Tom Toles for February 04, 2010

Fascinating how all of the Republicans who over the past few years said they would listen to what the military leaders told them have been vilifying Admiral Mullen. Spin it any way you want, trolls, but Republican hypocrisy has never been so blatant. (Or stupid. Please explain how kicking 30,000+ qualified people out of the military because of their sexual orientation while fighting two wars is good for the country.)

Homophobia is the last bigotry sanctioned by our society. We should be able to treat all people equally. Gays have no choice when it comes to their “natural” sexual orientation. It is inbred.

Yes, Scottf, that’s exactly right. Once the military accepts gays, there will be a “twisted demand” in federal law by the “demonic Left” that everybody has to be gay. There will be a Federal Twisted Demand Gay Inspector who comes to your house to make sure that you are having gay sex. Yes, that is what this is all about. Woooo! Scary gays! Wooooooooo!

Thanks for the laugh.

“I know in the future the demonic Left will be fining, imprisoning, perhaps even worse to anyone who refuses to adopt all of their twisted demands concerning sexual behavior.”

Beats me, I’ve never seen the demonic left. Nor the abyssal right, the devilish labour, or the infernal conservatives. I really don’t care much for the politics of hell, to be honest. Why do you?

Actually I thought Scotts post was rather tame. I was prepared for 10 inches of hate filled filth. He must be tired.

@bradwilliams - No kidding. I figured this comic would have him frothing at the mouth.

“I know in the future the demonic Left will be fining, imprisoning, perhaps even worse to anyone who refuses to adopt all of their twisted demands concerning sexual behavior”

Here’s the IRONY. This practice of fining, imprisoning, and “even worse” to anyone who refuses to adopt all of their twisted demands concerning sexual behavior is EXACTLY what Conservatives have been doing this entire time. The eugenics program developed in Virginia to annihilate gays simply because they’re gay? White Christian Conservatives. Fining, imprisoning? Read the news even today. So no, the only one guilty of what you claim is the people you support. Shouldn’t you focus your ire on the straight people molesting, attacking, and killing women and children?

Facts > Conjecture.

Fact: There’s absolutely no activity that anyone knows of in the world of gay or open-minded people trying to imprison/fine/”or worse” to religious people.

Fact: There is, however, plenty of activity of religious people trying to do such things to gay people. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/04/obama.prayer/

Jade, that is entirely untrue…the entire nation of Canada is quickly moving towards a standard whereby it would be a “hate crime” (did you forget about those?) to denounce homosexuality in public, and it is widely assumed that this would include proclamations from the pulpit. Google “Canada hate crimes”, you’ll get plenty of examples…

As Scott, said, quite to the contrary of the label of “Neanderthalism”, there is plenty of evidence that sexual activities of every stripe and persuasion were dominant in the land of the ancients throughout all of history, but that we wisely became more “cultured” in rejecting such pagan carnality. Why would the term be “Neanderthal”, anyway? Wouldn’t it more appropriately be something along the lines of “Victorian”? Or is that too recent in history?

@HabaneroBuck -

“Prior to 2004-APR-29, the “Hate Propaganda” section of the Criminal Code of Canada (Section 318 & 319) prohibited the expression of hatred against – or the advocacy of genocide of – four “identifiable groups:” people distinguished by their “color, race, religion or ethnic origin” They’re adding “sexual orientation” to the list. So … what’s untrue about my statement? According to the legislation, you already can’t denounce religion. Please try again.

“but that we wisely became more “cultured” in rejecting such pagan carnality.”

Interesting that you pin a lack of cultural evolution on sexual orientation, which, again, doesn’t determine sexual behavior or conduct (sodomy is a very common practice amongst straight couples). The crusades were religiously motivated. The Holocaust used religion to scapegoat a people. Saddam Hussein regularly engaged in “ethnic cleansing” of a different religious sect. People were burned at the stake for the crime of “witchcraft” and “heresy” against religion. The most violent acts in history were and are motivated by religion. This includes the Jihads of the Muslim terrorists. Though I myself am a religious person and certainly not against the abolition of religion I must ask you from what basis do you arrive at your statement?

The animal and object argument is just plain stupid. What we are discussing is a relationship between consenting adults.

Ask yourself this: What business does the government have in anyone’s bedroom?

Answer: Nun-ya!

@Charlie Cluttering up Homosexuals with mental illnesses is not right. That’s like saying Christians, Muslims, and Rastafarians are of the same breed.

bradwilliams said: “Actually I thought Scotts post was rather tame. I was prepared for 10 inches of hate filled filth. He must be tired.”

Brad: Scottf posts under nearly every comic. There are only 14 hours (+10 to eat and sleep) in a day; obviously she/he doesn’t have time for long posts under all comics, in fact, obviously, (s)he doesn’t even have time to think.

By the time I arrived, Scott’s post is gone. Not that I mind.

Ah, the conquest of the west, where “men were men” and the sheep were nervous.

Jade, your post is sophomoric and simplistic. People throughout history have used whatever was available to justify their blood-lust. You can strain to call the Holocaust “religiously” motivated, but surely you can’t say the same about the Maoist revolution, Che Guevara, Lenin, Marx, Pol Pot, etc…the history of bloodshed in the world is a history of the struggle for power, with, yes, religion often playing a role in that struggle.

What was untrue about your statement? The untruth was the fact that people are, in fact, seeking to imprison, fine, and censor the voice of anyone who would publicly denounce the acceptance of anal sex between men as a civil right under all circumstances.

“The untruth was the fact that people are, in fact, seeking to imprison, fine, and censor the voice of anyone who would publicly denounce the acceptance of anal sex between men as a civil right under all circumstances.”

It is adding the same protections to a particular minority which, from what I gather, is in the interest of equality. Right now other major groups are already protected by this. You can’t speak out against religion, race, ethnic background, or color, yet those same people are able to speak out against homosexuality with whatever level of disdain they wish with absolute impunity. Simply put, if there’s an issue with the rule, completely repealing the protections for ALL of those categories is the only fair option. Since it is merely extending the SAME protections already enjoyed by other groups, such an assertion would be easily countered by saying these other groups, which, in this case my statement was “religious groups,” were already out to do exactly what it is you’re claiming of homosexuals. However, since it can be proven that such a statement would not target JUST the religious that make anti-gay statements of this degree, it’s incorrect to state that they are solely targeting the religious (which was my counter statement to scott you are attempting to prove wrong), since it could easily be proven that an Atheist could be jailed for the same reason. Here’s what’s interesting about your statement. You specifically mention a particular sexual practice “between men.” So is it Okay for a man and a woman to engage in this particular activity? What is “less immoral” about this particular form of “sodomy” if it’s performed by heterosexual couples? Isn’t a sin a sin a sin? Murder is no more evil if a homosexual commits it. Is the use of toys also prohibited among straight couples, or is it simply a hang-up over the potential activities of homosexuals going on in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Is the government supposed to come into everyone’s bedroom, straight or homosexual, and make sure they’re ONLY performing the missionary position and no additional activity is occurring? Because that’s what it sounds like.

Charlie555 asks; why is a pedophile bad, but a homosexual is ok? The answer is because one is between consenting adults and the other is not.

Scooty, once again … come out of your celler. The service member is a better individual than a fanatic crackpot will ever be. As for lying, maing up skewered facts to howel a point … Thought that was lying.

“So if we give children the right to consent (as pedophile groups advocate), it will be all right?”

Separate matter. If you give children the right to consent that’s entirely on whatever legislative group decides that that’s Okay and wants to deal with the repercussions of that. Interestingly, the age of consent in several countries is 13. Ours is much higher.

“What about the bigamists, incestuants, and animal lovers?”

King David was a bigamist. He had 700 wives and 300 concubines. He was on the side of God, so the Bible says. This is one reason why trying to legislate morality when you use that as your source becomes questionable. Bigamy is also a legitimate practice in several other cultures, though interestingly, it’s only for men. Question: How do we get the entire human population from Adam and Eve? Must’ve been a lot of incest especially if Eve was made from Adam. That aside, incest and relationships between close cousins is prohibited because the genetics of the individuals are too closely related and you are likely to have children with Down Syndrome, among a multitude of other genetic defects because there is no variance in the pool. This behavior is reproductively dangerous. Homosexual behavior is no more dangerous, nor more immoral than the sexual behavior of the vast majority of the planet, including that of self-proclaimed Christians. Homosexuals cannot, without outside help, birth children. However, neither can sterile/barren men or women, regardless of their sexuality. Comparing incest to homosexuality is a Conservative red herring. Animals are not human and do not have the same rights, regardless of what PETA will have you believe. A dog cannot own property, a dog does not pay taxes, a dog cannot be a citizen of the United States. Humans and animals cannot reproduce. There are also viral and disease concerns with such practices. Homosexuality is, again, no more dangerous than heterosexuality. If two men or women have sex and neither have diseases, there will be no disease. HIV is found in both heterosexuals and homosexuals. There are no “gay” diseases.

“(1) Human beings aren’t animals. I’m tired of even having to debate that point with Godless people. Anyone unintelligent enough to fail to see the infinite amount of things which separate us from animals deserves to be ignored.”

Hence you should be ignored anytime you equate homosexuality with bestiality. As YOU’VE SAID, “Human beings aren’t animals.” With your little rant you have completely disproved a major Conservative “Talking point.” It merely goes to show how stupid such “talking points” are.

“You’ll bribe politicians with as much money as it takes to force your views onto everyone else at the barrel of a Girl Government gun”

So I just replace “Girl Government” with “” and you have Church practices for the past … who knows how long.

Scott says, “Human beings aren’t animals. I’m tired of even having to debate that point with Godless people. Anyone unintelligent enough to fail to see the infinite amount of things which separate us from animals deserves to be ignored.” I fear the chasm between his world view and mine is so deep and broad that there is no use trying to engage.

But just one point – I think we should prohibit situations in which one person has power over another without informed consent. The problem with sexual relations between adults and children is that children can’t freely consent with full understanding. So there is, to my mind, a clear distinction between pedophilia, which I do not in any way condone, and homosexual relationships between consenting adults.

Additionally, there’s no link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Ask the Catholic church. They funded a story to find a correlation between homosexual pedophiles and heterosexual pedophiles, none was found. Considering the bias reasoning for such a study, it must’ve stunk real bad to have such a popular Conservative talking point debunked with church money.

Was it Scott who said, “I know in the future the demonic Left will be fining, imprisoning, perhaps even worse to anyone who refuses to adopt all of their twisted demands concerning sexual behavior.”

What could this mean? What precisely are these twisted demands?

The “fining, imprisoning and even worse” was what gay people had to endure not so long ago, not what they are intending to impose on others.

“Holy Moly…what rock have you been living under for the last 50 years?”

You tell me, what disease affects only gay people and is spread solely through homosexual behavior? It ain’t HIV/AIDS, cause straight people contract it, too. So please, tell me?

“Of course, if I were trashing the pope and the Catholic Church, the owners of this site would probably send me a medal or two, wouldn’t you???”

I’ve had several of MY posts removed while defending homosexuality, so that’s bunk. The most likely reason it was removed is because of the language or terminology used in the post. Learn to be more P.C. Believe it or not, neither side can say whatever it is they want here.

@Jade I think the h-word is taboo out here.

@”O”Hara 4% is a fluke. 10,667 cases have been filed against the Catholic Church, out of those 3,000 some odd cases have not been investigated because the accused priest was dead. And those are the ones we know about. I wonder how many other children were molested by the preacher man behind the rectory?

Sorry I couldn’t resist.

By the way, before anyone forgets, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” doesn’t refer in the slightest to consenting adults in their homes…it refers to people enlisting to serve large portions of their lives AWAY from home surrounded by mostly members of the same sex.

“it refers to people enlisting to serve large portions of their lives AWAY from home surrounded by mostly members of the same sex.”

And just because they are gay and they are surrounded by other men does not mean that they want to get together with any of them. These gay men may be in committed relationships with someone who is staying stateside. They think the rest of the soldiers in their unit are ugly. Or they may think that they are jerks. It is the same with women in the military; the men and women do not necessarily have to be attracted to each other.

If AIDS is a “gay disease”, why is transmission between lesbian partners so much less likely than between heterosexual partners? It’s virtually non-existent. I guess God only wants to punish men who lie with men, and doesn’t have a problem with Hot Girl-on-Girl action…

Thank you fritzoid.

“Oh, and if it isn’t a “gay disease” then why are all the gay support and gay political clout groups constantly clamoring for funding for a “cure””

Because it’s spread very easily and affects a good portion of the homosexual community, in particularly the gay male community. They are either uneducated or unsafe in their practices or do not know if they are HIV positive, thus effecting the spread of the virus.There is a tie-in here to discrimination in the health insurance industry as well. HIV also is prevalent among heterosexual Africans. Last I checked, they’re also “clamoring” to find a cure. As is most of the world. For some reason, not combating deadly diseases is typically a bad thing. But still, it’s not a homosexual disease. Heterosexuals aren’t immune to it and a great many do actually have or contract the disease.

Monogamous, homosexual partners have just as much of a chance.

Eddie - how do you know so much about the gay lifestyle?

Hmm – I once heard about a heterosexual fellow who had been together with his wife for years who liked a little “spice” now and then. Can you imagine? Maybe it was just a rumor. And I once heard about a heterosexual couple who didn’t always use the missionary position. Sometimes they did things that couldn’t make a baby at all. But I guess they went to hell.

Brilliant, Tom Toles.

Scott says, “I know in the future the hate-filled Left will be fining, imprisoning, or even worse to people who refuse to cave in to all of their twisted their demands concerning sexual behavior.”

I’m just wondering what these twisted demands might be? Is there something specific that worries you, or just some vague and ineffable fears?

As I recall, it wasn’t so long ago that it was gay people who were in danger of being fined or imprisoned for their behavior. And the danger of violence has not yet disappeared. I’ve never heard of a situation where a heterosexual person was in danger of being fined or imprisoned for being heterosexual.

People can believe what they want – but they shouldn’t be allowed to let their beliefs stand in the way of the liberty of other people. The US is supposed to be a free country, and I note that some of those who are most vociferous in their demands that the government keep out of their lives are also those who want the government to control the sexual lives of others.

Eddie – my impression from your various posts is that you’re an intelligent and complicated person. (I guess we’re all complicated.) I don’t agree with your religious views, but I believe that people have the right to their beliefs, and I don’t personally enjoy arguing religion, so I’m not going to get started there. If you believe that homosexuality is an offense to god, okay. But let god handle it.

Meanwhile, the US is a country where people are supposed to be free. That means free to make mistakes and even to do bad things, so long as they don’t hurt other people. I think that what you believe is mistaken but I also believe you have the right to believe it, and I don’t want anyone to come along and say you can’t believe it or that you should be penalized for believing it. But I expect a corresponding allowance from you.

I have to say my experience of gay people is very different from yours. My gay friends are pretty much like my straight friends. There are segments of the gay community that do things I don’t approve of, as there are segments of the straight community that do things I don’t approve of. But so long as they aren’t hurting anyone, they should have the right to be left alone.

A lot of interesting results have recently been presented regarding the Neanderthals - among others, their use of body ornamentation - but I haven’t yet seen anything regarding there sexual preferences. But perhaps Tom Toles is more a jour than I….

Henri