<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for kirkpete</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/kirkpete/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/kirkpete/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2022 17:12:32 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: The Confessions of an Ex- LGBT Activist</title><link>https://anglican.ink/2022/11/07/the-confessions-of-an-ex-lgbt-activist/#comment-6035009549</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is the homophobic equivalent of a modern-day blood libel:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;Children began to be procured by gay couples without any concern being shown about the removal of their rights to have access to their biological parents. In what moral universe did the rights of children to know their parents take second place to the desires of same sex couples to appear normal, i.e. by acquiring children that might look like their offspring, but patently could not be? &lt;br&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gay couples do not "procure" children, they adopt them. Heterosexual couples adopt far more children, through identical processes. In what legal universe is this done "without any concern being shown about the removal of their rights to have access to their biological parents"? Adopted children overwhelmingly have either been orphaned or willingly given up for adoption. It is extraordinarily difficult to terminate the rights of biological parents against their will. To the extent it happens, such a child is more likely to be placed with a straight couple than a gay couple -- because more such couples exist.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kirk Petersen</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2022 17:12:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER WANTS TO BANKRUPT ME | VirtueOnline – The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism</title><link>https://virtueonline.org/southern-poverty-law-center-wants-bankrupt-me#comment-5960197265</link><description>&lt;p&gt;To learn even more, click here: &lt;a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/conversion-therapy-provider-must-dissolve-pay-millions-judge-rules-n1016856" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/conversion-therapy-provider-must-dissolve-pay-millions-judge-rules-n1016856"&gt;https://www.nbcnews.com/fea...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;or here: &lt;a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/18/gay-conversion-therapy-provider-jonah-ordered-to-shut-down-lawsuit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/18/gay-conversion-therapy-provider-jonah-ordered-to-shut-down-lawsuit"&gt;https://www.theguardian.com...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;or here! &lt;a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_A._Goldberg#Business_activities_and_conviction_for_fraud" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_A._Goldberg#Business_activities_and_conviction_for_fraud"&gt;https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kirk Petersen</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2022 15:43:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: NIGERIA: No PVC, No Holy Communion - Anglican Bishop Tells Congregants | VirtueOnline – The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism</title><link>https://virtueonline.org/nigeria-no-pvc-no-holy-communion-anglican-bishop-tells-congregants#comment-5613587134</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Why should someone have to spend even two minutes searching for the meaning of an acronym that should have been spelled out on first reference?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kirk Petersen</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2021 16:23:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: A Win for the Jihadists</title><link>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396007/win-jihadists-jonah-goldberg#comment-1781885105</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Jonah, the obvious question is, why has NRO not published the cartoons? I realize it's not your call to make...&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kirk Petersen</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2015 06:18:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: &amp;lt;I&amp;gt;Gesundheit&amp;lt;/I&amp;gt;</title><link>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/386406/gesundheit-jay-nordlinger#comment-1561508511</link><description>&lt;p&gt;She didn't say "God bless you," she just said "bless you." Which if anything just makes it more bizarre.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kirk Petersen</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:45:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Question of the Day</title><link>http://www.shakesville.com/2014/04/question-of-day_9.html#comment-1328061313</link><description>&lt;p&gt;In December 2011, my Facebook friends were agog with a three-minute video in which Zach Wahls, the 19-year-old son of a lesbian couple, made an eloquent plea for marriage equality to the Iowa legislature.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In researching the news coverage of the episode, I found a link to Shakesville, which had a transcript at &lt;a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2011/02/backlash-backfire.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.shakesville.com/2011/02/backlash-backfire.html"&gt;http://www.shakesville.com/...&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The only reason I can retrace this now is that I blogged about it at the time, at &lt;a href="http://blog.kirkpetersen.net/2011/12/despite-moveon-link-zach-wahls-gay-marriage-video-inspires.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://blog.kirkpetersen.net/2011/12/despite-moveon-link-zach-wahls-gay-marriage-video-inspires.html"&gt;http://blog.kirkpetersen.ne...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kirk Petersen</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2014 22:07:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Happy Thanksgiving links</title><link>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/365105/happy-thanksgiving-links-debby-witt#comment-1143024252</link><description>&lt;p&gt;busted link on the 25 little known facts...&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kirk Petersen</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:05:28 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Calif. Co-Ed Bathroom Law Ballot Referendum Qualifies for Vote</title><link>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/363687/calif-co-ed-bathroom-law-ballot-referendum-qualifies-vote-alec-torres#comment-1119032927</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Interesting, I was replying to Colonel Travis's earlier comment, but when I clicked "Post" I got a message that I was replying to a comment that had been removed by a moderator.  I actually thought the Colonel was making a legitimate point before he lapsed into name calling.  Anyway, here's what I tried to post:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Colonel Travis, obviously the law creates new boundary issues in different places. I don't necessarily favor the law, I haven't thought through all the implications -- I hadn't heard of the law until I read the post. I was making the narrow point that the original post was intellectually dishonest. It deliberately implied that the law is very different from what it is, pretending that the central issue involved does not exist. It only provides ammunition for people who contend that social conservatives are out of touch with reality.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kirk Petersen</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 23:32:48 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Calif. Co-Ed Bathroom Law Ballot Referendum Qualifies for Vote</title><link>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/363687/calif-co-ed-bathroom-law-ballot-referendum-qualifies-vote-alec-torres#comment-1118732008</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is the most dishonest post I've seen in a long time.  Alec, I get it -- you insist &lt;br&gt;that a transgender woman is still really a man.  Fine, whatever.  But &lt;br&gt;how can you write six paragraphs about the California law without even &lt;br&gt;mentioning that it applies only to transgender people?  You call it a &lt;br&gt;co-ed bathroom law, which is objectively false -- the term "co-ed &lt;br&gt;bathroom" has a well-established meaning, it means open to all. And what's with saying that the law "would have allowed male students access to girls’ restrooms and locker rooms," thereby implying that it wouldn't also work the other way?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kirk Petersen</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:20:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Stunningly Superficial</title><link>http://politicsafter50.blogspot.com/2008/12/stunningly-superficial.html#comment-4831934</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Funny, after watching the clip it looks to me like Zbigniew Brzezinski was put in his failed-advisor-to-a-dithering-President-Carter place by Joe Scarborough.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The part of the clip where Zbig lowers the tone of the discussion by saying Joe's understanding is "stunningly superficial" begins at about 6:30 into the interview.  The statement by Joe that triggers Zbig's childish outburst was this: "Let's go back to 2000, Dr. Brzezinski. You and I both know Bill Clinton gave Arafat and the Palestinians everything..."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I wonder, would Zbig say Clinton's understanding was "stunningly superficial"? Because here's how Clinton described it - &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4419440-103680,00.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4419440-103680,00.html"&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/p...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;[Bill Clinton said:] "The true story of Camp David was that for the first time in the history of the conflict the American president put on the table a proposal, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, very close to the Palestinian demands, and Arafat refused even to accept it as a basis for negotiations, walked out of the room, and deliberately turned to terrorism."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Here's another Clinton assessment: &lt;a href="http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php"&gt;http://www.palestinefacts.o...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;President Clinton, and others who participated, put the blame for the failure of hte talks squarely on Arafat and the Palestinian negotiators. In 2001, Clinton told guests at a party at the Manhattan apartment of former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke that Arafat called to bid him farewell three days before he left office. "You are a great man," Arafat said. "The hell I am," Clinton said he responded. "I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sounds to me like Joe Scarborough had it exactly right.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kirk Petersen</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:10:07 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>