[Dont Mention the War]

The article as a whole is about gay marriage, but I thought that what really needs to be called to Freepers' attention is Shuster's condescending attitude towards all conservatives: Disagree with Davis Shuster and you're a racist, sexist Neanderthal.

Remember, this guy is blogging for Hardball on MSNBC's website. And he reports for MSNBC every day.

Bias? What media bias?

(And yes, I know the headline doesn't match, sorry. If I had used the proper headline nobody would have recognized the point of the post, so I changed it. There's only so much you can do with 100 characters.)

[k2blader]

What a sicko.

Isn't this the guy that used to be on Fox News?

[usadave]

Hmmmm. The problem is that anybody who has a relative or friend who is gay also knows it is not a "choice".

Hmmmm, I wonder how Shuster would explain bi-sexual orientation in an individual.

[zeppenwolf]

"The basic argument I heard was not about marriage (more on that below) but about being gay."

You didn't ask me.

Our government, like any government, has an inalienable mandate to secure the safety and well-being of the state. Ipso facto, the stability, welfare, and mental health of the next generation are a primary duty.

Point number two, all else being equal, kids need a mom and a dad, no matter how much that fact may offend you.

Fact one and fact two put together mean that government has a right, a privelege, and a duty to promote and reward successful marriages.

And by the way, after noticing that I haven't use the word "gay", notice further that this is not a matter of discrimination but definition: a gay man and a lesbian woman can get "married" any time they choose.

"I would prefer that our society move forward."

And as an arrogant leftist, you fail to notice that what you call "forward" is a matter of opinion. A majority of Americans seem to not agree with you.

[Cronos]

What he neglects to mention is that we don't condemn people who have gay tendencies yet work to not succumb to that. We do condemn people who beyond succumbing to it, revel in it, like Gene Robinson.

[pepperhead]

Maybe some Americans want to return to the days of slavery, devout observance to the Sabbath, long hair, all cotton clothes, and stoning people... I would prefer that our society move forward.

Looks like were seeing a little projection from another paranoid democrat.

[vampire2191]

Shuster has overlooked what could be a significant point: God didn't write the Bible. The King James version was completed in the year 1611, much closer to now than to the Resurrection. Nobody is saying that we should own slaves or stone people to death because of their choice of whether or how to observe the Sabbath; that's more in keeping with Wahabbi Islam, like the Taliban. What we are saying, at least some of us, is that we don't appreciate the idea that the government of our nation, which was founded upon the principle that God granted us freedom, shouldn't pretend He doesn't exist. If God doesn't exist, our liberty has no basis and, if He does exist, it probably isn't a good idea to slap Him in the face with our depravity and our perversions.

[garylmoore]

It's obvious that this man is blind to the truth and needs prayer and lots of it

[tm22721]

Homosexuality is an abomination, not because of the Bible, but because of natural instincts involving our kids and propagation of the species.

It amazes me that those who are otherwise rabid about nature and the environment would oppose mother nature in so blatant a fashion.

BUMP

[tkathy]

When the left has no valid argument, they always result to the slavery issue. Apples and oranges, IMO.

[Baytovin]

When all is said and done, the election was as much about our rejection of people like this and their distorted, evel rhetoric, as it was about electing a President.

[JoeGar]

Hmmmm. The problem is that anybody who has a relative or friend who is gay also knows it is not a "choice."

Hmmmm. I have a friend, one of the nicest people in the world, who was in a committed lesbian relationship for twelve years. Then, she split and married a man. Sounds like "choice" to me.

[mhking]

From my blog this morning:

---

David Shuster, commentator for MSNBC's Hardball and blogger for Hardball online opines this morning that conservatives, or as Shuster implies, neo-conservatives, long for a return to the Levitical laws of the Old Testament -- including a return to slavery.

This is typical of the mindset of liberals -- when they don't get their way, use the Bible to drub conservatives over the head.

While the Bible does suggest homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), The Bible also says in Leviticus 25:44 that we may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations; Exodus 35:2 says that my neighbor who works on the Sabbath should be put to death; Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed; Lev. 11:6-9 states that touching a dead pig makes us unclean (Are you ready for some football?) and Lev. 19:19 forbids us from planting two different crops in the same field or wearing garments made of two different kinds of threat. The penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 suggests we stone people to death.

Maybe some Americans want to return to the days of slavery, devout observance to the Sabbath, long hair, all cotton clothes, and stoning people...

Shuster completely neglects the fact that the Levitical laws of the Old Testament -- man's laws as defined by the time -- were superceded by the grace of Jesus Christ as noted in the New Testament.

Typical.

Only use what works for showing conservatives as knuckle-dragging neanderthals, and blow off the rest.

Then what? I bet Shuster would love to see conservatives in a leper colony -- after all, liberals online have already come up with multiple ways to redraw the borders of the nations on the North American continent so as they can easily secede from the remainder of both the United States and Canada.

[mhking]

From my blog this morning:

---

David Shuster, commentator for MSNBC's Hardball and blogger for Hardball online opines this morning that conservatives, or as Shuster implies, neo-conservatives, long for a return to the Levitical laws of the Old Testament -- including a return to slavery.

This is typical of the mindset of liberals -- when they don't get their way, use the Bible to drub conservatives over the head.

While the Bible does suggest homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), The Bible also says in Leviticus 25:44 that we may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations; Exodus 35:2 says that my neighbor who works on the Sabbath should be put to death; Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed; Lev. 11:6-9 states that touching a dead pig makes us unclean (Are you ready for some football?) and Lev. 19:19 forbids us from planting two different crops in the same field or wearing garments made of two different kinds of threat. The penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 suggests we stone people to death.

Maybe some Americans want to return to the days of slavery, devout observance to the Sabbath, long hair, all cotton clothes, and stoning people...

Shuster completely neglects the fact that the Levitical laws of the Old Testament -- man's laws as defined by the time -- were superceded by the grace of Jesus Christ as noted in the New Testament.

Typical.

Only use what works for showing conservatives as knuckle-dragging neanderthals, and blow off the rest.

Then what? I bet Shuster would love to see conservatives in a leper colony -- after all, liberals online have already come up with multiple ways to redraw the borders of the nations on the North American continent so as they can easily secede from the remainder of both the United States and Canada.

Just damn.

If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[cyncooper]

David Shuster is just as I suspected way back during impeachment when he was employed at Fox.

[Publius6961]

The problem is that anybody who has a relative or friend who is gay also knows fights cognitive dissonance by pretending it is not a "choice."

There. I fixed it.
...and rendered the entire remainder of the article comical.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I had no idea that journalists at MSNBC-- and I thought David was calling himself that-- were spouting opinions like this. I can understand Chris and Joe and the rest, but David Gregory isn't writing opinion pieces like this. Carl Cameron isn't. This is just weird-- more than either bad or good. How can they think this makes the least bit of sense?

[quack]

He must not have read the "newly released" New Testament.Been on bookstands for only 2000 years now.

[kipita]

Which historical slavery document do these phrases come from:

“…..it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,….”
“…..experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer…”
“……..destroyed the lives of our people….”
“….In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms…”
“..ought to be Free and Independent…”

None, it's from our "Declaration of Independence", taken out of context.

[familyop]

Shuster's kind have no shame. They use people who really have it tough.

[Unam Sanctam]

The orientation may not be a choice, but the activity is most certainly a choice. Those with same sex attraction, as all outside of marriage (between a man and a woman), are called to chastity. That is Christian moral teaching.