An Affliction

Posted on 12/20/2008 at 3:23 pm by Bob Cesca

Pat Buchanan, like Rick Warren, enjoys comparing homosexuality to nonequivalent things. Warren lumped same-sex marriages in with pedophilic marriages (?) and compared being gay with a lack of self control. But as for Buchanan — the very serious “grampa” figure on MSNBC — in 2004 he said, “[H]omosexuality is an affliction, like alcoholism.”

Yep.

Wanna know one of the many, many differences, Pat? First, homosexuality isn’t an affliction. But also, alcoholics can get married and divorced as many times as they want.

This entry was posted in Inauguration 2009 and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • GItheJOE

    Is this a contest to see what wild shit homosexuality can be compared to?Let me give it a try.Homosexuality is like Jello pudding pops. Both require Bill Cosby.

  • kansasdem

    Actually the affliction is the one possessed by Warren, Buchanan, and others of their ilk!Let’s try this on for size:In some cultures it is acceptable to have more than one wife! Even in the USA it’s OK for folks to have a religious ceremony adding a second or third wife to the mix!No problemo! It’s a religious ceremony! Not recognized by law!I’m agnostic and yet I’ve been married twice by a justice of the peace! NO ONE forced any church to sanction the marriage!Hmmm, religious ceremony vs. legal contract?????Separation of ……… uh, what is that? Oh yeah, church and state!How about we respect that separation and quit defining people by a few ounces of flesh between their legs?That would also go a long way in decreasing wage disparity between male and female workers! (Among other things)

  • PackyJ

    This brief argument put forth by my friend Elwood Foreclift sums it up fairly well:http://www.ieatgravel.com/?p=2303

  • http://jennydemilo.blogspot.com JennyDemilo

    In Pats defence I’m sure right before he said that he was scarfing Twinkies.

  • ceu

    I think a mistake that many on the left are making is that they’re buying that religious side of the argument is a valid point. It’s not. It doesn’t matter one whit what any religion in the world says about same sex marriage. Not a single scintilla.If we support the Constitution, then we support equal protection for ALL, not just for some who happen to believe what we do. Should we allow free speech only for those who say things we agree with? Or freedom of the press only for media which supports one side or the other? How about voting rights only for those who support the candidates we like? Of course not. So why is it that some people are okay with saying that equal protection under the law is only for certain classes of citizens?The 14th Amendment doesn’t apply only to heterosexuals. It says, quite clearly, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. THAT’s the argument.

  • incredulous72

    Thanks for repeating this again Ceu.This is truly a non-issue for the very reason Ceu stated above.

  • Jessica

    Marriage should not be a function of the state, period.A good summation from an unexpected source:http://famguardian.org/Subjects/FamilyLaw/Marriage/5ReasonsNoMarrLicense.htmWhen you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. (And your children. And your property.)Be sure to read through the court documentation.