So I heard Rush Limbaugh bemoaning the demise of traditional marriage. Rush has been married four times. If there ever was an expert on the demise of traditional marriage, Rush would be it. What a *$&# hypocrite.
Yeah, he doesn't have a whole lot of credibility on the marriage issue or the drug issue. He should pretty much never talk about either issue again.
au contraire, mon freres, he has considerale expertise in both areas based on his personal experiences. Where he has no right based on expeience to blather would be on matters military and re foreign countries.
As I stated on another thread, the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the right do more forming of the public perception of the party than the actual politicians. Being outrageous and riling up the most right 25% of the population makes them money but does harm to the cause IMO. They do nothing but talk **** about groups that the GOP politicians are desperate to make inroads with.
Limbaugh is an idoit freakshow. He does have incredible writers who write his opinions for him to give to his not very intelligent audience. It's a sure sign of somebody not knowing issues or having much intellect when they quote what he spouts. He's a genius as an entertainer, however, and he knows his audience who makes him lots of money. I would be surprised if he believed even 1/4 of what he says on his show or interviews. I wish his "audience" was unable to procreate.
BI You listen to Rush? really? when did he say this? yesterday? I don't listen but I want to hear that show so when did you hear it? That is too funny although as some pointed out he is an expert and every one of his marriages was to a female.
I forget what comedian it was and maybe several have said it but they feel that gay people have the same right to destroy one another's lives and finances just like hetero people do.
he also has said that this is a lost cause for conservatives that it really is just a matter of time before gay marriage is recognized nation wide, I guess you think he is wrong on that one too?
The funny thing about hypocrites is that their hypocrisy is completely unrelated to whether their opinion is correct. PC speech has forced this country into basically being indifferent toward the decrease in households with a mother and father, and that's not a good thing. It's funny to listen to the discourse - we'll start off by saying that "well sure, all kids want a mom and a dad, and that's probably the best way...", but quickly turn around and say "but if you're a woman, you don't need a man to have a family. Single women can do just as good a job". Then we follow it up with "and who are we to say that two men or two women can't do as good a job?" So basically as a society, we've decided that parents are irrelevant. One mom, two moms, two dads, wards of the state, "the village"... in the same breath that we admit that a stable family with male and female contributions is healthy, we turn around and say that it doesn't really make any difference at all and shouldn't be a preferred system. Seems like the single men are the only ones who don't have people lining up to tell them they can do it just as well on their own.
PH, I think the men are the problem. I think most women who get pregnant out of wedlock would marry the father of the baby if he was willing and could act like a half-way responsible adult. The problem is that there isn't enough outrage and shame in society anymore. People used to look down upon men who abandoned their families. Nowadays we don't judge morally abhorrent behavior nearly as much, and so abandoning your kids has become acceptable. Hell, over 70 percent of black children don't have a dad at home. With numbers like that I think most people are surprised when they see a black kid with a mom and a dad married to each other. Sad.
Definitely agree with the first part of your post. But, I'm still trying to figure out who is saying that a single mother is as good as a stable two parent home. I have literally never heard that. So naturally, I googled it. After entering the search "one parent better than two" I got page after page of studies saying that two stable parents are better in just about every way. The first one said this:
The problem with Rush isn't that he's a hypocrite. (If we condemn all hypocrites, then who will escape condemnation?) No, the problem with Rush is that he has ideas. And people (most of them, anyway) don't like ideas. I feel like I can speak with some authority on that issue, as a person for whom ideas are important. I've seen what happens when you confront people with the calculus of their own ideas. People (most of them, anyway) care about sentimentality, not ideas. And I care about sentimentality too. Ultimately, the people at the heart of our sentimentality are more important than the ideas themselves, but it only works if the sentimentality is supported by ideas that are consistent. The minute we begin to care about ideas, we become concerned with consistency. And the minute that happens, we become conservatives. Ideas are the enemy for many people, because ideas lead ultimately to the conclusion that either there is a Good and that, therefore, our actions can be judged, or else to the certainty that our universe is ruled by moral chaos and the natural advantage of the stronger. There is only one way for these people to live a life that (1) frees them from moral judgment, and (2) avoids giving free reign to aggressors. And that is to annihilate ideas and thereby to go along under the pretense of a world view that is fundamentally inconsistent and which we implicitly know to be false.
So I just want to be sure I understand you, BI: You're saying you agree with Limbaugh that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, right?
Yes, and my post was a commentary on the irony of you feigning disgust at Limbaugh's hypocrisy when in fact you are quite happy to have the opportunity for an ad hominem attack against someone whose ideas you oppose. Hypocrisy is rampant on both sides. You could have chosen among hundreds of hypocrites. But you didn't choose just anyone. You chose someone whose ideas you disagreed with. Or, let's put it this way. If you're really disgusted with hypocrisy, then you'll distribute your outrage evenly across the political spectrum, rather than selectively against those whose ideas you find threatening. And if you don't do this, then you are a hypocrite as well and your outrage at hypocrisy will be shown to be merely a tool for avoiding the task of having to deal with opposing ideas.
So Bevo, if Coel's commentary was wrong, tell us what you DO believe about marriage. Don't be a coward. Either take a stand for the traditional view or share you view that homosexual marriage is a legitimate expression of marriage.
At one time sex before marriage was taboo. If a girl got pregnant in high school it was shameful and no one even thought that gays would marry. In this anything goes world what is next? I know it sounds absolutely absurd but could marriage between species be acceptible at some point in time. At least with all this liberalism we have fewer unwanted pregnancies and less abortions because nothing is shameful anymore. What a wonderful world this will be.
