Newt Sets a Bad Example for Gay Couples.

Think of it this way.  The million or so gay couples are trying to carry on their domestic lives in ways that are meaningful to themselves and set a high standard for the moral conduct of gays.

Then someone, somewhere, strays.  The other gay person is hurt and confronts the adulteror.  The adulteror says, “Look, straight society sets the standard for marriage.  The standard set by the former Speaker of the House, is simple.  It’s one man, one woman, and a girlfriend.  Why would that not be our stardard?”

When I issued Gay and Lesbian Awareness Proclamations, I was asked over and over, “What kind of an example are you setting for young people?  We all know gays are immoral.”

I know the social conservative community so well, I know how it will reason through its suppport for Newt.  It will say, “Liberals are immoral.  Obama is a liberal.  It is moral for us to support Newt to defeat this immoral liberal President.  Issues about Newt’s marriages have nothing to do with our quest to create a moral society.”

The gay citizens who have so far risen to the top in their professions, in general, have conducted their personal lives on a higher moral plane than Gingrich. These include people like baseball player, Billy Bean, and the Prime Minister of Iceland, Johanna Sigurdardottir.

The passion for a Constitutional Ammendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman seems to have abated somewhat.  Adding, “and a girlfriend” might revive support.

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Newt Sets a Bad Example for Gay Couples.

  1. Henry says:

    Jon: “The million or so gay couples are trying to carry on their domestic lives in a way that is meaningful to themselves and set a high standard for the moral conduct of gays.”

    Homosexuals, the standard bearer of goodness in the land of utopia. Those dirty heterosexuals pale in comparison.

    “It is moral for us to support Newt to defeat this immoral liberal President. Issues about Newt’s marriages have nothing to do with our quest to create a moral society.”

    Now that would be a play out of the Clinton political playbook. They described it as his “private life”. This will be actually a little fun to watch the news media get all moral on us in the next several months.

    I look at the Newt infidelity in another manner. I don’t justify his infidelity. Sin is sin. Rather, I accept his confession and forgive him. Go and sin no more.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Henry 1:42 “I accept his confession…”

      I don’t mind that, or, really care what he did. It’s just all the morailzing that takes place in the Republican party, and, a perhaps a little among the Dems too. My thing is, run the government, keep the church out of it.

      • Bob says:

        To me, from what I can see, the religious left, is every bit if not even more so than the right.
        Libertarians are the only ones who want peace, and to leave people alone, out of control of the government.
        And that way Gays can get married in any private institution that wants to. And plenty will.
        For some reason, the left doesn’t seem to get this.

    • entech says:

      Oh my, Henry thinks he is the Pope now, accepting confessions and forgiving mortal sins.

      • Henry says:

        Repentance and forgiveness are not limited to the pope. Oh my indeed.

        • entech says:

          Of course not they are also the prerogative of archbishops, parish priests, Henry’s and other superior beings. It is probably blasphemy as well.

          • Henry says:

            Repentance and forgiveness are available to all. You seem to like to place exclusivity to it.

          • entech says:

            Forgiveness is available to all, agreed. But for a mere mortal like you to forgive a mortal sin is usurping the position of God and hence blasphemy, have a nice time in hell

          • Henry says:

            Mathew 18:21-22 would disagree with you. Repentence or forgiveness to another individual from me does not usurp the position of God. In fact, it is commanded by Jesus Christ.

          • Henry says:

            Entech in another fit of desparation: “Never mind Gods law, he sinned against ME.”

            I never said that.

            Why are you thinking of medication on a consistent basis? Interesting.

          • entech says:

            Note what you said at 4:04 pm on 23rd.
            “Oh, it is a personal sin as well. Newt has behaved poorly in a manner with consequences that have offended me, a Republican. As a result, I have had to endure the media and others lecturing me about morals, this thread no exception. Yes, it is a personal sin against me.”

            Henry your 3:31am 24th
            Entech in another fit of desparation: “Never mind Gods law, he sinned against ME.”
            I never said that.
            Read it all again I never said that is what you said, only what was in quotes. I did infer that I thought that the sin against you personally was in your mind the most important because of the offense and lecturing that you had to endure. Poor little darling you can insult and ridicule anyone and anything, and on this site you are quite capable of defending against any retaliation, or if you consider someone else started the nonsense start your own counterattack. In this case you are using the attack against Gingrich to counter your own silly statements – –
            Stop wriggling you make yourself look more and more foolish. Admit that your original statement I look at the Newt infidelity in another manner. I don’t justify his infidelity. Sin is sin. Rather, I accept his confession and forgive him. Go and sin no more. was not well thought out when you were offering personal absolution. Then we can all get on to something sensible.

          • Henry says:

            Entech: “Never mind Gods law, he sinned against ME.”

            Again, I never said that. Did I say “never mind God’s law”? Nope.

            You are pretty crafty and subtle. Why did I even say Newt sinned against me? In rebuttal to your claim that Newt did not sin against me personally.

          • entech says:

            Ok going from your Mathew quote and the servants squabbling it was absolutely nothing to do with adultery. Sins against the commands of God cannot be equated with personal debts and repayment. The subject was quite specific it was the forgiveness of Newts sin against the commands of God.

            Again, I never said that you said “never mind Gods law”, I actually said that that was an inference of what ‘I thought’ not what ‘you said’, I was not putting words into your mouth or even speculating on thoughts in your mind, I was simply inferring that you gave me the impression that the most important thing in the universe was your convenience – when you consider that you appear to hold a belief that the universe was created with you in mind, that is not unreasonable.

            But I will end this now in the only way that has been possible in the past.
            I am sorry, I was wrong, it is all a misinterpretation on mind part and I regret questioning the perfection of your logic.

        • entech says:

          do you follow all command, do you intend to leave your family, sell thieving and give it to the poor to follow him.

          • entech says:

            oops not thieving – sell everything

          • entech says:

            Just checked your Mathew reference. Completely irrelevant we are talking about you forgiving Newt for adultery which is a sin against the law of God and not a sin against you personally.

          • Henry says:

            Oh, it is a personal sin as well. Newt has behaved poorly in a manner with consequences that have offended me, a Republican. As a result, I have had to endure the media and others lecturing me about morals, this thread no exception. Yes, it is a personal sin against me.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 4:04 “As a result, I have had to endure the media and others lecturing me about morals, this thread no exception.”

            We do have some lecturing on this site about morals. Someone named Henry noted a page ago, “Homosexuals, the stardard bearer of goodness in the land of utopia. Those dirty homosexuals pale in comparison.”

          • Henry says:

            “do you intend to leave your family, sell thieving [everything] and give it to the poor to follow him.”

            No. This hypothetical is works-based salvation and was described as impossible for man. Rather, I’ll rely on the possible coming from God and respond to His grace.

          • Henry says:

            Jon: “Someone named Henry noted a page ago,”

            My apologies, Jon. Yes, my sarcasm in response to your distribution of your morals.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 5:36 Thanks. But no need to apologize. This is a place for us all to do our soapbox or pulpet thing–and, as you noted correctly, I do more than my share. Carry on.

          • Henry says:

            Will do.

            Jon, I must however correct you on your quote of me. I called the heterosexuals dirty in sarcasm, not the homosexuals.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry You are correct. Sorry.

          • Henry says:

            Jon, I forgive you.

          • entech says:

            Fascinating case study in the developing megalomania of Henry.
            ” … I accept his confession and forgive him. Go and sin no more.” There are periods in history where a mortal man would have been stoned for such blasphemy, imagining himself to have the power of a god.
            ” … a personal sin as well .. have offended me … Yes, it is a personal sin against me.” Never mind Gods law, he sinned against ME.

            Fargo is probably an easy drive to Canada, have lunch, pick up cheap medication and be home in time for supper.

  2. mg says:

    newt sets bad examples in many more ways than the sexual.

  3. lg says:

    And to think Newt’s sister is a lesbian!! Not only did he live a double life, he has double standards!!

  4. Bob says:

    Freedom (Libertariansim) is my religion. :)

    • entech says:

      As with all religions we now reach the problem of definition.
      Who Would you call a real Libertarian:
      Benjamin Tucker and Noam Chomsky? Murray Bookchin?
      Ayn Rand?
      Milton Friedman or the son David? David advocates that everything should be owned by someone and everyone must pay, not so much on the ideas natural rights but on a cost benefit analysis.
      Henry David Thoreau?
      And this variety of thought is only from people who lived and worked in American. If you go back to the European origins you get Mikhail Bukanin, Proudhon. You could even make a case that the French Revolution was the first mass Libertarian movement? The first use of the word in Britain was used in support of the American Revolution (you would be surprised at how much support there was).

      So do you want a left Libertarian anarchist socialism (in a definitely non Marxian sense of the word) a Capitalist Anarchist Libertarian?

      A lot of people would agree with individual liberty and the idea of rights that should not be taken away (as opposed to the idea of rights that may be grated), you should be able to do pretty much what you like as long as it does not interfere with other people having the same rights. You do start to get into difficult ground when you start to recognise that to live in a society there are obligations as well as rights and freedoms. For example, if you want to drive a motor car on publicly accessible roads you need to know and abide by a set of rules, simple things like which side of the road you drive on. Carried to one extreme you must say that there should be no road rules to impinge on my liberty on the other hand you really do need some regulation to make driving safe, the problem becomes where to stop regulating in other aspects of living in a society, a community. There is a much madness in what should be regulated gay marriage and heterosexual divorce are current in the run up to your next presidential election, on the other side a much lower age of consent is advocated by some: both are wrong surely we can find a balance between the liberty of the individual and the protection of the innocent or mentally impaired.

      Sorry for the lecture/diatribe read Isaiah Berlin on positive and negative freedom.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        entech 12:07 ‘…on pubicly accessible roads you need to know and abide by a set of rules..”

        I think about roads often when I read about libertarianism. When in the country of Bangeldesh, one of the poorest countries in the world, my wife and I traveled about a lot with our hosts. They were not weathy, but had an employee who did all of their driving for them because it was so difficult. Several times we were stoppped for long periods of time. The problem with the road rules were they were “liberatarian.” There were none. When a lot of traffic was moving east, the east-bound cars just moved over into the westbound lanes, out of luck it you wanted to go west.

      • entech says:

        Now that was stupid of me. Traffic condition as an example nullifies everything else!

        • Bob says:

          I’m tired, okay. I’ve got to get off this damn computer for the night. Another time, when I have more time, I will try delve into your overly long diatribes Entech.
          Yawnn.
          Nighty night all.

  5. Bob says:

    I think I’d take the road problems over government thinking it knows best for me, and then dictating the five W’s of driving to me. I have a right to be wrong, and grow from it.

    There was a study done in Denmark a few years back. It was an intersection where a lot of deaths happened from car accidents there. They experimented and took out all the signs and lights. And immediately, the accidents stopped. Why? Because people paid extra extra attention to their driving, KNOWING, they could kill someone there because there were no signage, so they drove much safer.
    Now I’ve never been to Bangladesh, or Denmark so I really can’t say. But I can say, here in ND and Minnesota, where I’m born and raised and haved lived my whole life, I do pay attention to the road better when I know I’m on my own, with no government signage or other intervention.
    Freedom is my religion. Many Americans feel this way. You can call it whatever you want.

  6. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

    As is often the case, there’s really two issues here: the ‘moral’ issue and the ‘hypocrisy’ issue.

    Clinton and Gingrich had extra-marital affairs and lied to the public. Reasonable people agree on that point. Whether it’s a ‘morals’ issue or not is really a moot point.

    The problem is: Newt lambasted Clinton and called for his impeachment for lying to America about cheating on his wife, while Newt himself was doing the very same thing. It would not surprise me if he did this via phone while his girlfriend was under the desk (if you know what I mean).

    I think I’m probably going to write a TGA post to the effect of ‘what self respecting woman could possibly support a man who treats women as sexual playthings under his control’? As everyone’s heard by now “A man who can make the daughters of his first wife try to convince America his second wife is lying about his third wife . . . ” sure knows how to keep the women-folk exactly where they belong.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Mac 2:27 And, then, in tonight’s debate he tried again to claim he was not a consultant to the Fannie (or was it Freddie) government loan program–saying they should be eliminated while helping to save them. He’s a work.

      • Avatar of Mac Mac says:

        Jon, there’s a mental condition something to the effect of ‘pathological liar’ in which a person believes with his whole heart whatever he says is completely true, and is baffled should someone else question that validity.

        The thing is, the questioning isn’t a ruse, they honestly with their whole heart believe their lies.

        I think there’s certain fundamentalist organizations that attract this type of mentality.

    • Henry says:

      Mac: “Newt lambasted Clinton and called for his impeachment for lying to America about cheating on his wife, while Newt himself was doing the very same thing.”

      Really? Newt lied under grand jury testimony. I was unaware of that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>