Dispatches from the Creation Wars

McCullough on New Jersey Ruling

One thing has become very clear: you can always count on Kevin McCullough to bring the crazy when it comes to gay rights (and pretty much anything else). Take a gander at this column responding to the New Jersey gay marriage ruling.

Despite all that their angry-mob front groups argue in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution, and more importantly the sanctity, of marriage. That is the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.

Of course, Kevin, you’ve cracked the code and you’ve got it all figured out. Jason Kuznicki and his husband Scott, they’re just pretending to like being married. Hell, they’re just pretending to like one another. A relationship that has survived years of separation as Jason worked on his dissertation in France, that has included a good deal of sacrifice and hard work to establish the kind of basic protections that the rest of us take for granted….it’s all a con to fool you into thinking that they actually love each other.

But somehow you, who has never met them or virtually any other of the hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians in such relationships, you’ve got it all figured out. We all thought we could slide this one past you, but you’re just too smart. You’ve used your mindreading powers to discern exactly what millions of people you’ve never met are thinking. We would have succeeded if not for those pesky kids. It’s that kind of crack thinking that leads to statements like this:

This week – dateline Trenton, N.J. – a unified panel of seven judges agreed that illegitimate sexual unions should be made equitable under law to that of monogamous married persons.

Yep, it’s all about the sex. These aren’t real people with children and loved ones, they’re just walking genitalia. All they do is have anal sex all day long. They don’t even stop to eat (being nothing but genitalia, they have no stomach, obviously). Just like your marriage has nothing at all to do with love or commitment or family, it’s all about sex. Oh, it’s not? Maybe that should make you stop and think.

With utter contempt for God and for the voters of their state, the New Jersey seven unanimously said that all who live in the confines of its borders must fundamentally agree to the moral premise that what the Bible terms perversion the voters should call healthy.

Well sure. And given that the state not only does not ban the sale and consumption of shellfish – something God himself is clearly opposed to in the Bible – but actually have a thriving industry based upon it, the state has clearly shown “utter contempt for God.” And by not stoning women who are not virgins on their wedding day, they obviously have forced upon the people of New Jersey that they must agree to the moral premise that what the bible terms perversion they voters must accept.

The answer is simple: No longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over their sexual behaviors, because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy, that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong.

They wrongfully believe that the guilty voice within them is an echo of a prudish state that seeks to limit their freedoms. They wrongfully believe that the judgment they feel is emanating from “Bible thumpers.” And what they fail to admit is that the voice that condemns them the loudest is never a human voice – but in fact the voice of their own conscience informed by the truth of the God who created them.

Uh, Kevin…the only one hearing voices in their head is you, pal. You’re the one who thinks he talks to God. And once again, I marvel at your ability to read the minds of millions of people you’ve never even met. It’s a wonderful gift you have. Can you teach it to me?

Radical homosexual activists hate biblical marriage, because to achieve its benefits and blessings they must first conform to God’s plan for sexuality, and the sinful nature in man is not willing to make such submission and conformity happen. The existence of joyful biblical marriage being practiced by “thumpers” in “Jesusland” infuriates them and thus the only action they can attempt is to destroy the institution that allows for such fundamental societal success.

I got news for you, Kevin. Neither they nor I give a damn about “biblical marriage”, any more than I care about “quranic marriage”. Marriage is a civil institution. If you want to imbue it with some special spiritual significance, be my guest. But that has nothing to do with the legal question. As for “destroying” the institution of marriage, when one of you braindead idiots comes up with a rational argument for why allowing gays to marry will destroy anyone else’s marriage, please present it. Until then, you’re talking out your ass.

Comments

  1. #1 Gretchen
    October 28, 2006

    unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek

    Gee, wild guess: I have a feeling it’s not just their hearts seeking it!

  2. #2 Stacey C.
    October 28, 2006

    Well, I live in Massachusetts…and I’m married to a wonderful man. I’m pretty sure that I’m still married to him and that our marriage still has a deep meaning to both of us despite the fact that gays and lesbians (even some of our friends!) have been getting married and are finally being treated, by at least most people in the state, like regular human beings. I feel sorry for all these anti-gay fundamentalist who have such precarious relationships that they feel they’re threatened by people *they’ve never met* and who just want to be treated like normal people *which they are*.

  3. #3 Sastra
    October 28, 2006

    They wrongfully believe that the guilty voice within them is an echo of a prudish state that seeks to limit their freedoms. They wrongfully believe that the judgment they feel is emanating from “Bible thumpers.” And what they fail to admit is that the voice that condemns them the loudest is never a human voice – but in fact the voice of their own conscience informed by the truth of the God who created them.

    This could almost have been excerpted word for word from a rant against atheists, who all know “deep down” that God exists, despite their denials. And most of the arguments this this guy makes against gay marriages could be applied to atheists getting married, too — attacks on the “sanctity” and so on.

    Same old, same old.

  4. #4 twincats
    October 28, 2006

    This quote got me: “And what they fail to admit is that the voice that condemns them the loudest is never a human voice – but in fact the voice of their own conscience informed by the truth of the God who created them.”

    I’m pretty sure all of MY internal conversations and voices are human, considering they’re all ME…

    If a person’s conscience isn’t a HUMAN voice, what its it then, the ‘lizard brain’ talking? Aliens, maybe? I mean, he’s not saying it’s God’s voice, just an INhuman voice informed BY God.

    Whatever.

  5. #5 Ted
    October 28, 2006

    I can’t speak for all gays, but I am enormously grateful for straights who advocate on our behalf like you do, Ed. If it weren’t for people like you, we’d have a very weak public voice, and I will certainly never forget that.

  6. #6 Red Mann
    October 28, 2006

    OK, someone please tell me where I can get a copy of The Gay Agenda. I checked my local library and, even here in Virginia, they don’t have a copy. I can’t find it at Barnes & Noble or Walden Books. Hmm, maybe Walmart is going to carry it. Maybe only fundies have a copy. If they do, I wish they would let the rest of us read it. It should be on the same shelf as that other well known agenda, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

  7. #7 Baratos
    October 28, 2006

    You cant find the Gay Agenda, because the gays destroyed all the copies. *puts on tinfoil hat and checks for hidden microphones*

  8. #8 Prup aka Jim Benton
    October 28, 2006

    I will gladly listen to any preacher, priest, or rabbi about following the Word of God if he will just tell me that he follows. to the letter, the laws God Himself laid down for the treatment of mildew in clothes and in houses.

    If you don’t know them. they are Leviticus 13
    Regulations About Mildew
    47 “If any clothing is contaminated with mildew–any woolen or linen clothing, 48 any woven or knitted material of linen or wool, any leather or anything made of leather- 49 and if the contamination in the clothing, or leather, or woven or knitted material, or any leather article, is greenish or reddish, it is a spreading mildew and must be shown to the priest. 50 The priest is to examine the mildew and isolate the affected article for seven days. 51 On the seventh day he is to examine it, and if the mildew has spread in the clothing, or the woven or knitted material, or the leather, whatever its use, it is a destructive mildew; the article is unclean. 52 He must burn up the clothing, or the woven or knitted material of wool or linen, or any leather article that has the contamination in it, because the mildew is destructive; the article must be burned up.
    53 “But if, when the priest examines it, the mildew has not spread in the clothing, or the woven or knitted material, or the leather article, 54 he shall order that the contaminated article be washed. Then he is to isolate it for another seven days. 55 After the affected article has been washed, the priest is to examine it, and if the mildew has not changed its appearance, even though it has not spread, it is unclean. Burn it with fire, whether the mildew has affected one side or the other. 56 If, when the priest examines it, the mildew has faded after the article has been washed, he is to tear the contaminated part out of the clothing, or the leather, or the woven or knitted material. 57 But if it reappears in the clothing, or in the woven or knitted material, or in the leather article, it is spreading, and whatever has the mildew must be burned with fire. 58 The clothing, or the woven or knitted material, or any leather article that has been washed and is rid of the mildew, must be washed again, and it will be clean.”
    59 These are the regulations concerning contamination by mildew in woolen or linen clothing, woven or knitted material, or any leather article, for pronouncing them clean or unclean.

    And Leviticus 14
    33 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 34 “When you enter the land of Canaan, which I am giving you as your possession, and I put a spreading mildew in a house in that land, 35 the owner of the house must go and tell the priest, ‘I have seen something that looks like mildew in my house.’ 36 The priest is to order the house to be emptied before he goes in to examine the mildew, so that nothing in the house will be pronounced unclean. After this the priest is to go in and inspect the house. 37 He is to examine the mildew on the walls, and if it has greenish or reddish depressions that appear to be deeper than the surface of the wall, 38 the priest shall go out the doorway of the house and close it up for seven days. 39 On the seventh day the priest shall return to inspect the house. If the mildew has spread on the walls, 40 he is to order that the contaminated stones be torn out and thrown into an unclean place outside the town. 41 He must have all the inside walls of the house scraped and the material that is scraped off dumped into an unclean place outside the town. 42 Then they are to take other stones to replace these and take new clay and plaster the house.
    43 “If the mildew reappears in the house after the stones have been torn out and the house scraped and plastered, 44 the priest is to go and examine it and, if the mildew has spread in the house, it is a destructive mildew; the house is unclean. 45 It must be torn down–its stones, timbers and all the plaster–and taken out of the town to an unclean place.

    46 “Anyone who goes into the house while it is closed up will be unclean till evening. 47 Anyone who sleeps or eats in the house must wash his clothes.

    48 “But if the priest comes to examine it and the mildew has not spread after the house has been plastered, he shall pronounce the house clean, because the mildew is gone. 49 To purify the house he is to take two birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop. 50 He shall kill one of the birds over fresh water in a clay pot. 51 Then he is to take the cedar wood, the hyssop, the scarlet yarn and the live bird, dip them into the blood of the dead bird and the fresh water, and sprinkle the house seven times. 52 He shall purify the house with the bird’s blood, the fresh water, the live bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop and the scarlet yarn. 53 Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields outside the town. In this way he will make atonement for the house, and it will be clean.”

    54 These are the regulations for any infectious skin disease, for an itch, 55 for mildew in clothing or in a house, 56 and for a swelling, a rash or a bright spot, 57 to determine when something is clean or unclean.
    These are the regulations for infectious skin diseases and mildew.

    (If you are wondering about the ‘infectious skin diseases,’ God apparently considered them as a form of mildew — or vice versa, and both chapters begin with instructions on them.)

  9. #9 raj
    October 29, 2006

    Kevin McCullough is a rhetorical gay-basher from way back. In 1998 or ’99, he published an article on WorldNutDaily that basically pooh-poohed the murder of Matthew Shepherd.

  10. #10 Nebogipfel
    October 30, 2006

    They are also suffering from such immense guilt over their sexual behaviors, because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy, that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong.

    Mr. McCullough seems very sure about what’s going on in other people’s heads. Could he be speaking from experience, I wonder?

  11. #11 Matthew Young
    October 30, 2006

    I like to think of the moral basis of all this a little differently.

    Seeing as some random gay person being married to some other random gay person has no direct impact on my own marriage – I have yet to hear anyone give any sort of reason about how this works – then I can only assume that they mean it is tainted by association.

    In other words, marriage was wonderful until gay people started doing too. So what you think of something is altered by what some other unrelated person thinks of the same thing.

    In other words, if you like a particular kind of music or enjoyed a particular book, would it somehow lessen the enjoyment to find out that a gay person liked it as well (or a darkie, or a muslim, or a spastic, or a Frenchman, or a woman)?

    And the sad fact is that, yes, it probably would with these arseholes.