March 28, 2013, - 4:22 pm

NBC Times Today Anchor’s “I’m Pregnant & Lesbian” Outing to Influence Supremes on Gay Marriage (After Demoting Her for Gayness)

By Debbie Schlussel

You’ve probably never heard of Jenna Wolfe. And if I told you she is the Puerto Rican/Jamaican Jewish loudmouth pregnant lesbian anchor/newsreader on NBC’s “Today” show, you’d probably tell me I was just describing Juanita Epstein in the updated, politically correct remake of “Welcome Back Kotter.” While I was away for Passover, Wolfe outed herself as a lesbian on yesterday’s “Today” show, by telling viewers that she’s pregnant and that she’s been with her “girlfriend,” NBC News correspondent Stephanie Gosk for three years.

1C562D83

NBC News’ Lesbian Couple Stephanie Gosk (Left) & Jenna Wolfe (Right)

Call me paranoid, but it’s pretty clear why NBC allowed this on-the-air announcement of a nobody weekend newsreader and why the announcement was made yesterday, as the Supreme Court was hearing arguments on two gay marriage cases.

Timing is everything. And there are no coincidences.


Unless you’ve been living inside a mushroom, you probably know that the Supreme Court has been hearing arguments for the last two days on two cases regarding gays and lesbians seeking government recognition of their unions–one concerning a woman whose lesbian lover died and the survivor was not entitled to avoid federal estate taxes unlike legal spouses; and the other concerning California’s Proposition 8. As longtime readers know, I believe in marriage . . . between one man and one woman. And that’s the only marriage there has ever been in civilized societies.

And NBC News is clearly in your face about which side you should take on this issue. Have you ever heard of any other NBC News employee announcing her pregnancy on the air? Or how long she’s been with her significant other, who is also an NBC News employee? It just doesn’t happen. . . . Unless the preggers chick is gay and wants to pimp us on gay marriage. Wolfe and Gosk have a People Magazine story online and in Friday’s print edition, also carefully timed to coincide with the gay marriage debate, announcing they will get married. And it’s no surprise that NBC also announced that Jenna Wolfe’s “pregnancy-blogging” and “mommy-blogging” began on the second day the Supremes considered gay marriage.

Why now?

Well, for one thing, both Wolfe and Gosk are semi-attractive and are thin and in good shape. They are not the usual, typical, brushcut-endowed, fat, ugly women who make up most of the lesbian population. And Wolfe has, for years, pretended to be straight on the air at “Weekend Today,” constantly talking about guys and whether or not they are “cute,” etc. Wolfe is a physical trainer, who wore sexy, scanty gym outfits and bikinis on the show sometimes, not the stuff of usual lesbian attire. And Gosk, though she has a pixie haircut, looks more like a preppy J. Crew model than a ticket holder at the WNBA All-Star game. NBC wants us to see lesbians as “just like us.” And these are the types who help push that message.

On the other hand, Wolfe was recently demoted from anchor to newsreader at the network’s “Weekend Today” show. Some speculated at the time inside NBC her demotion was because it was well known around NBC that she’s a lesbian, and the network knew the secret would get out. Insiders said NBC felt that the straight female moms the network is trying to reach would not relate to Wolfe. (She was also annoying, immature, and obnoxious on the air.) A straight, married, heterosexual mom–Erica Hill–was hired to take Wolfe’s place as the primary female host of the show.

So, yes, like many hypocritical, limousine liberals, the gang that runs NBC News doesn’t exactly practice what it preaches. Not that this should be news to you, me, or anyone.

But, it’s worth noting, that despite demoting the lesbian, NBC has a use for the lesbian when it wants to shove its definition of marriage down America’s throat.

NBC – the National Bullsh*t Network. Do as they say, NOT as they do. And celebrate Jenna Wolfe’s and Stephanie Gosk’s impending new baby . . . who will grow up without any father to speak of.

No matter how much Wolfe blogs about it, her baby daughter will never know how to interact with men and be treated properly by them because their won’t be one in her life.

Hey, I guess that’s why they call it, “The Peacock Network.”

villagepeoplesmaller.jpggaymarriagehomersimpson

fruitypebbles.jpg

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

118 Responses

G-d created good looking lesbians so guys have something to watch on television when the football season ends.

Jonathan E. Grant on March 28, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    Jon,

    “The L Word” is for guys b/c of all the beautiful women in it.

    A gay show hasn’t been produced for female viewing.

    Gay marriage is a fad. Once the Supremes legalize it, the interest gays have in getting married will be no more of a motivation than it is already to heterosexual unmarrieds.

    NormanF on March 28, 2013 at 4:48 pm

Debbie: this is one of the meanest posts you have ever written. It wreaks from unnecessary slurs about Wolfe, a perfectly decent, hardworking, gregarious woman who happens to be gay and in a committed relationship. Yours is pure speculation about the timing of her outing and even if correct who cares.You can oppose legal gay marriage politically, religiously, or any other way you want, but this post is beneath your own dignity. Chag someach from no one but a fan of Jenna.

Dr. Harold Goldmeier on March 28, 2013 at 4:32 pm

    Are you insane Harold? Are you trying to normalize what is patently not normal? Here, let me see if I can clear some of the confusion clouding what is left of your mind. The anus is an exit not an entrance. Get it?

    Sexual relations between a married man and woman serves a completely natural function. Namely, producing babies in a normal and healthy family environment. Conversely, homosexuality serves no natural function. Its only purpose is self gratification. Much like pedophilia.

    Robert Miller, MD on March 28, 2013 at 6:53 pm

      RM, MD: let me guess: your area is not psychiatry?

      The anus is an exit not an entrance. Get it?

      Duh, and the mouth is for eating food, not … well, you know, doc. So, are you opposed to fellatio as well? Frankly, have you ever studied evolutionary biology? If you had, you would know that bodily structures have continually been adapted from use to use, as evolution works via incrementalism. Thus, arguing “purpose” from present functioning is idiotic.

      Sexual relations between a married man and woman serves a completely natural function. Namely, producing babies in a normal and healthy family environment.

      Define “natural function” and “normal and healthy family environment” in a non-tautological way. If you’d like to argue from a particular body of religious doctrine, do so honestly and clearly. Also, please clarify if sexual relations between a man and woman outside of marriage is “unnatural.”

      Its only purpose is self gratification. Much like pedophilia.

      Or like eating a terrific fudge sundae? Why the linkage to pedophilia, pray tell?

      Further Reading:

      Darwin, On the Origin of Species

      skzion on March 28, 2013 at 8:01 pm

        Oh terrific. Another Einstein shows his(?) ignorance. First, let me address your atheism:

        Atheism: The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

        Makes perfect sense. Yes, I see where you are coming from.

        Sexual relations between a man and woman, which traditionally in civilized socities is done through the sanctity of marriage, has a primary function designed by Gd. That function is to produce children without which we wouldn’t be blessed with your presence here.

        Now, what is the end result of homosexuality? Where would it lead if a majority or all people engaged in it? No children and society would eventually die. Homosexuality has one purpose — self gratification. Thats it. It provides nothing to society. It only takes in selfish, perverted desires.

        Without getting too graphic here, the anus of a man is not a receptacle for the semen of another man. Are you even remotely familiar with biology?

        Robert Miller, MD on March 28, 2013 at 8:19 pm

          There seems to have been a subversive element (both politically and otherwise) to the promotion of homosexuality since the 1960′s – first, as one of many avenues of rebellion against the “establishment” and their accompanying moral and societal codes (along with promiscuous sex, drug use, etc.); plus being intertwined from the outset with the Left’s “personal liberation” theology of which the “sexual revolution” has always been part and parcel. And, as we’re now seeing, increasingly incessant demands to have all societal mores completely overhauled, overwritten and gutted to accommodate them – and them alone – and the insistence that their radical fringe Greenwich Village/San Francisco “values” (as basically in place since around the time of the 1969 Stonewall riots) totally supplant and supersede traditional Judeo-Christian morality that has held societies together for thousands of years. Most definitely, the push to homosexualize Western society is the ultimate sign that such society is in absolute decay. As well as being in perpetual adolescence (and arrested development) since the ’60′s.

          ConcernedPatriot on March 28, 2013 at 9:48 pm

          Doctor Miller, if you will not answer any of my perfectly clear challenges, at least blather more concisely.

          It is you who have no familiarity with biology. Indeed, you are so ignorant in the area that you mistake such unscientific terms as “nature” for scientific ones. You compound your error here by arguing on the basis of what is good for “society.” No evolutionary biologist would ever make this error. Even the blessedly dead crackpot Stephen Jay Gould wouldn’t screw up this badly.

          On an mostly unrelated note, please wash your hands BEFORE you touch the patient. The incidence of nosocomial infections originating in bad hand hygiene is alarming. I figure that you don’t know that based on the medical erudition you display here.

          skzion on March 28, 2013 at 11:09 pm

          Thank you Dr. Miller for clarifying in a few understandable words what homosexuality is all about. In saner times homosexuals were not called gay (implying happy) but homos, queers, faggots, etc. Terms much nearer to the truth then gay. Let the gays get their satisfaction behind closed doors but spare us straights their constant reminders of what they are doing behind closed doors.

          Jerry G on March 29, 2013 at 9:52 am

          Dr. Miller, it’s great that you’ve gotten your patients to back you up. Forget what I said about washing your hands.

          skzion on March 29, 2013 at 10:33 am

          When the anal sphincter is destroyed chromic incontenance of bowels occures.

          Rochelle on March 29, 2013 at 11:26 am

          This is why we have AIDS. Caused by man but sucks up a disproportionate amount of research funding.

          lexi on March 29, 2013 at 12:47 pm

    HG, this is not a particularly “mean” post from Debbie. She may or may not be right in her hunch, but it is certainly a plausible one. Anyway, your complaint would be more persuasive if you had shown any evidence of caring about this web site before today.

    Ta-ta.

    skzion on March 28, 2013 at 7:47 pm

      Who made you queen of this blog? You speak for Debbie? Maybe you are Debbie? Dont lecture us on your ape to man tripe.

      Wild Jew man on March 28, 2013 at 8:26 pm

        Don’t you love how she boils down all of Debbie’s logic to a mere “hunch?” What a dipstick.

        Alissa on March 28, 2013 at 8:35 pm

          Alissa, cupcake, I am not a “she,” which you would know if you were a regular here. Debbie’s interpretation of the timing of this self-outing is indeed a hunch. It is a plausible hunch, however, and I wouldn’t bet against it. There is nothing dirty about educated guesswork, except to a dipstick. Thanks.

          skzion on March 28, 2013 at 10:45 pm

        Wild Jew man: there is only one queen of this blog, and her photo is affixed at the top of the page. However, I have no intention of ignoring stupid newbe criticisms of Debbie.

        Who, by the way, is this “us” you refer to (“Dont [sic] lecture us….”)? Do you claim queen status for yourself?

        skzion on March 28, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    Harold, how did Jenna get pregnant? Did Stephanie manage to do it? No, they still needed some despised male to make their fantasy come true. That “girl” is not going to get the opportunity to make a choice, unlike Jenna and Stephanie. Also, Debbie is quite correct in pointing out that the timing of smells like something rancid. Her coming out coincided with the U.S. Supreme Court debate on Gay Marriage. The magazine article and blogging also coincided with it. Debbie also noted that Jenna was demoted from her spot as a weekend anchor. Network news outlets tend to frown on their readers and anchors advertising their personal lives on the air. I suspect that Jenna and Stephanie agreed to allow their personal lives to be exploited in order to retain their employment with NBC. When one employee is on the way out at a business, their boyfriend or girlfriend is usually shown the door as well to avoid “problems”. Most people, including gays, rarely wish to make their lives material for voyeurs. This was not a free choice.

    Worry01 on March 29, 2013 at 3:05 am

    Dr. Harold, Debbie’s was a political response to a political action taken by Ms. Wolfe in publicizing her sexual preferences on national TV, for the purpose of pushing for legalized homosexual marriage. Many conservatives see this issue for what it actually is, which is just one more attack on the traditions and foundation of our country by the extreme Left, for the purposes of continuing the destruction of the nuclear family and expanding the power of Federal Government.

    waynesteapartyworld on March 29, 2013 at 9:59 am

      Exactly. Besides it being a drive to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle itself and, on top of it, import so-called “hate speech” laws already in place in Europe, Canada and Brazil that have been used as a billy club against people of faith and entire religions (notably Christianity).

      ConcernedPatriot on April 2, 2013 at 8:40 am

    Get over yourself, Doctor.

    As a medical person are you interested how this newsreader got impregnated? Turkey baster, IVF thru anonymous donor, IVF through known donor, real sex… which?

    lexi on March 29, 2013 at 12:45 pm

I have to come out of the closet and announce that I am also lesbian. I have no desire to sleep with men, and only want to sleep with women (okay, one woman since I am married).

Jonathan E. Grant on March 28, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    Jon,

    Lesbian scenes are popular in mainstream porn. Every man wants to make love to two women.

    Few women are as thrilled with making love to two guys.

    NormanF on March 28, 2013 at 4:50 pm

      May I also add that two girls doing lezbo stuff to each other in porno films are most likely NOT lesbians? They sure don’t look like Rachel Maddow (sans her MSNBC “Cap’n Kangaroo” uniform) or Chaz Bono (and I am talking about BEFORE his sex-change).

      It would be not normal for hetero guys to get off on watching 2 REAL lezzers. LOL. That would just bring the whole thing crashing down.

      The girls (in the pornos)are just really wicked, slutty heteros. THATS the appeal to the men.

      There is a study on fat, alco lesbians for a reason. They are unhappy. Anyone who knows many lesbians know this. The men may be equally as unhappy but it doesn’t manifest or is expressed in the same way. Thank goodness! We need some fun in life! :D

      Skunky on March 28, 2013 at 5:03 pm

        Personally. I never refer to Chastity Bono with a masculine pronoun. She can change her name, get an elective radical mastectomy, and have something surgically constructed on her genitalia out of spare skin and cartilage, but she will always have been born with ovaries and a uterus. No amount of tinkering, testosterone, or psychotherapy can change that indelible blueprint and wiring.

        DS_ROCKS! on March 28, 2013 at 6:43 pm

          I hear ya, DS_ROCKS. I have a soft-spot for transexuals (they really suffer from a strange mental illness and are treated horribly by society as a whole) and so I do it in deference to their wishes but I will openly admit that I do it easier with the men to women than the women to men.

          I feel very sorry for Chaz Bono because I see 100% that he is very mentally ill. Since I feel sorry for him I call him a him.

          But I confess with other females to males I feel just as you do. I understand the “issue” more than the average bear but I would be lying if I didn’t admit I have thoughts as you do at times.

          Skunky on March 28, 2013 at 7:00 pm

        Interesting points, Skunky.

        DS_ROCKS! on March 28, 2013 at 7:08 pm

        Hi Skunky, at one point in my life I encountered a group of Lesbian movie-makers. Yes, that kind of movie – Lesbian porn. I have to say that most of these women were very attractive (you can see one of them in the pool sequence in Dudley Moore’s ’10′ – where he’s looking across the Hollywood hills).

        Although they wouldn’t have objected to men buying a tape (yes, it was long ago), they made these movies for other women.

        Philosophic question: if you are a straight actress, but you need some money and you make a movie where you have to enact a graphic Lesbian sex scene – does that make you a little bit less straight??????????

        Nir Leiu on March 29, 2013 at 6:34 am

          Nir, I’m glad you encountered the exception to the rule. I do think you know the gist of my statement, however.

          IF Lesbians are overweight & drunks 75% of the time and they are the butch-dyke variety HOW MANY straight men are gonna enjoy getting their pervo kicks watching them getting it on? LOL, not many. As it is they can be annoying fully clothed and not doing private things.

          Again, I am not talking about Lipstick Lezzers. I’m talking about the kind we know, love and see everyday. Like “Big Sis” or as someone else calls her, “Big Sexy”.

          THAT’s what I am talking about.

          Skunky on March 29, 2013 at 3:03 pm

      Wrong Norman. Hold on let me check. . . yup, I’m a man and I do NOT want to make love (euphimism) to two women at the same time. I am equally repulsed by lesbionic shemales as I am by Steve and Bruce shagging in front of me. Please do not try to speak for all men. Thx

      Wild Jew man on March 28, 2013 at 8:45 pm

      Wrong Norman. I am equally repulsed by two lesbionic shemales as I am by Steve and Bruce shagging in front of me. I most certainly do NOT want to make love (euphimism) to two women at the same time. One is plenty.

      Wild Jew man on March 28, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    Jon, your coming out was very brave.

    skzion on March 28, 2013 at 11:17 pm

All jokes aside, I do not have an issue with gays, EXCEPT, in the entitlement/affirmative action industry, the federal government is leading by encouraging the government agencies to hire gays and lesbians. They are also encouraging the hiring of Latinos and those of “Middle East” descent. Hence, gays become the new minority to hire, ahead of qualified white heterosexual males, particularly males above the age of 40. Ditto the state governments, as well.

Jonathan E. Grant on March 28, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    Bravo regarding JEG’s comment about Affirmative Action for gays. This is one of the many things that piss me off about gay rights politicos. I guess they are consistent in supporting AA for all minorities, but the position is consistently wrong and immoral. Government should not be reducing the life chances of someone because he happens to be a straight, white male.

    The principle of nondiscrimination is really not that tough to comprehend.

    While the term “gay mafia” is loaded, in some areas of the US government, as Debbie has shown, there really is such a mafia.

    skzion on March 28, 2013 at 11:31 pm

So. She’s pregnant, but she has had a girlfriend for the last three years. Now, I liked biology class when I was in school, so I know I didn’t sleep through the part that would explain that her girlfriend didn’t do it. I was also taught when I was a child that the man who gets a woman pregnant is supposed to marry that woman and take care of the child. And, of course that they are supposed to get married BEFORE the deal goes down. Pretty simplistic, huh? But quite a bit of our society has forgotten, or has become retarded.
I was listening to a little talk radio the other night, which included some clips of comments by various lawyers and lobbyists on the subject of gay marriage. While the people pushing it keep talking about “love”, the subject that kept coming up on these clips was HEALTH INSURANCE and BENEFITS. Just as I thought. Instead of their carpet muncher girlfriends or the guy they met at the dirty book store glory hole getting off their ass and providing their own health insurance, they want the rest of us to pay for it. And, of course we will pay for it either through higher prices if private sector, or higher taxes if govt. sector. Employer financed heath care insurance was originally extended to family members so you could have it for your kids, and for your wife that was home taking care of the kids. Well, this “gay” marriage thing is just one more sign of the decline and fall of the western world. I notice they are trying to get this done before the next “gay” “pride” parade in San Fran Cisco, where they prance through the street in drag, or in assless chaps, or with their two legged pet on a leash. Imagine live clips of that, combined with the gay marriage debate?

RT on March 28, 2013 at 4:50 pm

    She is pregnant. Gee, HTH did that happen, using a turkey baster or something? No, this sefish bitch wants a baby (which is natural) to bring up without a father and in an unnatural environment ala “Heather has Two Mommies.”

    Repulsive. Also, why is it that gays insist, absolutely insist on informing us of their gayness? Sex is a private matter for everyone but them. Its IN YOUR FACE with them.

    Wild Jew man on March 28, 2013 at 9:01 pm

      You said it WJM. It’s all about selfishness. It’s not about what is best for the baby — having a mother AND father. No, it’s all about her. What she wants. She is a selfish b**ch.

      Wild Gentile man on March 28, 2013 at 9:20 pm

Well, Herr Doktor, you’re really gonna dig what I have to say when I just come out and say what almost EVERYONE is afraid to say: Let’s just face it, (most) Lesbians are ANNOYING. There, I said it.

I’m not a “Today” watcher but I know DS is on the right track because just last week my sister was describing this Jenna chick to me and other than her being a Lezzer, DS pretty much said everything my sister said about her. Uncanny. My sister doesn’t like her. For her personality (just as DS described) and prolly because she may have felt underneath it all JW as a Lezzer. Annoying. They just are. Thank the Lord god made the men wicked fun!!

I have been enjoying watching the public take-down of the contemptible Matt “Reverse Chia Pet” Lauer and the stories on the chaos behind the scenes at “Today” have been delicious. I would venture to say this TMI about this annoying chick is a not-so-well-thought-out attempt to gain back some of the viewers the show has been hemorrhaging. Robin Roberts and her cancer drama have helped the competition in an unforeseen yet grand way, so maybe they thought they’d give it a go. (But NBC has been in a fiasco free-fall since canning Ann Curry is such an unpleasant way…I am not AC fan AT ALL but even I felt for her!!)

But with the abrasive and clumsy personality of JW it just may not work. Nothing NBC is doing is working. I LOVE it!!!

I’m glad DS did a column on this. And down the sh**-heap we go!!

Skunky on March 28, 2013 at 4:53 pm

    Thanks, Skunky. I was waiting for someone to answer that irritating doctor.

    Little Al on March 28, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    @Skunky, yesssss, they are annoying. Especially in the work place where they suck up all the affirmative action appointment jobs. Only funny thing about that was the way the other entitled lazy coworkers would get annoyed by the prospect of ANOTHER unqualified person managing them. lol Even if this little demo was better looking for the most part, they’d still wreak of the arrogant demeanor that comes from KNOWING they’ll keep climbing like a spider monkey as long as want to. Gubment jobs especially. Had the displeasure of working with a couple that eventually married in Canada. Talk about invincible. Another couple I worked with were actually not too bad, but the system they’re trying to force on us doesn’t belong in this country. Maybe just in Mexifornia. They’re a pretty large percentage there.

    samurai on March 28, 2013 at 5:42 pm

    Hi Skunky, the machine wouldn’t allow me to reply to your earlier thread…just wanted to mention that I’ve watched Chaz being interviewed and (s)he seems to be a decent type.

    I suspect that neither of us have enough empathy to imagine what it must be like to feel that you are the opposite gender to your appearance. It could be as you suggest, something that stems from a mental disorder.

    Attended a history class once where the instructor mentioned a woman who wanted a job as a stage coach driver with Wells Fargo. (In those days it would have been completely beyond the pale for a woman to have that occupation.) So she disguised her appearance and mode of dress and held the job of driver for many years. And as Mr. Harvey might say, for the rest of the story…she was the best stage coash driver WF ever had.

    Have a good weekend/holiday

    Nir Leiu on March 29, 2013 at 6:13 am

      Nir, I think I flat out stated how empathetic I am to Transexuals. I’m known quite a few. I do not feel what they do (gender dysmorphia) but I am VERY sympathetic to their plight.

      Just because one has a mental illness does NOT mean they must be locked up in an asylum. Constitutional rights are theirs as well. I did not mean it in that way.

      I do NOT believe, however, for one second Chaz Bono is the sort who always felt gender dysmorphia. NO. WAY. We would have heard about it waaaaaaaaaay earlier in his life. THAT makes his sex-change even more so a symptom of his mental illness. Again, just because I say it is a mental illness does NOT make me wanna lock all of them up and treat them differently. There are many, many affective disorders and mental illnesses that do NOT mean you should be treated as a second class citizen or can’t have a fulfilling life.

      Many of the transexuals I have known have been preternaturally sweet and full of personality. Some of the best souls I have EVER met. I love being with and near them. But as I have lived my life, what I once thought was NOT a mental illness, I have found out CLEARLY is.

      Skunky on March 29, 2013 at 3:16 pm

Whatever people do in their bedrooms is their own business.

People flaunt their sexual lives and the modesty and shame that used to inhibit people against discussing who they’re sleeping with has fallen away.

And with open sexuality, the desirability of marriage has also faded. Why get married when you can milk the cow for free?

Gays and lesbians aren’t hopping on the marriage bandwagon because they want to preserve a sexist and patriarchal institution.

NormanF on March 28, 2013 at 4:57 pm

What’s with all this gayness? Everywhere I look there’s gays coming out of the woodwork, as though it’s the new normal, or just another form of normal. As far as I’m concerned, gay sex is still a perversion.

I notice that a lot of women tend to move fairly easily between men and women. I don’t think it should be encouraged when it’s a matter of choice. I suspect a lot of gay men are more fixed and it’s not a matter of choice although it’s still not normal.

BethesdaDog on March 28, 2013 at 4:58 pm

    BD, the women are moving back and forth because it’s been kinda zeitgeist-y since the 90s. It’s still a fraud. And it’s not fair to true Lesbians either, who I hope would be offended by the fakery and perversion of “fake” Lesbianism (which is called bisexuality).

    You shouldn’t be what you really are not. And you should not disrespect REAL lesbians that way because the truth ALWAYS comes out in the wash. Just ask anyone married to Melissa Etheridge, Lindsay Lohan and that nutter Anne Heche.

    We already know phony Hollywood likes to play fast & lose with Lesbians this way. I find it offensive.

    You are or you are not. If you’re pretending, you’re a d-bag and you’re playing with people’s lives in a very selfish and cruel way. I have zero tolerance for such shenanigans.

    Skunky on March 28, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    This flaunting of the gay lifestyle is, first and foremost, a political statement in the same way that, say, Muslims taking over entire street blocks with prayer rugs to bray to Mecca is. It’s a statement of intended dominance and supremacism, of saying, “We and our values will take over completely and replace all pre-existing traditional values.”

    ConcernedPatriot on April 2, 2013 at 8:44 am

“Debbie: this is one of the meanest posts you have ever written. It wreaks from unnecessary slurs about Wolfe, a perfectly decent, hardworking, gregarious woman who happens to be gay and in a committed relationship.”

I love the whole “just happen to be gay” business. As if there isn’t some choice made at some point along the way or something in their past that led them to prefer the “home team”. Nope, just ended up here. Don’t know how I got here, but here I am and it’s good enough for me. Just coincidence, nothing more and don’t you dare suggest it’s more than coincidence because shut up.

Matt on March 28, 2013 at 5:20 pm

I am laughing at all of you on both sides and all the time you are wasting on this. There is no such thing as gay marriage, PERIOD!!!

If the couple/group (who knows where this is headed) is not composed of one man and one woman they are not married. No court, legislature or other person/institution can change that.

You are all wasting your time.

I_AM_ME on March 28, 2013 at 5:24 pm

“So, yes, like many hypocritical, limousine liberals, the gang that runs NBC News doesn’t exactly practice what it preaches. Not that this should be news to you, me, or anyone.”

Correctamundo! Just ask yourself why MSNBC makes butchy, young-boy looking Rachel Maddow (in her real life) wear a feminine “costume” for her LIBERAL show, one of the most LIBERAL of news networks. WHY???

Shouldn’t Maddow be able to look butchy and boyish as she does in real life since Libtards love her and her dopey show? It’s not as “bible-thumpers” are watching her smug nonsense. Libtards are.

Ask yourself WHY she has to feminine it up when that station should have a pink triangle or rainbow flag included in their logo?

DS hit it right on the head. Hypocrites. Sickening!

Skunky on March 28, 2013 at 5:26 pm

Just another reason not to watch Today or any other news show on TV. It’s nice that all of our problems, unemployment, the economy, Islamist fundamentalism, China, Russia, Cyprus, et al have been solved and the media has time to waste of this nonsense affecting 2-3% of the population.

JeffT on March 28, 2013 at 5:39 pm

You know, in the 1960s, all the rich college kids, and, ultimately, their poorer brethren in non-elite schools, decided they had to dress like bums in order to imitate the workers. They had so little confidence in their own identities that they had to adopt identities of those whom they thought were now glorified by elite society. Same reason they dressed and acted like savages such as Mao and Che Guevara. Identity problems, and inability to face adulthood.

And now its the gays. In this dumbed down society, which doesn’t teach enduring and legitimate values to anybody anymore, people growing up without identities, without minds, without values, are looking for something to latch on to. So they see elite opinion latching on to gays, and they think it will give their lives meaning to support gay marriage (like the elites do), or to suddenly ‘come out’ as gays.

And of course, there is also opportunism, added on to this.

Little Al on March 28, 2013 at 5:47 pm

Deliberatly denying a child a father is about the meanest thing a person can do. I grew up with a kid with no Dad. He was always asking about my Dad and what it was like to have a Dad around.

Brian on March 28, 2013 at 5:52 pm

Based upon the picture, it’s pretty clear which one is the “man” and which one is the “woman” in that relationship.

Jeff on March 28, 2013 at 6:04 pm

    Except that the “man” is better looking. In my opinion.

    lexi on March 29, 2013 at 12:51 pm

Again, sex is a private matter. I do believe that sexual preference is definitely not a choice, based on observations of people I knew in kindergarten, who were “sissies” then and who grew up to be gay. (Not all gays are effeminate, but these two guys were).

I had two lesbian couples at my wedding. No biggie. I think what is disturbing is the intolerance of the political left towards those who are straight, and the attacks on those Christians and Jews who believe strictly in the Bible. No attacks are ever made on Muslims for their beliefs relating to homosexuality (they believe in killing gays).

Jonathan E. Grant on March 28, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    Again, Jon makes a very telling criticism:

    “No attacks are ever made on Muslims for their beliefs relating to homosexuality (they believe in killing gays).”

    If one wants to argue for gay rights based individual dignity and the rights of citizenship, one should not single out Christians or Orthodox Jews and ignore Muslims. Neither of the first two groups is even close to the virulently anti-gay Moooslims. Furthermore, the Mohammedans are utterly anti-individual.

    I also want to “share” one thing about my own behavior. Sometimes I go to gay bars. I make sure to spread the truth about Islam whenever there is any evidence of anti-Christian sentiment about gays. This is the sort of thing that any gay person can do. The result has been gratifying. I have found one gay minister who is very Judaism-friendly, and we are a formidable team. Think globally, act locally.

    skzion on March 28, 2013 at 11:53 pm

“No matter how much Wolfe blogs about it, her baby daughter will never know how to interact with men and be treated properly by them because their won’t be one in her life.”

Excellent point. And any “men” in their lives will be a stifled, uber-politically-correct, metro or homosexual male who won’t represent or be able to teach them anything remotely realistic.

DS_ROCKS! on March 28, 2013 at 6:37 pm

The Ron Paul gay marriage solution that nobody is talking about:

http://youtu.be/se0NqJFMAlg

Ramjordan on March 28, 2013 at 7:26 pm

How is a gay marriage consummated?

Mitch on March 28, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    Mitch, how about by kicking your ass?

    skzion on March 28, 2013 at 8:02 pm

    Mitch, One might guess two guys having a sword fight is how they can mimic consummation but how two lesbians might do it so as to be able to claim they are ‘expecting’ is a greater mystery but in the end ‘marriage’ between two people of the same sex cannot be consummated, which is why the UK government first planned to remove non-consummation from the list of factors which enabled a marriage to be annulled *before* it introduced its same sex ‘marriage’ legislation.

    Come in skidzon …

    Bronson on March 28, 2013 at 11:57 pm

      skzion, sonbro,

      skzion on March 29, 2013 at 12:18 am

Sex is a private matter? Let’s not forget that the Women’s Libbers, many of whom were lesbians said that the personal is political, a maxim that governs the ‘gay rights’ movement today.

Little Al on March 28, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    Little Al, allow me to weigh in here. What one does in bed can be private even if sexual orientation is public. The latter surely is public for heterosexuals. What exactly is a straight marriage if not public? I mean, it’s published in newspapers!

    Look, I support gay marriage. But this is properly a state decision. Thus, I consider DOMA unconstitutional, but California’s Proposition 8 clearly constitutional. Consider, though, that I also consider interracial marriage a state matter. SCOTUS’s Loving v. Virginia decision was a travesty. However, two wrongs don’t make a right. If gay people want to marry, there are states where this is legal. The federal gubmint should butt out.

    skzion on March 29, 2013 at 12:15 am

      “The personal is political” refers to the efforts of women’s libbers, gays and their advocates to politicize their private lives. Abortion on demand was the first major manifestation of this, and today, gay marriage is another. Advocates try to have it both ways; preserve their ‘right to privacy’ in their own bedrooms, which, unfortunately some regulars on this site seem taken in by, and, of course, also promote ever more permissive legislation and court decisions (unless of course someone has the misfortune to be a Mormon, and then there are plays ridiculing them and all the enlightened people laugh.)

      Disease? I don’t know the statistics among lesbians. I don’t make a practice of following the ins and outs (no pun intended) of unconventional (to use a euphemism) sexual practices, so I don’ know the statistics. But for males, it is staring us in the face even when I don’t go out of my way to learn the details of disease epidemics that could be avoided with self-control. And males, subject to these risks, are 50% of the population covered by gay marriage. It goes without saying that the more permissive our society is towards these practices, the higher the risk of disease.

      And part of the problem with many conservatives, and a partial explanation of their inability to effectively oppose gay marriage, is mechanized, schematic thinking. States Rights, Individual Freedom, States Rights, Individual Freedom, States Rights. Content of these ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’ has to be looked at too, and the political homogeneity upon which our country was founded has to be looked at also, for a context of what States Rights should and should not cover. Although imperfect, our founding beliefs have never been matched by any society before or since, and they certainly don’t include the extensions of ‘rights and freedoms’ that gay marriage advocates are trumpeting today.

      Stemming from this, the politicization of abortion, gay marriage, and on and on, has led to more and more bizarre events and practices. The ‘sex weeks’ which seem to be common among all too many colleges are one of the most offensive examples.

      Wouldn’t it be nice, if, once and a while, these colleges would have an Americanism week, or History of Western Civilization week instead of a sex week?

      But no, our entire society has become hedonized and sexualized, and most of us, including an ever increasing number of so-called conservatives have fallen into the abyss. Some ‘conservative’ opportunists play upon the inarticulateness of many supporters of traditional marriage and sexuality by inventing conservative ‘justifications’ for their radical beliefs. As I already suggested, states rights and individual freedom are among the core principles of our society that have been distorted in this regard.

      And, probably for the first time, I have to agree with Italkit. Yes, we are in sorry shape, and, since the newsreaders influenced the Obamacare decision, why not try for a twofer, especially with a legal profession and court so influenced already by political correctness.

      Little Al on March 29, 2013 at 10:03 am

        And part of the problem with many conservatives, and a partial explanation of their inability to effectively oppose gay marriage, is mechanized, schematic thinking.

        Little Al on March 29, 2013 at 10:03 am

        So should marriage to animals be left to the states also?

        Little Al on March 29, 2013 at 3:57 am

        ——–

        Little Al, by “mechanized, schematic thinking” do you mean the kind of thinking that concludes that marriage between two men is like marriage between a man and an animal, or that there some slippery slope leading us from the first to the second? True, neither involves a union between two human beings of different sexes, but perhaps this truth is not central to the issue being evaluated?

        As Winnie-the-Pooh notes:

        Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie,
        A fish can’t whistle and neither can I.
        Ask me a riddle and I reply:
        “Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie.”

        However, if you remain concerned, I suggest you become concerned as well by the slippery slope of straying from strict vegetarianism. If one can eat an animal, how much of a stretch is it to start eating people, who are, after all, also animals?

        As far as older people, the marriages between older men and women are based, hopefully, on love.

        So now you are basing an argument on the floating modal “hopefully”? How about an alternative: a marriage between two older people is based around ready sex without the obligations of offspring (i.e., as you would say, “hedonism”)? You’re trying mighty hard to cook up a fictional world that somehow transmutes your own likes and dislikes into morally superior behavior. Yes, one can always make arguments of similarity or dissimilarity, but such arguments usually fall apart under their own weight–just as yours did just now.

        And love, like marriage, is normally an association between men and women.

        What on earth does this mean? Little Al, when you discuss anything gay, your grammar and syntax suddenly fail you. Why?

        The fact that love might continue and exist past childbearing age does not alter its intrinsic basis as a relationship between opposite sexes.

        What’s all this about “intrinsic basis”? All you’re saying here, so far as I can tell, is that if a man at one time COULD have knocked up his wife, it doesn’t matter that, latter on, he no longer can. I can see why this is convenient for you, as it preserves the morality of your own life and its manifest moral superiority to my own, but how exactly is this compelling in some general, abstract sense?

        I could go on and on with my dissection of your latest contributions. Surely, though, that should not be necessary. If YOU can’t manage more compelling arguments than these, perhaps the reason is that you’re in a real mess of a situation.

        skzion on March 29, 2013 at 3:32 pm

          I thought I made it clear that what I meant by ‘schematic thinking’ was an inflexible and unyielding view of States Rights and Individual Rights. I especially thought that was clear because I repeated those two terms immediately after my use of the phrase ‘schematic thinking’. I elaborated right after that my belief that states rights and individual rights are not unlimited, and discussed some constraints on them. In other words. Gay marriage, I suggested, was affected by these limitations. I used bestiality as another example of something that clearly was not within the purview of these rights.

          Analogies are always risky, as are arguments about slippery slopes. Some slopes are more slippery than others, and the mere recitation of the phrase ‘slippery slope’ does not create one.

          As far as semantics, I was not expecting ad hominem comments from you, and I never reply to such comments. Similarly, I try not to get bogged down in discussions of semantics.

          Little Al on March 29, 2013 at 11:17 pm

          I was not expecting ad hominem comments from you, and I never reply to such comments.

          Sorry, Little Al, but that won’t do. On this blog entry you have asserted that those who bring up states’ rights and individual rights are trapped by their rigid and formulaic thinking. You have also hinted at a more sinister issue, “‘conservative’ [meaning: fake conservative] opportunists,” leaving unclear who, exactly, you had in mind. My point was that your own contributions have demonstrated quite uncharacteristic rigidity and downright incoherence. Unlike you, I have provided several examples. I then posited that if even you couldn’t avoid such problematic arguments, perhaps the “anti-” side doesn’t have very good material in the first place.

          Another example. You want to argue an epidemiological case against gay marriage (based on disease). OK, then your own case argues in favor of lesbian marriage. You respond, with attempted humor, that you don’t know much about “unconventional” sex. That, too, won’t do. If you make an argument from epidemiology, you should have the evidence to back it up. As I pointed out, this kind of argument also makes no sense in general, as we would expect marriage to decrease, not increase, the incidence of sex-related disease. No response.

          I elaborated right after that my belief that states rights and individual rights are not unlimited, and discussed some constraints on them. In other words. Gay marriage, I suggested, was affected by these limitations.

          Nobody has suggested that states’ rights and individual rights are unlimited. This is a straw man. What you need to explain is why states’ rights and individual rights do not apply in this case (note that these two types of rights are actually in conflict, as an individual rights argument rejects state limitations). You do not explain this.

          I used bestiality as another example of something that clearly was not within the purview of these rights.

          Yes, but how is this “example” relevant? Nobody SANE argues that the Bill of Rights applies to animals. Nobody SANE argues that an animal can be a party in a contract.

          I try not to get bogged down in discussions of semantics.

          In general, Little Al, you do not find clarity the least bit difficult. On this topic, though, words have failed you. I ask WHY. Bad writing can be a cover for sloppy thinking; sloppy thinking tends to promote bad writing. It is not “ad hominem” to point out that a good tree has produced some bad fruit and to wonder about the conditions that have allowed this to happen.

          There is always a tendency to interpret what is “right” so that one is in the right. At least we should avoid telling others that their thought processes are too rigid then they don’t happen to appreciate the results of such a tendency.

          skzion on March 31, 2013 at 12:50 pm

These discussions sure do bring the fruit loops and creeps out in the open.

RT on March 28, 2013 at 8:35 pm

When will the networks post a disclaimer
that the show presents a slanted viewpoint
presenting a pro gay agenda.
Or just let Cooper wear a penis cap and Maddow
slide a vagi over her head.

piers moron on March 28, 2013 at 8:49 pm

There are those who claim that they are homosexuals because they were born that way. Many of these also claim a belief in a just G-d. But these two perspectives are mutually exclusive. The two cannot both be true simultaneously. How is this so?

If G-d is a just G-d then how could G-d condemn homosexuality if a person was born that way and had no control over it?

Homosexuality is a violation of halakha (Jewish law). It is to’evah as we see in Leviticus 18:22. It is written: “And you shall not cohabit with a male as one cohabits with a woman; it is an abomination.”

Therefore, if G-d is just and homosexuality is condemned then a person cannot be born that way with no control over it. Rather, it is a lifestyle choice freely made by those who engage in it.

Otherwise, a just G-d does not exist. Man is merely an animal formed by astronomically implausible eveloutionary processes.

You decide…

Man of the Cloth on March 28, 2013 at 10:17 pm

    MotC I’m an Prthopdox Jew and accept the halacha but I disagree this is a choice because God is just. According to your logic, God is unjust because babies are born blind, deaf, having genetic diseases or disabling conditions, e.g. Muscular Dystrophy, Cystic Fibrosis etc. I do believe that God is just and that homosexuality is an inborn condition, but I believe it is an aberration like the ones I mentioned. Just as the blind person cannot drive a car, there are activities that the homosexual is not permitted to engage in morally. One can be homosexual and remain celibate. It’s not easy nor is it pleasant but it is possible. THAT is a choice and if it is made, there is no sin in what the person is.
    I know a homosexual man who thought he was “cured,” married, and struggled for a few years with having normal relations with his wife. Finally he gave up trying but did not seek gay partners. He remained faithful but it’s a struggle every day for him. Because they were already not so young, the wife has remained but her life is less than happy. She truly wanted a husband not a brother.

    Italkit on March 29, 2013 at 6:03 am

      Um, obviously that should be ORTHODOX. I have some eye and arthritic problems and miss typos sometimes.

      Italkit on March 29, 2013 at 6:04 am

      Italkit, I REALLY loved this paragraph of yours….

      “I do believe that God is just and that homosexuality is an inborn condition, but I believe it is an aberration like the ones I mentioned. Just as the blind person cannot drive a car, there are activities that the homosexual is not permitted to engage in morally. One can be homosexual and remain celibate. It’s not easy nor is it pleasant but it is possible. THAT is a choice and if it is made, there is no sin in what the person is.”

      Bravo. I really agree with that. I also want to say to Gay Conservatives (I know you are out there and I am glad!!) that I know it must be hard when Conservatives talk about this issue. It has to be hard not to feel defensive. BUT I am glad gays can be Conservatives and I welcome them and just like anyone else, I judge them by their actions and character. Once in my life (in my Libtard days) I put them ABOVE and in retrospect, that kind of pandering makes me cringe (boy, does it EVER!!). I just wanted to say something as to not make those Gay Conservatives out there feel ganged up on. I like having them in the Conservative movement.

      Thank you for your kind words, PDMac. I like the truth and a whole lot of levity. Glad you do too!

      Skunky on March 29, 2013 at 3:44 pm

        Thanks, Skunky, I knew we’d finally figure each other out. That’s always been my Aspie experience.

        Italkit on March 30, 2013 at 2:47 pm

      I disagree. A gay person can be no more celibate than a straight person. If a person is born gay, who are we to question that which goes on behind closed doors? Yes, the Bible says that homosexuality (but not lesbianism) is a sin, but that conflicts with the creation by G-d of those who are homosexual. The Torah and the Bible (which, of course, includes the five books of Moses) are the greatest guides for our lives in history, but there are conflicts within both. Additionally, we must consider rights under our Constitution secularly.

      I know homosexuals and lesbians, and some of them are the finest, most moral people I know.

      Again, the issue is less one of morality. All of us should treat each other equally. No, it is the move towards preferential treatment towards homosexuals in hiring in government and the private sector that concerns me, and the intolerance expressed towards Judeo-Christian concepts. No attack on Islam’s view towards homosexuals (i.e., murder homosexuals) is ever made by celebrities, the news media, or homosexual groups.

      Jonathan E. Grant on March 29, 2013 at 4:03 pm

        JEG, if one is living Biblically, and say, they don’t believe in premarital sex, then I don’t see the conflict with expecting gays to follow it as well as straights. That’s pretty egalitarian.

        If anything, those of us who don’t agree with gay “marriage” BUT in civil unions give gays a pass on premarital sex because there is no “marriage” for them. Their premarital sex is tolerated so that’s a bonus for them. We just hope they are good people and do right by each other, as we hope hetero couples will do. (To err is human…)

        The thing about God is we do not know his reasons behind his laws or why there are so-called “mutations” (for a lack of a better word). We will find out when we shed our mortal coil. Just because there are “mutations” or “unique” characteristics in some people does not mean we should treat them horribly. BUT if they are paedophiles, or sociopaths THAT is a mutation I will ALWAYS disrespect. So many Lefties want to abort babies who have diseases or will not be 100% but who is to say that those people and their disability will NOT bring joy to people and the world?

        BUT suddenly, if one were to ask about aborting a “gay” baby (if that could be recognized in utero…and I would be against that too (the aborting of gay babies that is!) that suddenly would be a crime against humanity for the Left. They can’t have it both ways.

        The most brainy amongst us doesn’t know the meanings and/or explanations of what God does. As I said we will once we die. I’m not an atheist (Read:Narcissist) so I can’t even imagine what the reasons are. It’s foreign for me to dismiss God just because I do not understand it all (as Narcissists are wont to do) I just go by faith and the golden rule and hope my judgement is correct when I disdain someone or have sympathy for someone. I also allow “holy rollers” their staunch beliefs even thou’ I may not be as hardcore or subscribe to their passionate beliefs because that’s the American way.

        Who would win the hypocrisy race between a Liberal and a Holy Roller (as they are photo & negative to each other)? It’s like the chicken and the egg question for me.

        Skunky on March 29, 2013 at 4:44 pm

          Skunsk, I LOVE this post!

          And Jon, if it’s in Torah, it is a matter of morality. Of course gay people can be moral. They can be moral in every other part of their lives. Morality isn’t limited to sex and if they are celibate they are moral in their sex lives but they certainly aren’t straight.

          Italkit on March 30, 2013 at 2:52 pm

        Jon, it’s impossible to remain celibate? Who knew? I managed it prior to both marriages.

        Italkit on March 30, 2013 at 2:49 pm

It is in the scriptures somewhere that “One vessel is created unto honor and another onto dishonor”. (I think the reference to the vessel that is dishonored is a reference to the family chamber pot. which over most of history, most people would be familiar with) I think that is New Testament, but, for those of you that don’t hold with that, I bet if you did some digging in the Old Testament, you could find a similar scripture. Also, I have a question. I am asking Debbie or some of the Jewish readers of this blog to answer this one. It is on the use of the spelling G-d. I am not used to using this spelling but I am aware that some of you do. Do you find it offensive if others use all the letters? I will use your version of the spelling on this blog, but it is something I am curious about.

RT on March 28, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    RT, it is common for Orthodox Jews not to spell out G-d. Personally, I find this odd, as no English spelling can be a proper name of haShem (literally, “the Name”), and it is this that is forbidden. Nevertheless, rabbis who are qualified to rule on such matters (poskim) have, no doubt, a very impressive argument for why the hyphen is appropriate for the English word.

    skzion on March 29, 2013 at 12:43 am

      skzion, that’s the reason we do it, but it’s not a rabbinical ruling, merely a custom.

      Italkit on March 29, 2013 at 6:06 am

    RT, thanks for asking. It’s far more offensive to try to write out or pronounce the tetragrammatron (YHWH) with vowels than to add the “o” to God. But to be safe, as skzion said, you can say “Hashem” which means “the Name” as symbolized by YHWH.

    Italkit on March 29, 2013 at 6:11 am

Other commenters have discussed the economic function of the family, and its role in procreation. They have also explained that because of this, marriage is properly between a man and a woman.

And, as Frank Sinatra said, love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage. Since marriage is appropriately between a man and a woman, love is appropriately also between a man and a woman.

A couple of liberal Supreme Court Justices have raised the argument that older men and women might marry each other even when procreation clearly will not take place. They have also said that those in prison might marry when procreation will not take place. By raising these arguments, they seek to discredit the traditional arguments about marriage and procreation.

It is not surprising that they resort to marriage involving jailbirds. The liberals have a strong attachment to felons and other criminals, and the idea of resorting to actions involving criminals to posit a norm for non-criminals is grotesque.

As far as older people, the marriages between older men and women are based, hopefully, on love. And love, like marriage, is normally an association between men and women. The fact that love might continue and exist past childbearing age does not alter its intrinsic basis as a relationship between opposite sexes. Love, like marriage can exist past childbearing age, but such marriages are peripheral to the basic institution of marriage, and are based on love of the opposite sex that originated during childbearing years.

And has it become taboo to mention the diseases associated with homosexuality? There seems to have been no mention of them in this discussion. I wouldn’t expect any in the traditional media, but I hope commenters here have not become intimidated on that subject.

Little Al on March 28, 2013 at 11:13 pm

    “And has it become taboo to mention the diseases associated with homosexuality? There seems to have been no mention of them in this discussion. I wouldn’t expect any in the traditional media, but I hope commenters here have not become intimidated on that subject.”

    Aw, Little Al, your IQ is waaay to high for that. First, the lezzers (nod to my buddy Skunky) have lower levels of sex-related diseases. So you are really referring to gay men. Do you then support gay marriage for wimmin? Anyway, are you suggesting that gay marriage between men would INCREASE the incidence of disease?

    skzion on March 29, 2013 at 12:59 am

Debbie even now in my early senescence women are deferential to me. Anyway once in my younger days I was in a comfortable shoe store at the mall and a flock of lesbians were there. They took no notice of me and acted like I wasn’t there. I remember being bewildered and dismayed. At the time I questioned why they existed but with time I have come to understand that lesbians are a crucial part of the human ecosystem. I even bought stock in Subaru and Ikea.

A1 on March 28, 2013 at 11:43 pm

I’m all for these people getting married. They simply have to fill out the form and legally declare just exactly who is the husband and who is the wife.

Dazed & Confused on March 28, 2013 at 11:58 pm

What a great article that depicts the feelings, emotions, and persuasions of most who have been raised in a loving and sane family. DS does it like no other! I really enjoyed the comments also. Skunky, Grant, and others, thanks for the logic and enjoyment on the issue!

I gotta say though… Skunky is always my fav when it comes to commenting on feminist/lesbo issues. I cracked up on her comments about the hetero porn babes doing lesbo scenes. The best humor rings of truth.

PDMac60 on March 29, 2013 at 12:32 am

Except in totalitarian society government has no business registering private relationships except where there are public benefits and/or costs. There are none such between two people of the same sex but between people of complimentary sex there are: society needs such sexual activity to have a future (the benefit) but needs it to take place under the social construct of marriage to minimise the macro costs to society of children born out of wedlock (massive welfare paid by responsible people to support fatherless kids, violence against unmarried mothers, females growing up to perpetuate the cycle, males growing up and finding their palace in gangs etc). Its always been a carrot-stick arrangement whereby males are permitted to engage in sex with females by the brides family if the males promise to society that they will be responsible for what happens, and care for the mother and children. Part of the social compact is that the current generation of males and females who ‘live together’ set an example to the next generation of signing on to the convention by signing on themselves regardless of any intent or ability to reproduce rather than explaining away the need to marry on any grounds of infertility or whatever as it complicates the social message. Seeing as two people of the same sex who ‘live together’ can *never* dilute the ‘deal’ which is marriage (by virtue of their sterility as a couple) there is no need for democratic society to set up a carrot-stick arrangement to make them do so. That, i.e. ‘dilute’ the social compact known as marriage, is what courts and governments wish to do for entirely different reasons.

Bronson on March 29, 2013 at 1:05 am

So should marriage to animals be left to the states also?

Little Al on March 29, 2013 at 3:57 am

I have to say that if SCOTUS is influenced by a couple of morning news babes, you’re in worse shape as a country, than I thought.

Italkit on March 29, 2013 at 6:08 am

For those who don’t realize that federally-sanctioned gay marriage is essentially a dismantling of society, let me lay it out for you:

Next step is forcing the Church to perform sacramental gay marriages. The Prots will succumb, but the Catholics will fight it—to their financial peril, of course.

Simple Gramsci Communism unfolding here—-Destroy the institutions. As cynical as I am, it still amazes me how people are buying into this poison.

Think Paul VI was onto something with his Humanae Vitae? You ought to read it, and see how well he predicted the future.

BTW–

Nearly everything wrong with the US today comes down to three laws passed in the 1960s…

1964 Civil Rights Act
1965 Immigration reform
1965 Medicare

Red Ryder on March 29, 2013 at 8:58 am

    But Red Ryder, elsewhere you have assured us that the Catholic Church will survive no matter what. If it can survive Muslims (regarding whom you counsel tact and being nice), how can it not survive marriage between homos? I’m confused!

    skzion on March 29, 2013 at 3:35 pm

      @skzion–

      No question the Church will survive. It has withstood many attacks before. However, with each attack, society as a whole is damaged.

      Or do you think that we are all better off since say…the attacks on Humanae Vitae? Is the world better off with massive abortion?

      Catch my drift here?

      Red Ryder on March 29, 2013 at 5:41 pm

        Red Ryder, I catch your drift, but I find myself unsympathetic to it. I doubt that attacks on Catholic Church pronouncements weaken society because I do not think, on balance, the doings of the CC hierarchy (I focus on the hierarchy, not the parish priest), benefit society. I write this after having carefully attended to your arguments for months now.

        When, for example, I directly ask you if Jews should be discriminated against based on the “deicide” charge and you do not directly reply, offering instead a Holder-esque circumlocution, I do take note.

        skzion on March 31, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    And, may I add one other, from 1971:

    The 26th Amendment (gave 18-year-olds the right to vote – as that group was the first to get the full leftist indoctrination thanks to the Left’s “long march through the institutions,” all that did was to engineer a total shift of our political structure and direction further to the left, bringing us to this current precipice)

    ConcernedPatriot on March 30, 2013 at 11:11 am

      @Concerned–

      You’re right…

      But all the arguments in favor of 18-year-old voting were vintage “Civil rights” rhetoric.

      It is virtually impossible to overestimate the pernicious effects of the Civil Rights Act. Now, the Feds would have access to every aspect of everyone’s lives.

      Simply create some “victim” class…and off your go! It will never end.

      Red Ryder on March 30, 2013 at 1:12 pm

        Off you go…

        Red Ryder on March 30, 2013 at 1:12 pm

If you listen carefully to this creature as she makes her “Surprise” announcement surrounded by the moronic lineup of the morning moron show, Today, you learn its all about HER, the “Adventure,” and of course the Lauerpimp had to mention the Sheeple Magazine article and that we can follow every moment of her insemination on her blog. The creature sounded like she was describing the purchase of a new pair of shoes. Do not forget, when homosexuals “Conceive,” or adopt, the child is basically a fashion accessory, not a child per se. I was also struck while watching my mind for some reason went to Dr. Carson and his mistreatment, verbally and other wise from the leftists in the state run media. I looked on the couch and the lineup for the Today show……if ANYONE epitomizes the “House Negro,” it is Mr. Roker……ready at a moments notice from Massa to start shuckin’ ‘n jiving,. The rumor is that Lauer will be replaced with Little Anderson Cooper. I’m waiting for a contrarian move by some network…….hiring a “Straight.”

Victoryman on March 29, 2013 at 9:23 am

As stated before, the gay marriage issue is all about benefits such as SS, retirement, health care, etc. The homosexual lifestyle and culture will remain the same. The cost to society will increase exponentially.

Rochelle on March 29, 2013 at 12:01 pm

    Rochelle, so what you’re saying is that gay people should continue to fund straight peoples’ marriage benefits but never their own?

    skzion on March 29, 2013 at 2:04 pm

      No, I’m saying a little honestly here is in order. Gays decry their rights as the same as traditional marriage, which paints a larger canvas of lifestyle, tradition and culture vastly different from each other in nature, and thinly disguised to obscure the essential desire of monetary benefits.

      Rochelle on March 29, 2013 at 6:26 pm

        Rochelle, why do you believe the economic benefits are the “main thing”? It’s just that if one is in a stable relationship, gaining the same benefits that others already enjoy does become an issue.

        skzion on March 31, 2013 at 1:43 pm

      As to the disproportionate nature of Gays paying into funds they do not benefit from the same can be said of childless couples, singles, elderly, etc. taxpayers who fund schools, social welfare, etc. not benefiting same. For the record I am not anti-Gay, I am only questioning the merits of Gay marriage from the secular point of view.

      Rochelle on March 29, 2013 at 6:37 pm

        Rochelle, the gubmint doesn’t say to, e.g, childless married couples that they canNOT have legally recognized children. The subsidies that such couples pay in for someone else’s fertility can, at least theoretically, be recouped.

        It seems to me rather unfair to complain that the benefits that gay couples pay to subsidize others should not, even potentially, ever be able to be recouped.

        skzion on March 31, 2013 at 1:49 pm

Nothing happens by chance? Debbie, you don’t know the half of it. You missed the elephant while noticing the gnat. Think about it. You know as well as I do that Stephen “I’ve got more money than is good for me” Spielberg is a prototypical Hollywood leftie, with all the baggage that entails. He made “Munich”. When it was heard that he was making a movie about the greatest American president, all conservatives groaned. Now the movie turned out to be strangely flattering to America and to Lincoln. Has Spielberg grown up? No he has not. The subject of the movie is the skulduggery and bullying it took to force the Fourteenth Amendment through Congress, and the point it makes is that it was all worth it because of the moral value of placing equality permanently in the Constitution. Now, as a lawyer, you will be aware that the Fourteenth Amendment is the one that is most often used by gay-marriage theorists to justify their claim to “equal rights”. And you are of course aware that the gay lobby insists (to the fury of many blacks) that their struggle for “equality” is the historical continuation of the fight against slavery and racism. GEt it now? The point of the movie was that anything – politicking, bullying, even a civil war – was justified in the pursuit of civil rights. And guess what? it comes out and is covered with awards just a few months before the Supreme Court gets to decide. Coincidence. Yeah, right.

Laura Latini on March 29, 2013 at 12:48 pm

With all respect to everyone but Jesus Fuck! Sexual orientation should be the very, very least of anyone’s concerns.

Does the person have a pulse? Check

Does the person have synapses? Check

Does the person know right from wrong? Check

Does the person conduct one’s self with respect and dignity? Check

Does the person know that freedom is a privilege earned through self-sacrifice, and that no-one is entitled to entitlements? Check

So this Jenna Wolfe is a dyke. And pregnant. And works at NBC. And is kinda cute for a lesbo. So fucking what? What does that do for me?

Throughout my life, I have worked with people who are/were gay, lesbian, x-gendered – generally, anyone in the LGBT diaspora. Never once have they imposed their Pride-Day propaganda, never once did I feel threatened nor intimidated by their presence.

Yes, I do take umbrage over their biased selection of causes – marginalized peoples have a tendency to posses skewed perspectives – and the handling of this “event” does not further the cause any better.

There are much more pressing matters that need to be prosecuted: unemployment, the national debt, illegal immigration, lack of respect and order between generations (yes, that is a major fucking issue), crumbling infrastructures (ever driven over or stumbled into a pothole lately – it sure hurts nasty), the degradation of education, etc., etc., etc…

All of off these issues – hell, any one of them – make Jenna Wolfe’s outing very yawn-worthy.

Right now, Hell is getting too crowded with people who actually deserve to just be in Purgatory.

So for the love of Xenu, leave these pole-smokers and carpet-munchers alone. There is work to be done. And better things to bitch about.

I’m out.

(As in… “I’m done” “Finito” “Leaving this thread alone” “Bye” And have a great Easter Weekend. Xenu loves you.)

The Reverend Jacques on March 29, 2013 at 12:48 pm

Jay Leno’s ratings keep rising the more he taunts the NBC suits!
It didn’t hurt Johnny Carson’s career either.

Rochelle on March 29, 2013 at 12:58 pm

Jenna Wolfe is from my home county in Suburban NY. Rockland County has the largest Jewish Population in America. It is also VERY Liberal. So that is just a littel background for those wanting to know.

Glen Benjamin on March 29, 2013 at 5:01 pm

This black lesbian jew bull d yke set off my gaydar the first time I saw her. How many AA points did NBC get for hiring her?

The Bobster on March 30, 2013 at 8:50 am

Hum…I guess a guy was somewhat “useful”.

Paul on March 30, 2013 at 10:54 am

SKZ, I will reply not for your benefit, but for others who might read these comments. Had you read my posts carefully or completely, you would have seen that I am against gay marriage in general because of its subversion of the family and of capitalism. The HIV-positive and AIDs plagues are just an additional problem resulting from the gay lifestyle. Arguments from epidemiology? Look at the HIV problem in Oklahoma.

I am disappointed that you stand by your ad hominem comments, but I also realize that many people who consider themselves victimized have brittle egos, and I take your comment to reflect that. This brittleness has recently been seen in Johns Hopkins’ intolerance towards Dr. Carson. Nary a criticism, nary a comment, or else get hit by dozens of angry posts. It is just like the brittleness of many who support abortion on demand. Once that belief is challenged, it goes to their very being and is an existential threat to them, and they reflexively fight on and on.

And unfortunately, no apology from you for misconstruing my comment about schematic thinking. You just roll right past it, attacking my actual meaning, without an acknowledgment that you were completely wrong in your interpretation. I could show similar isunderstandings of most of the other things you wrote, but it isn’t worth the effort, as most contributors to this post understand the problems with gay marriage, and the unrestrained recklessness of much gay behavior.

If you don’t know who I have in mind in my discussion of states and individual rights, you have not been keeping up with the current discussion among conservatives. I have a policy of quoting other conservatives as little as possible on this site, because of the pro-Muslim attitudes of many and their shabby behavior towards Debbie, but most readers of this post know that the Republican Party is considering a shift in its position on gay rights, and using States Rights and Individual Rights as one justification. It is they, not I who have used overly expansive definitions of these rights. RIF. (and ob iously, they don’t apply because they contradict an institution fundamental to protecting these rights, i.e. capitalism.)

Your debating tactics are disappointing, especially the one about taking a non-existent premise, and drawing incorrect inferences from that premise (which is one of the things I mean by compounding so I don’t have to explain that again). Since you are a one-person attack squad against those who dare to oppose gay marriage, I really don’t need to waste time elaborating.

And like many who are liberals deep down, you shift from subject to subject. If the analogies and slippery slope arguments don’t work, try something else. If your psychoanalysis of my comments about ‘rigid schematic thinking’ don’t work, just jump to something else.

BTW, if you want to psychologize about poor grammar or semantics, look at the last sentence of your 12:50 post. I won’t try to evaluate your hidden motives, because I realize that when people write hurriedly and express themselves extemporaneously, they sometimes don’t use model language.

Again, I won’t bother to answer your convoluted semantic criticisms, except to say that the more one depends on inferences, the more likely one is to be wrong. Uncertainty of inferences compounds, and this is especially so in your case. It reminds me a little of Bill Clinton’s justifications when pressured.

Except for one, just as an illustration. You assert I am contradictory in my assertion of states rights (used as a compound noun, so a possessive is not necessary) and individual rights. But you forget, in your ardor that this is my whole point!! These rights are not unlimited. Individual rights are rejected by states rights only if unlimited. An assertion to the contrary is rigid, schematic thinking, if I may say so, since I am saying precisely the opposite. I am criticizing others for using these arguments.

I could go on through all your posts, but I don’t have time, and it’s not worth the effort, just as it isn’t with others who argue on and on for their pet points. So this will be my last comment until there is another post on the subject of gay marriage.

Little Al on March 31, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    Little Al, when will you change your shtick? It’s getting tiresome.

    Little Al periodically gets involved in brawls with “regulars” here, just as he has gotten involved with me now. I had never paid much attention to such events, but the characteristics of his Final Grand Exit from a brawl always seem the same: having gathered himself up in his dignity, he addresses the electronic agora of DebbieSchlussel.com in solemn language, expressing disappointment at his critic’s ad hominem attacks. He does not make much sense in these exchanges, but his quiet dignity never fails to impress. While orating, he makes sure to sneak in as many insults as possible, having already declared himself a victim. As a participant, I find the experience very annoying.

    [1] Let’s clarify one point near the start. Little Al goes personal early on; he just typically avoids proper nouns so that he can insult others with impunity (or so he thinks). Thus, on March 29, 2013 at 10:03 am, he remarked:

    Some ‘conservative’ opportunists play upon the inarticulateness of many supporters of traditional marriage and sexuality by inventing conservative ‘justifications’ for their radical beliefs.

    Who could Little Al have in mind? He makes sure to tell us in his Grand Exit who he means:

    And like many who are liberals deep down, you shift from subject to subject.

    In other words, Little Al hurled insults and ad hominem attacks before my own alleged ad hominem utterance (which he has never specified). To make the point absolutely clear: he called me a secret liberal who plays “conservative” opportunistically. He now also refers to me contemptuously as “SKZ” (“skuzz”), no longer even bothering to hide his bad manners. Little Al is no victim; don’t let him play one on TV.

    [2] I have already identified numerous instances of Little Al’s lousy writing and dumb arguments (e.g., argument from bestiality, argument from epidemiology). Just find my quotations from his posts that are in italics. But now he tries another gambit: he purports to find my own writing and thinking deficient. For example, while his argument from epidemiology was important enough for him to mention it as a “taboo” topic (hardly!), he now says this:

    Had you read my posts carefully or completely, you would have seen that I am against gay marriage in general because of its subversion of the family and of capitalism. The HIV-positive and AIDs plagues are just an additional problem resulting from the gay lifestyle.

    Nice try. We know that I have read Little Al carefully and completely. How else could I have identified so many instances of his rotten writing and thinking? In fact, he doesn’t even mention “capitalism” before it appears in his Grand Exit speech. The closest he comes is to echo someone else’s comment about the economic aspects of family life. (If, unlike Little Al, the reader would like to ponder seriously the economics of family life and its role in larger society, consider the work of George Fitzhugh, whose powerful antebellum argument in defense of slavery placed family center stage in the life of the South, who criticized capitalism as anti-family, and who pointed out that the family was a socialist entity!) Note that I have already explained (twice) why his argument from epidemiology is idiotic. He has no response to my explanation. He just repeats himself. Finally, his ruminations about “subversion of the family,” insofar as they make sense, are tautological: if, by definition, “family” means only hetero family, a homo family “subverts” the definition. If Little Al intends to make a more nuanced argument, he has not done so here. The problem is not with me.

    And unfortunately, no apology from you for misconstruing my comment about schematic thinking. You just roll right past it, attacking my actual meaning, without an acknowledgment that you were completely wrong in your interpretation. I could show similar misunderstandings of most of the other things you wrote, but it isn’t worth the effort. . . .

    The reason I did not “apologize” for “misconstruing” Little Al’s comment was that I didn’t misconstrue it. Of course he had in mind one particular instance of mental rigidity brought about by over-reliance on abstract categories like “states’ rights” and “individual rights”; my purpose was to generalize the mental rigidity phenomenon, using his own utterances as instances. I expect that Little Al could show “similar misunderstandings,” but they would be his own misunderstandings deriving from his own sloppy reading. (Those who want to explore the topic of language confounding political reasoning should obtain George Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language.” It’s too late for Little Al.)

    He also criticizes my writing:

    BTW, if you want to psychologize about poor grammar or semantics, look at the last sentence of your 12:50 post. I won’t try to evaluate your hidden motives, because I realize that when people write hurriedly and express themselves extemporaneously, they sometimes don’t use model language.”

    Little Al likes to make references that a reader would have to spend time looking up in the hope that the references will not be looked up. Here is the relevant sentence from me:

    “There is always a tendency to interpret what is “right” so that one is in the right. At least we should avoid telling others that their thought processes are too rigid then [sic] they don’t happen to appreciate the results of such a tendency.”

    In other words, gentle reader, when Little Al strives to “psychologize” (ugh!) about my own grammar or semantics, he is left with a typo: “then” instead of the intended “when.” But really, my point wasn’t to play grammar police just to find fault. I was mainly interested in Little Al’s fabulously impenetrable sentences and illogical paragraphs. Take a look at this new one:

    Again, I won’t bother to answer your convoluted semantic criticisms, except to say that the more one depends on inferences, the more likely one is to be wrong.

    Has this guy even gone to college? What exactly is one to depend on, if not inferences? We infer general principles from observed data. We then use such principles to inform future observed data.

    Uncertainty of inferences compounds, [Is this supposed to be English?] and this is especially so in your case [Why?]. It [What?] reminds me a little [Only a little?] of Bill Clinton’s justifications [Of what?] when pressured [By whom?].

    … just as an illustration. You assert I am contradictory in my assertion of states rights (used as a compound noun, so a possessive is not necessary) and individual rights.

    No, I wrote “you need to explain … why states’ rights and individual rights do not apply in this case (note that these two types of rights are actually in conflict, as an individual rights argument rejects state limitations).” In other words, while I noted a tension between states’ rights and individuals’ rights, I did so parenthetically. What I wanted to know was why arguments based on these concepts/categories were unsatisfactory. Sometimes categories cripple reasoning (for example, Little Al’s category that combines all non-hetero relationships into one group by virtue of the fact those non-hetero relationships are … non-hetero). When they cripple reasoning, we should use others instead. Evidently, Little Al just can’t understand the point.

    But you forget, in your ardor that this is my whole point!!

    Alas, it is an irrelevant point.

    These rights are not unlimited. Individual rights are rejected by states rights only if unlimited. An assertion to the contrary is rigid, schematic thinking

    More opaque sentences. But that’s par for the course.

    I could go on through all your posts, but I don’t have time, and it’s not worth the effort

    I wouldn’t suggest you go through “all my posts,” Little Al. The floor is already covered with your blood. It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

    skzion on April 1, 2013 at 7:32 pm

      Yep. You mopped the floor with him, alright. Your arguments are impeccable, skzion.

      The trouble with the Internet unlike IRL, though, is that they can keep coming back despite their punctured defenses and shattered rebuttals.

      DS_ROCKS! on April 1, 2013 at 8:23 pm

        Thanks, DS ROCKS!. You’re one of the participants whose opinion I particularly value.

        skzion on April 2, 2013 at 12:35 am

    @Little Al–

    Nice work. You (and there are far too few) see through the posturing and arguments of those who call themselves “conservative,” except for moral issues.

    If politics could exist in a vacuum, this might be possible, but even then, what—precisely—are these people trying to conserve?

    The absurdity of invoking states’ rights in this matter is also exposed. DOMA is rendered moot by non-enforcement, so it can be thrown back to the states, except with a Supreme Court decision, it will be “Roe v Waded” into national law. As an aside, study up on how the 14th amendment was illegally ratified. (It achieved ratification by violating the 14th amendment—meta enough for you?)

    But the real problem, of course, is the very poisonous nature of civil rights as a legal hobby horse to force federal judicial action.

    Skzion, and other Gramsci commies like him will continue to find victims in their endless pursuit of litigation. Can people not see how insidious this all is?

    It started with equal rights by race, then advanced to affirmative action by race, which by definition will discriminate against other races—thus already exposing the inherent contradictions early on. Yet, that did not stop the ever-speeding train, did it?

    The next victims were seniors, then the handicapped, then the gays, then the transgendered. Yes, I know of a company here that had to build a separate restroom for a transgendered employee because he/she felt ill at ease.

    Tell me please, who is better off—besides govt bureaucrats and plaintiff’s lawyers—and a very few token exalted victims?

    Calling a gay union “marriage” is quite similar to calling unqualified affirmative action recipients “graduates” of Ivy League colleges.

    That’s why Gramsci called it the “March through the institutions.”

    Red Ryder on April 2, 2013 at 9:44 am

      Red Ryder’s comment is a grudging admission that while in his opinion Little Al was right about me, Al’s “arguments” were laughable. So RR now fills that void with Gramsci. RR’s “argument” is a Gramsci-inflected slippery slope beginning with the repudiation of slavery and ending with communism. RR thinks that if he can describe a scenario and footnote it with Gramsci it thereby becomes a plausible causal argument. But ruminations, even if footnoted, remain merely ruminations.

      You (and there are far too few) see through the posturing and arguments of those who call themselves “conservative,” except for moral issues.

      Here RR is typically sloppy and dishonest. He wants to describe me as liberal on social issues when in fact I am pretty darned conservative on social issues generally. But you see, for RR, illegal aliens and Muslims are not a big deal. Sure, they are the two biggest issues on DebbieSchlussel.com, but RR doesn’t notice them. Am I liberal on these issues?! Am I Mr. Pro-Feminist? I’m not even very “good” on gay rights. In other words, even if we stipulate that “economic conservatives/libertarians” are cryptic communists–which is RR’s point–I am not in that group, unless one focuses solely on RR’s own policy hobby horses.

      I do, though, take individual rights (and states’ rights) seriously. The former should need no defense, except for a modern-day Inquisitor like RR; the latter is essential to the balance of powers that keep the US government a democratic republic. (Interested readers should immediately ponder The Federalist, where the competing forces of states versus the central government are discussed repeatedly and at length. The US is a federal republic/b> by design.)

      Finally, as RR proclaims himself a real conservative, shall we look under the hood a bit? I have asked him several times whether Jews living today should be discriminated against by Catholics for “deicide” (killing Jesus). I first asked this when he rejected Vatican II. RR has yet to answer this simple question. Of course, by now his answering of it is like Holder’s finally answering Rand Paul’s question about drones.

      In sum: RR’s “conservatism” evidently includes nasty anti-Semitism. Some will recall what Buckley, also a Catholic, thought about that. I guess Buckley was a crypto-communist too.

      skzion on April 2, 2013 at 12:53 pm

(Sorry about the bold-font screw-up in my reply. I did not intend to bold a whole paragraph.)

skzion on April 2, 2013 at 12:55 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field