it.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “By making children subject to adoption by same-sex roommates sharing bed, to be raised to be same-sex roommates sharing bed themselves.”

            I assume that translates to “allowing gay couples to adopt.” Does that affect your right to adopt? Because, you know, I really don’t think it does.

            “Did you know that the prevalence and incidence of homosexuality in any society varies directly as the toleration of homosexuality by that society?”

            No, and in fact I seriously doubt it. I suspect that the visibility of homosexuality varies in direct proportion to the tolerance of it, but the prevalence of it? No, I really don’t think so. There is plenty of homosexuality in Islamic countries, for example: it’s just deeply hidden.

            “Now I know that you don’t give a rat’s tail about that”

            Not really. If 50% of men were gay it would just mean I’d face much less competition for the girlies. Why would I be bothered about that?

            “but I, for one, would like to keep a lid on it.”

            I don’t doubt that for a minute, although I admit it baffles me. As you’re not gay yourself, how is it any of your business what other consenting adults choose to do in bed? Freedom, Terry. Remember it. It’s a good European word.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            That abrogates the child’s right to the most basic of education: in what’s normal, and what’s nuts.

            And I see that you did not get a classical education. Or you would have known that a lot of Greek men got their education in rhetoric from older men who demanded sexual favors of them in return for that education.

            And I find this supremely ironic: you hold forth for the freedom to be nuts, and to teach that nuttiness to the next generation. Yet you want to confiscate firearms.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “That abrogates the child’s right to the most basic of education: in what’s normal, and what’s nuts.”

            Nuts in your opinion. I admit that the idea of a gay couple adopting a child seems odd to me, but the evidence suggests that children do better, and are more likely to develop normally, undeer the care of a gay couple than in local authority care.

            “a lot of Greek men got their education in rhetoric from older men who demanded sexual favors of them in return for that education.”

            In some cities, yes. So what? That was 2,500 years ago.

            “Yet you want to confiscate firearms.”

            That’s complete fertiliser, Terry and you know it. How many times do I have to tell you that I support private gun ownership before you stop dishonestly repeating this tripe?

      • rpeh says:

        No. Don’t be ridiculous. The campaign is for equality, not special privileges, and you can no more recruit people into homosexuality than you can recruit people into being black.

        • JT says:

          “They make it my business when they demand the considerations due a married couple”

          Um… no they don’t. Whether or not two people love each other and want to formalise that relationship has nothing to do with you and your petty bigotry.

          Why can’t you understand that granting people the same rights that you enjoy does in no way diminish your own rights?

          Tell me, why aren’t you so upset about people divorcing? Or husbands who abuse their wives? Surely that is a bigger affront to the sanctity of marriage than people who love each other wanting to spend their lives together.

          “That I cannot and will not accept.”

          You are probably the second most close-minded person I have ever met. In addition, your refusal to accept reality, does not make reality wrong.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Who said that I tolerate divorce? At least that does not fundamentally change the definition of marriage.

            And if two people want to be perpetual roommates, that is their affair. But when they demand certain privileges and immunities of marriage, that makes it my affair. Among other things, these same-sex-roommates-sharing-bed pairs demand the right to:

            1. Adopt children.
            2. Declare that neither roommate may testify against another in a criminal matter.
            3. Pay taxes as a “married filing jointly” couple and not as two roommates, each of whom files as “single.”
          • DinsdaleP says:

            This is in reply to Terry’s comments on 5/29/2012 at 11:05 am:

            Who said that I tolerate divorce?

            Your tolerance is by inaction, and it shows an underlying hypocrisy. The instructions of both God and Jesus-as-God are very clear about the acceptability of divorce and remarriage, and you raise no public objections to civil laws that allow unlimited remarriage after divorce. For someone concerned about “defending the institution of marriage” you have no problem being tolerant of the ease at which marriages can be dissolved and re-entered in serial fashion. With the failure rate for marriage at about 50%, you’d think you’d be more concerned with the issue of why just over 1 million “traditional” marriages fail each year than in keeping a relative handful of law-abiding citizens from accessing the same rights you can.

            Okay, we get it. Homosexuality offends you deeply. Lots of things other citizens do offend me deeply too, but here’s the key – the fact that two strangers choose to get married, regardless of their faith, race, gender, politics, etc. cannot hurt you or your life in any direct way

            As for the privileges of marriage that “make this your affair”:

            “Adopting children”
            Talk about a ridiculous concern. Virtually all gay and lesbian people today grew up in “traditional” marital households, including prominent conservative families like the Cheneys and Reagans. Condemning a child to spend one more day in an orphanage or foster care because two adults who love each other and want to offer a caring, stable home happen to be of the same gender is petty and cruel.

            Declare that neither roommate may testify against another in a criminal matter.
            This is outright prejudice on your part. Unmarried couples can be just as committed, or even more so, than married couples (remember that 50% divorce rate?). The only thing that adds immunity to that relationship is civil marriage license – no religious sanction required. Denying this right to couples based on gender alone is denying them equal protection under the law. Civil law, not religious.

            Pay taxes as a “married filing jointly” couple and not as two roommates, each of whom files as “single.”
            Same as the last point. When you get into subjects like taxation where you are “rendering unto Caesar”, this is about civil law, and all citizens should be treated equally under that law. Personally, it bothers me that many churches have become more involved with promoting political agendas than faith, but I’m not trying to deny the their special tax status under the law because I disagree with them.

            I’ve yet to have anyone demonstrate that permitting marriage equality would have a have a direct, materially adverse impact on their freedom or well-being without it being baseless or a double-standard of some sort. You’re zero-for-three with these points, but feel free to try again.

          • rpeh says:

            Who said that I tolerate divorce?

            Well you publish articles written by a divorcee…

          • jefftavolieri says:

            Conservatives will use those from groups they denigrate when convenient. I’m sure Terry doesn’t have problems with gays if they’re talking about the earth being 6,000 years old. It’s a lot like being on Conservapedia. You can be a Moonie/Mormon/atheist/gay as long as you only chime in if and when you support the party line, and keep quiet when it’s your turn to be the outcast du jour. It’s the same doublethink that’s pervasive in conservative thought.

            States rights! Except when another state wants to trump them for reasons I happen agree with.

            Constitutional rights! Except when they’re of Mexican heritage.

            Small government! Until you want our legislature to govern a woman’s body.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            ^ What he said.

  4. DinsdaleP says:

    “Obviously he abhors the religious teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.”

    Come to think of it, I believe Jesus was extremely clear about the subject of divorce. If we’re so concerned about having tradition and Biblical values guide civil law, why is divorce allowed for reasons other than adultery, and why are divorced people allowed to remarry?

    Pretty selective application of “tradition” and “Christian values” to apply one standard to one class of people, and a different standard to another, wouldn’t you say?

    Marriage equality is nothing more than a wedge issue used to fire up certain segments of the population and get them to the polls. Fundamentalist Christians have no problem turning to serial adulterers (Gingrich) or people they’d consider a cultist or heretic (Romney) when it’s convenient to do so.

  5. Ace McWicked says:

    What has always confused me is that if indeed homosexuality is a choice why on earth would anyone choose to be homosexual?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Why, don’t you know? Or don’t your friends know?

      Surely your feminist friends know. I quote William S. Gilbert:

      Each newly-made aspirant to the clan
      Must repudiate the tyrant known as man.
      They mark him and they flout him
      For they do not care about him
      And they’re going to do without him
      If they can!

      And if that doesn’t convince you, then maybe this reference will:

      Brownmiller, Susan. Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. 1976.

      • Ace McWicked says:

        Feminist friends? I don’t have any feminist friends.

        And what are you trying to say with your poem? That men choose to be gay because of feminism?

        Why, in your opinion Terry, would anyone choose to be homosexual?

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          Those were lyrics from Gilbert and Sullivan’s Princess Ida. William S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan anticipated modern feminism and its anti-male attitudes.

          • Ace McWicked says:

            “Those were lyrics from Gilbert and Sullivan’s Princess Ida. William S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan anticipated modern feminism and its anti-male attitudes.”

            Yeah, so? Why, in your opinion Terry, would anyone choose to be homosexual?

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            A woman would choose to be a homosexual (“Lesbian,” from Lesbos, a Greek island and home of Sappho, high priestess of homosexuality in women in ancient Greece) as a rebel against men. That’s what I meant by “They’re going to do without him/if they can.”

            A man would choose to be homosexual out of sheer laziness. He does not want to do the manly things—the virtues. For that is what virtue originally meant: “manly art.”

            Homosexual men and women represent the anti-ideals of namby-pamby non-men and modern Amazon warriors.

          • Ace McWicked says:

            So you are suggesting then there woman who are lesbians and men are homosexual’s who feel no sexual attraction to the same sex.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            No. Instead, they will themselves to have that attraction.

            Tell me what a man or woman finds sexually attractive and I will tell you that person’s entire philosophy of life. Show me the person with whom he or she shares bed and I will tell you that person’s opinion of him/herself.

            And I suggest that a homosexual man necessarily has a low opinion of himself.

            And a homosexual woman is full of herself, and full of Uber-Womanhood. And eager to share her misguided sense of the superior intellect and military prowess of women with the rest of the world.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “A man would choose to be homosexual out of sheer laziness. He does not want to do the manly things—the virtues.”

            Ever heard of Lt Col Robert Blair “Paddy” Mayne, four times winner of the Distinguished Service Order for heroism under enemy fire? He was an Irish Rugby international with a reputation for extreme violence, and later a founding member of the SAS. On one SAS raid, when he ran out of bombs he disabled a German bomber by ripping the instrument panel out with his bare hands.

            Let’s just say that he never married and had many close male friends…

  6. JT says:

    “Who said that I tolerate divorce? At least that does not fundamentally change the definition of marriage.”

    Well, the fact that you aren’t writing columns on divorce and wailing that it’s infringing your rights, would imply that you are in favour of divorce. And what definition are you talking about – I recall there’s a bit about “those that have been joined in the eyes of God” and “let no man put asunder.”

    “And if two people want to be perpetual roommates, that is their affair. But when they demand certain privileges and immunities of marriage, that makes it my affair.”

    Once again. No it doesn’t. How they pay tax, how they testify has nothing to do with you. Just like how your neighbours pay tax has nothing to do with you. And as for adopting, are you seriously saying that it’s worse for children to be raised by a loving gay couple (I’ll treat your words for it with the contempt they deserve) than for them to grow up in abusive straight household?

    oh wait, I forgot. You conservatives only care about the unborn child. Once its born you don’t care what happens to it.

  7. DinsdaleP says:

    “Let me re-phrase: I don’t see anybody else telling the truth about how this threatens children.”

    Actually, in every state except Florida it’s legal for a single gay parent to adopt a child, so the overwhelming majority of this nation has no issue and sees no threat. That makes the idea of a 2-parent home being worse than a single-parent home, just because the two parents are a same-sex couple, even more ludicrous.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      No wonder the end-times prophecies are galloping toward us.

      • Fergus Mason says:

        “No wonder the end-times prophecies are galloping toward us.”

        Yawn. The fact is that for the vast majority of human beings, life has never been better and is likely to keep improving for a few centuries yet. Keep your “end times” rubbish if it makes you happy, but rubbish is what it is. We’ll go extinct sooner or later, but it’ll probably be because some evolution-denying idiot messes about with antibiotics and creates a resistant bacteria that kills us all. Then God’s true chosen people – the rats – will resume their stewardship of Earth until the Sun swells up 5 billion years from now and vapourises the oceans.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          Life has never been better? You jest, of course.

          Worse yet, humanity is not evolving at all. It is devolving. In a few more generations, humanity would become extinct. Or it would, except that God is getting ready to come back. He has His own plans, and they don’t include the total extinction of humanity.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “Life has never been better? You jest, of course.”

            Oh, not at all. Most people are healthier, more comfortable and better fed than at any time in human history. Life expectancy keeps rising. Wealth keeps increasing. Technology makes our lives easier.

            “Worse yet, humanity is not evolving at all. It is devolving.”

            Devolving? Not a concept I recognise, really. Humans in industrialised countries are adapting to a new environment. Those adaptations may not be good for us in the long run, but evolution doesn’t plan ahead.

            “In a few more generations, humanity would become extinct.”

            Quite possibly. Or then again, quite possibly not. Who knows?

  8. DinsdaleP says:

    “Did you know that the prevalence and incidence of homosexuality in any society varies directly as the toleration of homosexuality by that society? In ancient Greece, homosexuality rates hit fifty percent in both sexes.”

    The more accutate statement would be, “The less a society persecutes people simply for being homosexual, the larger the number of homosexual people who can openly acknowedge their orientation”.

    And comparing ancient cultures to 21st century norms is a joke.

    • Fergus Mason says:

      “And comparing ancient cultures to 21st century norms is a joke.”

      It should be, but nobody’s laughing. Bear in mind that there are lunatics in this world – today – who won’t eat shrimps because Iron Age desert nomads hadn’t invented refrigeration.

  9. […] on account of his homosexual lifestyle, but on his activism and religious prejudices. (see story “Governor Christie Betrays the People of New Jersey, Again!). But how did the Democrats earn the praise for stopping Harris? Either New Jersey’s Republican […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.