Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Does Christine O'Donnell think homosexuality is an identity disorder?

This passage from a 2006 profile of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware's Wilmington News Journal may not be conclusive, but it certainly cries out for further exploration:

She considers homosexuality an identity disorder and sees pornography and the lust it engenders as selfish gratification.

"Sex is a covenant between a man and a woman and God," she says. "Your job is to satisfy the other, the giving of oneself to another. Porn turns that around."

She practices what she preaches, she says. She's had boyfriends, but they don't last long when they realize her seriousness concerning chastity before marriage.

Is that what O'Donnell believes? The story reads as if O'Donnell told the reporter in some fashion or other that she views homosexuality as an identity disorder, as part of a broader discussion of sex and religion. The reporter wrote it down as a paraphrase.

However, it's not a direct quote, so for now, this is inconclusive. I've checked in with the reporter and will update you if I hear back.

At a minimum, though, that is an extreme view, and its appearance next to her name in a reputable paper is grounds to ask whether she really believes this, particularly given the views she's already expressed on related topics. O'Donnell is already on record claiming the government spent too much on AIDS and arguing that "gays get away with so much."

Also: If O'Donnell did say something this extreme or something close to it as recently as 2006, it would seem to give the lie to her claim at last night's debate that her rigid moralistic views represent long-ago youthful excesses.

By Greg Sargent  |  September 17, 2010; 2:59 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Republicans , gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dear Dems: Do NOT take GOP deal on tax cuts
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

An "extreme view"?! Up until 1972, the APA considered it an actual MENTAL disorder!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 17, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Now, now, Greg - stay focused. Let's not get caught up with the trendy O'Donnell. Let's get back to what really matters - Angle's views on "domestic enemies."

Posted by: sbj3 | September 17, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Chris Coons called himself a "BEARDED MARXIST"


Can we have a list of quotes from Coons in which Coons described his MARXISM ???

That isn't my words - those are CHRIS COONS' OWN WORDS PUBLISHED - TELLING PEOPLE HE IS A "BEARDED MARXIST."

Let's just be fair here.

Let's get both the sets of quotes out there.


.
.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 17, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

LOL, sbj3! I invite you to join me in donating to Christine O'Donnell every time that our gracious host posts about her too:

http://christine2010.com/

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 17, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Why even bother wondering about that?

Hell, this Christine O'Donnell Loon considers all Sexuality, including Heterosexuality, as being an Identity Disorder.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 17, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

from condemning race baiting tactics from blue dogs to engaging in some gay baiting tactics yourself in the span of couple hours. How impressive! Just more proof of the disgusting homphobia that lies just beneath the surface of so called liberals. No wonder we're still second class citizens.

Posted by: gaylib | September 17, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainForest, who throws out the "BEARDED MARXIST" canard, should read this:

http://www.slate.com/BLOGS/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/09/16/of-beards-and-marxism.aspx

Sounds like there's no "there" there.

Posted by: TimInFlorida | September 17, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Well her sister is gay, for what it is worth.

JOKE: Why is it in today's GOP race-baiting and gay-baiting is fine but m@sterbating is bad?

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

No, Liam-still, you are wrong again:

"Sex is a covenant between a man and a woman and God," she says. "Your job is to satisfy the other, the giving of oneself to another. Porn turns that around."

She practices what she preaches, she says. She's had boyfriends, but they don't last long when they realize her seriousness concerning chastity before marriage.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 17, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I hear ya gaylib -- that kind of talk isn't fit for polite company. It all belongs in some closet, right?

How do you suggest that the issue be discussed if you consider pointing out the extreme positions of a candidate as "gay baiting."

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 17, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

TimInFlorida:

Let us know when you can link to NON journ-O-listers ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 17, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60:

First of all, I dispute that it is an extreme position. Second, as was already pointed out, that was the REPORTER's paraphrase. Maybe he will be able to update that part of the story sometime soon. Finally, the candidate can have personal views but also recognize that laws have to have at least one valid, secular purpose too.

O'Donnell made it clear: "When I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it's Constitutional." Sounds good to me.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 17, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I predict that some Delaware "stud muffin"
will come forth in the next six weeks and claim "I had sex with that woman."

Posted by: filmnoia | September 17, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

rom condemning race baiting tactics from blue dogs to engaging in some gay baiting tactics yourself in the span of couple hours. How impressive! Just more proof of the disgusting homphobia that lies just beneath the surface of so called liberals. No wonder we're still second class citizens.

Posted by: gaylib | September 17, 2010 3:23 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I feel your pain, and as a life long liberal I apologize to you for all we Liberals who have prevented The Republicans from Emancipating gay people and granting them full equal rights.

Republicans have fought very hard to let you serve openly in the military, and to allow you to have recognized gay marriages. You should definitely stick with them, and their Hillbilly Ayatollahs, because it they can not emancipate you, they certainly claim they will "cure" you.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 17, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Well, Jake, if it sounds good to you, how can anyone disagree since all of your other positions are so thoughtful and reasonable.

Hey, sbj, is it extreme to say that homosexuality is an identity disorder?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 17, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60 - Apparently we are not even allowed to talk about the crazy things these teabaggers say, how convenient for the teabaggers.

Sad.

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

filmnoia - Given the recent history of far right anti s-e-x / anti g-a-y advocates I wouldn't be surprised if photos of O'Donnell in a three way with George Rekers and Tedd Haggard on the top of Mount Rushmore started winging around the internet any day now.

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Maybe it would help if they masturbate a bit and relieve a little of their frustration, nisleib.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 17, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60 - Sadly they are too busy F'ing America to take time out to F themselves.

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

let me offer a definition for the phrase "extreme position":

Anything ever said by anybody who is NOT a Democrat that, in the judgement of Mr Sargent, will drive visits to his blog.

this is just silly. the Democrats are about to take a big walloping and Mr Sargent is amusing his followers with this nonsense.

Can you imagine how terrible it must be to think something other than the current liberal dogma (whatever it is) about why people are gay?

What is the current dogma anyway? And where is it written that everyone must view homosexuality as acceptable?

Clearly Americans don't find it all that acceptable. How else to explain the 0 for 30 record of gay right referenda when put before the voters?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 17, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Mother Teresa should have masturbated too!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 17, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

@cmc: "Hey, sbj, is it extreme to say that homosexuality is an identity disorder?"

It sounds wrong. Is it extreme? Lot's of people probably agree. They're probably all wrong.

Depends on what "identity disorder" means. I found, "A disorder occurring in late adolescence and characterized by feelings of uncertainty and distress due to issues such as long-term goals, sexual orientation and behavior, morality, and religious identification."

So, it would be perfectly correct to say that many gay teens suffer from an identity disorder characterized by feelings of uncertainty and distress due to issues such as sexual orientation and behavior.

However, if she means that *being* gay in and of itself is a personality disorder then she is obviously wrong.

Hopefully her views in this area have also matured.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 17, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Will Christine O'Donnell run A Hands Off Campaign?

Will her official campaign song be;

M C Hammer's: U Can't Touch This?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 17, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Would Christi O'Donnell approve of Bristol Palin's first song on Dancing with the Stars?

Mama Told Me Not To Come!!

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 17, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

@skip: "And where is it written that everyone must view homosexuality as acceptable?
Clearly Americans don't find it all that acceptable."

Who the hell cares if you find my behavior "acceptable"? Yes, I'm gay. You wanna fight about it?

Posted by: sbj3 | September 17, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

NOT only does Chris Coons call himself a "Bearded Marxist" -


Coons admits he spent time in KENYA

Got to wonder............

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 17, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

sbj3:

You do realize that LOTS of other sexual behavior in America is not only "unacceptable" but also ILLEGAL, right?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 17, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"When I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it's Constitutional."

A feel-good response that means practically nothing because the vast majority of what she votes on will not pose some kind of constitutional question and those that do are decided in the Courts.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 17, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"...that LOTS of other sexual behavior in America is not only "unacceptable" but also ILLEGAL, right?"

Between two consenting adults? Really? Like what?

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Chris Coons called himself a "Bearded Marxist"


Im sure Coons was wearing a Lenin cap too.

The Journo-List (unindicted conspirators) now say that Coons' friends were calling him a "Bearded Marxist"

Why?


Coons was being called a "Bearded Marxist" because he was walking around talking to his friends like he was a "Bearded Marxist" - and GIVING THEM REASON to call him a "Bearded Marxist"

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 17, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Liam - I think the official theme song is Michael Jackson's "Beat It."

Let's stop being so h@rdon her, it isn't her fault she is nuttier than Ron Jeremy's undies.)

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

"You do realize that LOTS of other sexual behavior in America is not only "unacceptable" but also ILLEGAL, right?"

Wow....so you think homosexual behavior should be illegal?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 17, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

The British "spent a lot of time in Kenya". "You got to wonder about them"!!!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 17, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

nisleib 4:05 PM

prostitution is consentual, but illegal

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 17, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"Clearly Americans don't find it all that acceptable. How else to explain the 0 for 30 record of gay right referenda when put before the voters?"

Sheer lunacy.Who cares about any referenda? Since when are the rights of one segment of society up for a referendum? How about we have a state by state referendum on inter racial marriage?

Posted by: filmnoia | September 17, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell confirms, once again, my often given advice:

If you want to keep your beer cold, place it next to A Republican Woman's Heart. That is provided you can find it.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 17, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Prostitution is illegal, true, but it isn't the s*xual acts that are illegal, it is charging money for those acts.

Big difference.

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

nisleib:

Polygamy and incest are two more.

scat:

I will be glad to give you my opinion on that, just as soon as the person I asked the question to answers.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 17, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Since O'Donnell is already the Republican nominee, the only reason to continue to expose this woman's views is so that the voters in Delaware can make an informed choice in November, if they so choose. As for the rest of us, pull up a chair and grab the popcorn. She and Sharron Angle will be for the Senate, what Louie Gohmert, Sue Myrick, Michele Bachmann and Steve King has meant for the House. It's gonna be fun! The cultural wars will be back in full swing for the 2012 election. Then, the choices will be crystal clear for everyone.

Posted by: dozas | September 17, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Andrew Sullivan has chimed in:

"Of course, answering those questions would require having her actually accessible to the press. And I presume, given the Palin and Angle model, that will never happen."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/09/odonnell-homosexuality-is-an-identity-disorder.html

Too bad that Mr. Sullivan didn't take the time to click on LA Times link that Mr. Sargant provided above ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 17, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse


Prostitution is illegal, true, but it isn't the s*xual acts that are illegal, it is charging money for those acts.

Big difference.

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 4:17 PM

.............

Well, there goes The Republican claim that they are all for Fair Trade, and keeping government off the backs of business. Hell, they do not want to even let a working gal work on her back!!!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 17, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

sbj, its not about my. I offered no pesonal opinion at all. I merely pointed out that calling O'donnel's position extreme when the gay rights movement has suffered so many set backs at the ballot box is just plain wrong.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 17, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Polygammy is not a sex thing, it is a mariage thing. If I want to have s-e-x with a half dozen super models in a whipped cream factory there is no law against that (if there is please let me know; I'll have to make alternative plans for tonight. snark/)

Incest, well, in some states yes, but are there federal laws against it? (I honestly don't know, but I doubt it.)

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Polygamy in and of itself is not a sexual act. A man can have as many sexual partners as he wishes, no? Only the sanctioning of the relationship by the state is considered illegal.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 17, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

OT -- Is Rand Paul getting desperate or does this have something to do with Aqua Buddha?

http://www.kypost.com/dpps/news/political/sheriffs-deny-paul-claim-of-support_5129498

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 17, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Liam - Personally I'm no fan of the laws against prostitution, I think they should be repealed. But consider the source; I'm pretty much a civil libertarian. I don't think the government should legislate morality.

But come to think of it, are there FEDERAL laws against prostitution? It is legal in Nevada, right?

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

@jakes: "I will be glad to give you my opinion on that, just as soon as the person I asked the question to answers."

I'm sorry - did you have a sincere question?

Posted by: sbj3 | September 17, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse


I predict that some Delaware "stud muffin"
will come forth in the next six weeks and claim "I had sex with that woman."

Posted by: filmnoia | September 17, 2010 3:35 PM

....................

There may be even more to it than that. She has admitted that she did get drunk at parties, and had sex while drunk, on several occassions, while she was in college. She said that she sometimes woke up, the next day, and could not remember if she had sex while drunk, the previous night.

When you couple that with her own claim about how she became an activist against all abortions, after some person showed her graphic details about what happens during an abortion procedure, I would not be too surprised to learn that their was a pregnancy in her own past. She admits to having had unprotected sex, while drunk, on several occasions, so her becoming pregnant would not be that far fetched.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 17, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Rove is a founder of American Crossroads, a competitor to the NRC in the influence buying game. You can bet that Rove had Castle bought and paid for for the boyz over on K Street. And this little split tail, Christine O'Donnell, queers the whole deal. No telling how many millions Rove lost on this deal. I'm sure he paid off Plugs in a noncompete clause for his son to stay out of the race, and he bought off all the competition except Christine, who he thought he could manage to defeat. It blew up in his face big time. That's why the huge melt down. He's ruined. The truth will come out.

Posted by: josephlausier | September 17, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Liam - That would actually make me more sympathetic towards her. I've known two people that got pregnant after being raped (I know it isn't the same thing as shagging while drunk, not even close.) Having an abortion, even for pro-choice people, is NEVER an easy thing.

I'm really looking forward to Bill Maher's Real Time tonight, he had O'Donnell on his old show many times.

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"And this little split tail, Christine O'Donnell, queers the whole deal."

You sure are one classy individual.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 17, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

OT - Holy snikeys, it looks like Lisa Murkowski (who I actually like) is not going gentle in to this good night... She is pulling a Lieberman:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/153185

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Not sure if anyone has linked this Politico piece on O'Donnell's past from the accounts of aids working for her. It ain't pretty...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42321.html

Posted by: bernielatham | September 17, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse


Liam - That would actually make me more sympathetic towards her. I've known two people that got pregnant after being raped (I know it isn't the same thing as shagging while drunk, not even close.) Having an abortion, even for pro-choice people, is NEVER an easy thing.

I'm really looking forward to Bill Maher's Real Time tonight, he had O'Donnell on his old show many times.

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 4:37 PM |
...............

Yes, I would be more sympathetic toward her, if she found herself in a situation that traumatized her. However, that does not give her the right to demand that other women should be made to carry some rapist's baby to term, if they decide that they do not want to. She shows no sympathy for rape victims; none what so ever.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 17, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

"She is pulling a Lieberman"

Good news!

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 17, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

OT - Holy snikeys, it looks like Lisa Murkowski (who I actually like) is not going gentle in to this good night... She is pulling a Lieberman:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/153185

Posted by: nisleib

..................

Wait until Christine O'Donnell hears about this. She believes that you can not pull a Lieberman, without committing a mortal sin.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 17, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I think Greg needs to get in touch with the O'Donnell people and solicit her response to the following...

"GEOCENTRISM

We have all been told since knee high that the earth goes around the sun. It has become such an accepted fact, that almost no one questions it. What this website will do is to show that in fact geocentrism has never been disproven; that the current theories about the universe are based on a long string of assumptions, which if changed would cause us to radically reinterpret our observations; that science has no direct proof for these assumptions, but rather chooses them as a philosophical choice; that many observations could be interpreted as proof of geocentrism (geostationism) just as readily, and in some cases more so than current big-bang, acentirc, expanding universe cosmology.

Please be patient as this website is developed. I am trying to start with significant material, and it will grow beyond what you see today. Please check back often.

First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism!" http://geocentrism.com/

h/t Sullivan

Posted by: bernielatham | September 17, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"...She believes that you can not pull a Lieberman, without committing a mortal sin."

Hahahahah! ROFLMAO!

Has anyone else noticed that around this time on Friday's the comments tend towards hilarity?

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

here's a less than insightful bit:
=============
Sheer lunacy.Who cares about any referenda? Since when are the rights of one segment of society up for a referendum? How about we have a state by state referendum on inter racial marriage?

=======

the people who propose the referenda, the people who campaign during the election cycle. The people who win, and the people who sue when they lose.

My point is simple, every time the voters have been asked about gay "rights" they've said NO. You can deride that all you like, but that will just prove the point that ultimately liberals don't care what the people think. All that matters is that they comply with the liberal dogma. Which is "work hard and give your money to the politicians so that they can work toward social justice and spread the wealth around

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 17, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

If Murkowski does do a "Liebermann," and starts a write-in campaign, then this is a big deal, for it shows that she, too, is not lock step with the Republican establishment, who would prefer that she not do it so that Miller is a sure bet Republican Senator from AK. Kudos to Murkowski. It's nice to see a some integrity in a Republican Senator.

Posted by: dozas | September 17, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

* New Angle Ad A Bunch of Bullsh*t *

If you want to rope and tie a western politico these days, perhaps nothing works faster than suggesting he or she is extending a big "Howdy, Pardner," to illegal immigrants. That is what Republican Sharron Angle has done in her latest attack ad aimed at Nevada Democratic Senator Harry Reid.

[...]

But how much is beef and how much is bull?

[...]

We say the cherry-picked mix of facts and omissions may be standard political fare in Nevada, but it lands on our Sliding Scale of Truth between It's a Stretch and a plain old Tall Tale.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/17/political-theater-is-new-angle-ad-beef-or-just-bull/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 17, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

dozas - I'm fairly liberal, but I like Murkowski. She did a lot of good work for the victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

If I still lived in Alaska I might write her in, especially considering how much Federal money the state gets and Miller's stance on refusing to take that money. I doubt Miller is serious about rejecting the money, but if he is, and he wins, expect a whole LOT of buyers remorse from Alaskans.

Uncle Teddy (Stevens) may have been gruff, but he kept getting elected because he did a great job bringing home the bacon.

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

I think that Murkowski would not be running out of a sense of service to the nation, but instead out of a fit of personal peak, and to not let Palin's choice win. I hope that she does run, and that it allows the Democrat to take the seat.

Murkowski was handed the seat, by her father, who held it before her. She holds a big grudge against Palin, for having defeated her father, and for having elevated the chances of the guy who beat her in the primary. That is what this is all about.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 17, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"cmccauley60 - Sadly they are too busy F'ing America to take time out to F themselves."

nisleib, FTW!

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 17, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

It isn't just any lieberman, it is my own lieberman. And I wasn't pulling it so much as I was rubbing it. Still a sin?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 17, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/happy_hour_roundup_90.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 17, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1 - Not if you are in the shower and have soap in your hands.

Washing, even rigrous non-stop washing, of the Lieberman is fine.

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

nisleib,

Thanks for the clarification. Any insights on how I can blog from the shower?

So is Senator Lisa going to form a party called "Alaska for Murkowski"?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 17, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

sbj3 (my "sincere" question to you):

Do you realize that LOTS of other sexual behavior in America is not only "unacceptable" but also ILLEGAL?

Maybe you don't, which is why I asked, so that's why you think it would unfairly single out your own sexual behavior.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 17, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

The depth of your ignorance knows no limits. sbj3 said he/she is gay, but said nothing about particular "sexual behavior." Homosexuality is an orientation, not a behavior, and it is not illegal in any state to be homosexual.

Consider human anatomy, Jake: if your concern is what body parts are touching or inserted into another person's body parts, all the "sexual behavior" a gay or lesbian couple can engage in can also be engaged in by a heterosexual (even married!) couple.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 17, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

How do you suggest that the issue be discussed if you consider pointing out the extreme positions of a candidate as "gay baiting."

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 17, 2010 3:30 PM
-----

When STRF does it, people call him a racist or say he's race baiting. Can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Brigade | September 17, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

I predict that some Delaware "stud muffin"
will come forth in the next six weeks and claim "I had sex with that woman."

Posted by: filmnoia | September 17, 2010 3:35 PM
----

You mean like the "stud muffins" who claim to have had sex with Nikki Haley?

Posted by: Brigade | September 17, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have fought very hard to let you serve openly in the military, and to allow you to have recognized gay marriages. You should definitely stick with them, and their Hillbilly Ayatollahs, because it they can not emancipate you, they certainly claim they will "cure" you.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 17, 2010 3:35 PM
------

Who implemented 'don't ask, don't tell?' Republicans was it?

Posted by: Brigade | September 17, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Polygammy is not a sex thing, it is a mariage thing.

Posted by: nisleib | September 17, 2010 4:23 PM
-------

Uh, so is gay marriage.

Posted by: Brigade | September 17, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

She admits to having had unprotected sex, while drunk, on several occasions, so her becoming pregnant would not be that far fetched.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 17, 2010 4:29 PM
----

I remember hearing the same thing about Hillary.

Posted by: Brigade | September 17, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Kudos to Murkowski. It's nice to see a some integrity in a Republican Senator.

Posted by: dozas | September 17, 2010 4:57 PM
----

Right. Lose your party's primary and then try to throw a wrench in things. Some definition of integrity. I must admit, though, I always admired Ralph Nader's integrity. Especially in the 2000 election. I think most of the D-baggers feel the same way.

Posted by: Brigade | September 17, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still wrote,
"I hope that she does run, and that it allows the Democrat to take the seat."

-----

LOL. Sort of like in Florida. Who's ole Charlie gonna caucus with?

Posted by: Brigade | September 17, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

Since you are ashamed to admit that you are a Right Wing Republican, I have no interest in discussing anything with you. You spend all your time attacking Democrats only, but you are too ashamed of your Republican party to admit that you are one of them, so save your breath, gutless wonder.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 17, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Its clear what needs to be done. Some people are questioning her position. Ask her to swear on a bible in front of judge under penalty of perjury , if she has ever masturbated, if so how often, and if she associates with anyone who has. Follow that with lie detector test. If she has not masturbated, and does not associate with masturbators, then we must elect her president. If however she is merely using this issue like some other repubs, she should be immediately taken to jail.

Posted by: jimbobkalina | September 18, 2010 2:04 AM | Report abuse

"However, if she means that *being* gay in and of itself is a personality disorder then she is obviously wrong."

sbj, setting aside whether there is some technical objection based on your having inserted "personality" here, why is it "obviously" wrong?

From what is it obvious that it is not a disorder? Why isn't the "obvious" fact rather that the proper ordering of human beings follows biology and is the norm of heterosexuality, and that any argument to the contrary one that derives from what is not obvious?

As for Greg's statement:

"At a minimum, though, that is an extreme view,"

What a lazy and deceptive bit of propoganda. According to liberals, it is now "extreme" to believe homosexuality is a disorder, but it is also extreme to believe it has any voluntary component. The only non-extreme view is that it shares equal dignity in all respects with heterosexuality. So, most Americans are now "extreme" in the view of liberals.

And, what is with "at a minimum"? What is beyond extreme?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 18, 2010 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Seeing as how cons want to ship gays off to death camps, I would say that the concerns about her are legit. Most of the stupid bigots who hate gays can't even tell you what causes same sex attraction in the first place and I bet O'Donnel would be at the top of that list.

God forbid these so-called "christians" should spend their time trying to fix ACTUAL problems, but no, it's just more fun to persecute gays instead. The right constantly accuses the left of trying to give the government too much power but they are trying to outlaw everything their religion doesn't like. So which side are really the control freaks here? I don't see an amendment in the constitution that says America is a theocracy.

Posted by: Kal-L | September 18, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Seeing as how what the right wants to turn America into is no different then Sharia law, I don't see why they are so afraid of terrorists. They both want the same goals.

Posted by: Kal-L | September 18, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

The bigger question is does Christine think.

Or any republicans.

I guess not when you can lie your country into war, lose 15 million jobs, turn a surplus into a deficit and then blame it on the black guy.

Class act those Republicans.


Posted by: langs13 | September 18, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

"Does Christine O'Donnell think "

That is the question.

Do any republicans think.

Besides evil thoughts.

You lie us into war, lose 15 million jobs, turned a surplus into bankrupting the country and the only thing they are concerned with is convincing people the black guy did it.


That's pretty evil.


Posted by: langs13 | September 18, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company