MSNBC's David Shuster: "Maybe some Americans want to return to the days of slavery"

MSNBC ^ | November 7, 2004 | David Shuster

[Getsmart64]

"The Lib's have a whole lot of trouble with that word, "choice.""

'cept when it comes to abortion....

[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.

[jennyp]

Nature, through evolution, insures that abnormalities that do not support continuation of a species are automatically selected out.

In other words they do not reproduce successfully with others of the same genetic abnormality so that twig on the tree snips itself off in one generation.

Actually it is not as easy as that but that is the basics. Case closed.

Actually, harmful recessive traits live on & on in the population (at a low percentage) without ever getting completely rubbed out.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Have a nice four years

APPLAUSE!

[garylmoore]

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

[Marie]

Nature, through evolution, insures that abnormalities that do not support continuation of a species are automatically selected out.

Unless it's a recessive gene... (snicker) I'm sorry. I just have to difficult.

[drlevy88]

How does this statement keep gettng repeated without any proof to support it?

It's a mantra, designed to just get the public so tired of hearing it that they say okay, whatever, just quit bugging me about it. Logic never was the sads' strong suit. Devilish, dogged persistence is.

[drlevy88]

I could give a hoo hah what they do in their men's rooms and bathhouses.

Well, except of course to lure others into their slough of swamp sicknesses. And to drain national resources dealing with the consequences.

Most of what you said is OK but we can't "cede" squat to these lizards in the interest of "moderation"; rust never sleeps.

[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.

[Lindykim]

My letter to Shuster:



Sent e-mail message

Date: Mon, Nov 8, 2004, 6:22am To: DShuster@msnbc.com


Subject: Logic & Common Sense AWOL From Your Reasoning


Mr Shuster......


There are two sorts of logic and reasoning.........the sort based upon long term observation, trial and error, and empirical experience and then Marcuses' sort.     The sort that throws away the former type of logic and reason and embraces the fanciful whims of human beings as "truth, reason, and logic.".     The "gayness is hard-wired" bit falls into the latter category.     Even homosexual researchers such as Simon LaVey have admitted that there is no genetic connection involved. Check out the facts:     http://narth.com/index.html


Now, if we are to embrace as "normal" and "enlighened" the sexual proclivities of homosexuals based on nothing more than that there have been homosexuals since the advent of the written word {history}, the positing of naturalists/materialists that, in effect, homosexuals were meant to "be that way;"   that "love" {which is nothing more than emotion} is a universal "right" , that there are no moral absolutes, and that each individual is a moral sovereign unto himself, then it logically follows that sado-masochists, pedophiles, pederasts, necrophiles, cannibals, zoophiles, coprophiles, and people who like to pretend to be puppies in need of of leash and paper training should Also have their peculiarly repulsive sexual proclivities "normalized" since in each case, and with just a little Marcusian positing, it can be 'reasoned' that these individuals qualify to be 'endowed' with the same 'rights' as those being demanded by homosexuals.


The plain fact is Mr. Shuster, that it makes No Sense at all to believe that people who were born with heterosexual genitalia were not meant to be heterosexuals after all, but were instead meant to be "something else."         Think about that.   Wouldn't it make more sense to believe what homosexuals want us to accept as true if they were created with genitalia specifically tailored to the needs of homosexuals? Wouldn't it make more sense if they were able to "procreate"?       If you'll Think about what I'm saying, you'll see the truth of it. Even by the 'principles' of evolution, it makes no sense to believe that some heterosexuals were meant to be homosexuals.     For if Finches beaks can change to accomodate need, shouldn't genitalia and reproductive abilities be capable of doing the same over time? But as we know, nothng of the sort has Ever Happened throughout the long history of mankind.       He is the same today as he was at the advent of history.


My final question to you Mr. Shuster is this:     Why on earth should we believe that we ought to view something as being "enlightened" and/or progressive that's been around since prior to the advent of recorded history?  
Can you evidence even One Way in which the sexual behavior in question has Changed for the better?     It led to the traumatization of the body back then and still does today; it led to sexually transmitted diseases back then and it still does so today; it led to sterility back then and it does so today; it was filthy and unsanitary then and it still is today.


THINK about what I've said here Mr. Shuster, come in out of the Looking Glass "cold"..........return to common sense.

[Miss Marple]

As a long-time Fox watcher, I remember when David Schuster left Fox. I was quite surprised, as Schuster had gotten a lot of air time covering the Gary Condit/Chaundra Levy story. Schuster even followed Condit at the Capitol one day asking him all sorts of questions, while Condit doggedly ignored him.

When Schuster left, no one said where he went. I assumed he had received an offer from one of the big three networks. I was quite surprised when he surfaced on MSNBC. Now I see that he needed to go to the nut-case cable network, so that he would feel at home.

[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...

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Maybe he should read a bit of the book of Acts.

As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

I do believe that homosexuality falls under that designation.