Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Market Speaks: More Gay Cowboys!

Brokeback Mountain will have been seen in the theaters by 18 people, but the right 18 and will win the Academy Award. -Charles Krauthammer

Krauthammer may well be right about Brokeback Mountain winning Best Picture (if that’s what he meant). As for its success in the marketplace, conservative and not-so-conservative pundits like Krauthammer, Bill O’Reily, Michael Medved, and even Mickey Kaus have been proven dead wrong.

One of the ironclad principles of economics, which conservatives of all people should agree with: some things are a matter of taste, but a dollar is a dollar. Even before the Academy Awards nominations were out, Brokeback Mountain was steadily grossing $10 million a week (domestic box office) -- from a movie that cost $14 million to make. This is at a time when Hollywood overall is not doing well. King Kong, for example, grossed $213 million, but cost $207 million to make. As a business person, which movie would you rather produce?*

Another movie nominated for Best Picture, Crash, is arguably even more political and has been equally lucrative for its producers. Costing a ludicruous $6.5 million dollars to make, it earned $55 million at the box office. Again, before the Oscar nominations...

These are obviously not the first politically-charged cheapies to be both popular and profitable. 2004 brought us both Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ. The lesson for Hollywood from these all of these movies is that they shouldn't be afraid to offer provocative fair. The moviegoing public can take it.

*I am admittedly glossing over a lot things about the byzantine economics of the film business - marketing costs (which were certainly MUCH higher for the ape-centered would-be blockbuster), DVD sales, merchandising, obscure tax breaks... But it is safe to say that at the end of the day the producers of the "gay cowboy" flick will have done very, very well by doing good in liberal eyes.

Posted by Woody Mena at February 4, 2006 1:03 PM
Comments
Comment #120612

I thought most cowboy movies were mostly gay most of the time. My understanding is that the audience attending this film is mostly women. Larry McMurty is one of the screenwriters. I hope he wins an oscar. He is a great writer, and one of the best people ever to come from Texas. He is from northern Texas, not a West Texas girl, like GWBush.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 4, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #120618
My understanding is that the audience attending this film is mostly women.

Well, they are the majority… I think you are right about it being a “chick flick”, as they say. Even Ang Lee admitted as much. It does seem to touch something in the psyche of a lot of women - a man who can both round up cattle and ‘rassle with his feelings. Plus a woman doesn’t have to worry about her (heterosexual male) date getting too frisky during the movie. After all, that would be gay, right?

Incidentally, I haven’t seen the movie yet. But my wife wants to see it, so there you go…

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 4, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #120628

To answer your question, as a business person I’d MUCH rather have produced King Kong. That’s because on ticket reciepts alone King Kong has made it’s producers over a quarter billion dollars—after production costs—while Brokeback has made its producers about 69 million.

King Kong grossed 213 million domestically but has grossed 319 million internationally, so far.

Brokeback grossed almost 56 million domestically and 27 million internationally. And of course, all of this is before mass market product merchandising deals.

Somehow I don’t think we’re gonna a lot of gay cowboy video games, stuffed animals and Pepsi and Taco Bell deals.

Posted by: sanger at February 4, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #120631

sanger,

You are leaving off the cost of marketing and other expenses for King Kong. To quote Wikipedia:

As of 1 February 2006, the film had grossed over $213,000,000 in the United States (putting it in the top 5 grossing films of 2005 domestically [2]) and approximately an additional $309,000,000 outside North America, leading to a worldwide total of around $522,000,000. Typically a Hollywood film must make at least twice its budget, including marketing and promotion ($600,000,000), to break even for the studio.

There is the merchandising. Maybe by the time the dust settles, King Kong will make more money. But big-budget movies with a lot of special effects are supposed to make money…

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 4, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #120633

sheep - herders

Posted by: bugcrazy at February 4, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #120636

Homosexuality is a sexual perversion no matter how much money it makes.(Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.)(Homosexuality)
(Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature Lesbian):
Rom 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another,(Homosexual) men with men working
unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.) (1Co 6:9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,(Homosexuals)
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.)

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 4, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #120642

It is exciting to see the success of Brokeback Mountain. I and my wife found the characters interesting and the story compelling. Anything that sets back the misguided conservative agenda of today, and bitch slaps religious wackos across the face, is a great thing. I cannot relate to the gay lifestyle but I can respect their position. I cannot say the same thing for conservatives.

Posted by: DFC at February 4, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #120644
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,(Homosexuals) 1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

I bet if you kicked all of the drunkards, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, revilers, and covetors (if that’s a word) out of the GOP convention hall you would have a pretty empty room.

In all seriousness, that is not much an indictment of homosexuality. There is a lot of fornicatin’(i.e., non-marital sex) out there.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 4, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #120646

Eating shellfish is an abomination no matter how much money it makes. Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

RED LOBSTER, you’re going down!!

Posted by: Thumper at February 4, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #120659

In response to RDAVIDC at February 4, 2006, So why are we not stoning people to death if we are taking the bible so literally? Also, eating a land animal is an abomination. Did you know that? So technically, we are all abominations, if we are to take the bible that literally.

Why do Christians pick and choose what is the most convenient to marginalize minorities? Do you feel superior when you condemn? Do you feel that after eating chicken, God will forgive you for being an abomination?

Num 15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Lev 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you:

Lev 11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.

Lev 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that [shall be] an abomination unto you.

Lev 11:13 And these [are they which] ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they [are] an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray

Posted by: douglas at February 4, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #120668

Douglas and thumper,

It is funny how many people claim to believe every single word in the Bible and yet ignore the dietary laws that are laid out in Leviticus. Not to mention the more obscure things like impregnating your sister-in-law…

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 4, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #120671

If it makes money, it is a success. I probably won’t go, but it doesn’t bother me. Actually it does bother me. I accept gay marriage and don’t believe in discrimination, but I really am not interested in watching gay relationships if they become physical. I just don’t like the idea. I know that will offend some people and they will call it narrow minded. That is just a matter of tastes and values.

My daughter insisted on seeing it with her friends. It probably is a chick flick. My sons expressed a negative desire to see it. I chastised them in the proper PC (Seinfeld) way, with the stipulation that I am glad that they don’t want to go. I think that is what is happening all over America.

Posted by: Jack at February 4, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #120672

I haven’t seen BBMountain but all my gay friends love it and many saw it multiple times. It’s hard to tell if this type of indie movie will be a large trend because viewership was driven by the marketing and controversy. It’s hard to generate that sort of advertising spontaneously.

Personally, it sounded like a character study and I don’t enjoy character studies.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 4, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #120675

“It is funny how many people claim to believe every single word in the Bible and yet ignore the dietary laws that are laid out in Leviticus.”

If you actually attempted to UNDERSTAND the Bible, you would realize why dietary laws have no impact on other than practicing Jews. That line is old, tired and uninformed.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at February 4, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #120677

“He is from northern Texas, not a West Texas girl, like GWBush.”

“I cannot relate to the gay lifestyle but I can respect their position. I cannot say the same thing for conservatives.”

Can you feel the love? It is nice to see that Libs can be politically nasty even in a thread that is about a movie. Nice work, keep it up, great entertainment.

Posted by: THC at February 4, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #120685

“Why do Christians pick and choose what is the most convenient to marginalize minorities? Do you feel superior when you condemn?”


Christians DO NOT act in this manner. Pseudo-christians (a.k.a., persons of the fundamentalist right) are not Christians in any sense of the word that Christ himself would or could recognize. Rather, they are modern-day versions of the persons who demanded Christ’s cruxifiction.

Over many years of teaching theology, I’ve found a loud and raucous minority of students in my classes who claim Christ and, yet, live in fear rather than faith. Fear is the very antithesis of faith as the New Testment makes quite clear. These students have never studied nor understood the Gospel message. Fear is a great blinder of persons.

It would be useful, I think, to avoid labeling persons as Christians who act out of fear in a hate-filled (i.e., not Christ-like) manner contrary to the very teachings of Christ. These persons are not people of faith. They would be more appropriately referred to as “small-god pseudo-christians.”

As for Brokeback Mountain: It is an extraordinarily moving and cinematically beautiful movie which expresses the reality of loving and struggling in our daily lives on both the emotional and spiritual planes.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at February 4, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #120688

Interesting. When I scrolled back on this thread, I found only one posting by RDavidC that objected to this film on religious grounds. Other conservative viewpoints attempted to address the stated premise of the article by W.Mena which was that this type of small budget movie was a finacial success. Except for the one negative conservative post, the rest of the conservative posts are best characterized by benign disinterest.

The remainder of the postings are by liberals and most of them fell upon RDavidC’s comments which they used as an excuse to bash conservatism in general.

What’s the matter libs, isn’t there enough hate speech in this thread to satisfy you?

Posted by: goodkingned at February 4, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #120693

goodkingned,

Never enough.

Posted by: bugcrazy at February 4, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #120694

Dr Poshek,
“As for Brokeback Mountain: It is an extraordinarily moving and cinematically beautiful movie which expresses the reality of loving and struggling in our daily lives on both the emotional and spiritual planes.”


And someone decided this story had to between two men?
It is a political move.

Between The filmakers and the media, it’s a wonder we haven’t all conformed to a single line of thought by now.


Posted by: bugcrazy at February 4, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #120696

Hitler’s Nazi party on gays:

Cut-n-paste from:http://www.holocaust-trc.org/homosx.htm

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum,
100 Raoul Walenberg Place SW,
Washington D.C. 20024-2150.

As part of the Nazis’ attempt to purify German society and propagate an “Aryan master race,” they condemned homosexuals as “socially aberrant.” Soon after taking office on January 30, 1933, Hitler banned all homosexual and lesbian organizations. Brownshirted storm troopers raided the institutions and gathering places of homosexuals. Greatly weakened and driven underground, this subculture had flourished in the relative freedom of the 1920s, in the pubs and cafes of Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Bremen, and other cities.

HOMOSEXUALS: VICTIMS OF THE NAZI ERA


On May 6,1933, Nazis ransacked the “Institute for Sexual Science” in Berlin; four days later’ as part of large public burnings of books viewed as “un-German,” thousands of books plundered from the Institute’s library were thrown into a huge bonfire. The institute was founded in 1919 by Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld (1868 -1935). It sponsored research and discussion on marital problems, sexually transmitted diseases, and laws relating to sexual offenses, abortion, and homosexuality. The author of many works, Hirschfeld, himself a homosexual, led efforts for three decades to reform laws criminalizing homosexuality (In 1933 Hirschfeld happened to be in France, where he remained until his death.)

In 1934, a special Gestapo (Secret State Police) division on homosexuals was set up. One of its first acts was to order the police “pink lists” from all over Germany The police had been compiling these lists of suspected homosexual men since 1900. On September 1, 1935, a harsher, amended version of Paragraph 175 of the Criminal Code, originally framed in 1871, went into effect, punishing a broad range of “lewd and lascivious” behavior between men. In 1936 Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler created a Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion: Special Office (II S), a subdepartment of Executive Department II of the Gestapo. The linking of homosexuality and abortion reflected the Nazi regimes population policies to promote a higher birthrate of its “Aryan” population. On this subject Himmler spoke in Bad Tölz on February 18, 1937, before a group of high-ranking SS officers on the dangers both homosexuality and abortion posed to the German birthrate.

Under the revised Paragraph 175 and the creation of Special Office II S, the number of prosecutions increased sharply, peaking in the years 1937-1939. Half of all convictions for homosexual activity under the Nazi regime occurred during these years. The police stepped up raids on homosexual meeting places, seized address books of arrested men to find additional suspects, and created networks of informers to compile lists of names and make arrests.

An estimated 1.2 million men were homosexuals in Germany in 1928. Between 1933-45, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, and of these, some 50,000 officially defined homosexuals were sentenced. Most of these men spent time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of the total sentenced were incarcerated in concentration camps.

How many of these 5,000 to 15,000 “l7Sers” perished in the concentration camps will probahlii never be known. Historical research to date has been very limited. One leading schblar, Ruediger Lautmann, believes that the death rate for “l7Sers” in the camps may have been as high as sixty percent.

All prisoners of the camps wore marks of various colors and shapes, which allowed guards and camp functionaries to identify them by category. The uniforms of those sentenced as homosexuals bore, various identifying marks, including a large black dot and a large “175” drawn on the back of the jacket. Later a pink triangular patch (rosa Winkel) appeared. Conditions in the camps were generally harsh for all inmates, many of whom died from hunger, disease, exhaustion, exposure to the cold, and brutal treatment. Many survivors have testified that men with pink triangles were often treated particularly severely by guards and inmates alike because of widespread biases against homosexuals. As was true with other prisoner categories, some homosexuals were also victims of cruel medical experiments, including castration. At Buchenwald concentration camp, SS physician Dr. Carl Vaernet performed operations designed to convert men to heterosexuals: the surgical insertion of a capsule which released the male hormone testosterone. Such procedures reflected the desire by Himmler and others to find a medical solution to homosexuality.

The vast majority of homosexual victims were males; lesbians were not subjected to systematic persecution. While lesbian bars were closed, few women are believed to have been arrested. Paragraph 175 did not mention female homosexuality. Lesbianism was seen by many Nazi officials as alien to the nature of the Aryan woman. In some cases, the police arrested lesbians as “asocials” or “prostitutes.:’ One woman, Henny Schermann, was arrested in 1940 in Frankfurt and was labeled “licentious Lesbian” on her mug shot; but she was also a “stateless Jew,” sufficient cause for deportation. Among the Jewish inmates at Ravensbrück concentration camp selected for extermination, she was gassed in the Bernburg psychiatric hospital, a “euthanasia” killing center in Germany, in 1942.

Homosexuality outside Germany (and incorporated Austria and other annexed territories) was not a subject generally addressed in Nazi ideology or policy; the concern focused on the impact of homosexuality on the strength and birthrate of the Aryan population. During the war years, 1939 to 1945, the Nazis did not generally instigate drives against homosexuality in German-occupied countries.

Consequently, the vast majority of homosexuals arrested under Paragraph 175 were Germans or Austrians. Unlike Jews. men arrested as homosexuals were not systematically deported to Nazi-established ghettos in eastern Europe. Nor were they transported in mass groups of homosexual prisoners to Nazi extermination camps in Poland.

It should be noted that Nazi authorities sometimes used the charge of homosexuality to discredit and undermine their political opponents. Charges of homosexuality among the SA (Storm trooper) leadership figured prominently among justifications for the bloody purge of SA chief Ernst Röhm in June 1934. Nazi leader Hermann Göring used trumped-up accusations of homosexual improprieties to unseat army supreme commander Von Fritsch, an opponent of Hitler’s military policy, in early 1938. Finally, a 1935 propaganda campaign and two show trials in 1936 and 1937 alleging rampant homosexuality in the priesthood, attempted to undercut the power of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, an institution which many Nazi officials considered their most powerful potential enemy.

After the war, homosexual concentration camp prisoners were not acknowledged as victims of Nazi persecution, and reparations were refused. Under the Allied Military Government of Germany, some homosexuals were forced to serve out their terms of imprisonment, regardless of the time spent in concentration camps. The 1935 version of Paragraph 175 remained in effect in the Federal Republic (West Germany) until 1969, so that well after liberation, homosexuals continued to fear arrest and incarceration.

Research on Nazi persecution of homosexuals was impeded by the criminalization and social stigmatization of homosexuals in Europe and the United States in the decades following the Holocaust. Most survivors were afraid or ashamed to tell their stories. Recently, especially in Germany, new research findings on these “forgotten victims” have been published, and some survivors have broken their silence to give testimony.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 4, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #120697

“What’s the matter libs, isn’t there enough hate speech in this thread to satisfy you?”

Wow - kind a strange assessment of the biblical tangeant on this thread. There was a rude, ill-informed knock on the movie based a religious perspective, and the ‘libs’ basically refuted the claim. I didn’t see any hate speech. Can to share more?

Posted by: tony at February 4, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #120700

OK - Gay Cowboys = $100 million
- Moore’s film = $200 million.

… things that make the wingnuts flip out…

Just have to smile.

:>) (btw - this isn’t hated, it’s amusement)

Posted by: tony at February 4, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #120702

So, how does this effect not only our own lives here at home, but the safety of our nation:

January 20, 2005
EDITORIAL
The Price of Homophobia

Don’t ask, don’t tell - just scream in frustration: it turns out that 20 of the Arabic speakers so vitally needed by the nation have been thrown out of the military since 1998 because they were found to be gay. It is hard to imagine a more wrongheaded rebuff of national priorities. The focus must be on the search for Osama bin Laden and his terrorist legions, not the closet door. The Pentagon’s snooping after potential gays trumps what every investigative agency in the war on terror has admitted is a crucial shortage of effective Arabic translators.

After the first World Trade Center attack, in 1993, government agents revealed an alarming shortage of Arabic speakers. Key notes, videotapes and a phone call pertaining to the attack were later found in a backlog of untranslated investigative data. The shortage continued right up to and well beyond the 9/11 attacks. Three years after the towers were destroyed, the F.B.I., rife with translation problems, admitted it had an untranslated backlog of 120,000 hours of intercepts with potential value about looming threats. At the State Department, a study showed that only one in five of the 279 Arabic translators were fluent enough to handle the subtleties of the language, with its many regional dialects.

The military’s experience is no more encouraging, with intelligence results muddied at times by a rush, as one inquiry put it, to recruit Arab convenience store owners and cabdrivers, who couldn’t handle the task. The military is right to rely more on its language schools, but it can take several years to produce fluent graduates. The folly of using “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy against such precious national resources amounts to comfort for the enemy.

When President Bush was asked last week by The Washington Post why Osama bin Laden had eluded capture, he replied, “Because he’s hiding.” So is the Pentagon - it’s hiding from reality.

C&P from:http://www.theocracywatch.org/homo_price_times_jan20_05.htm

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 4, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #120707

Tony:

I’d be glad to. Of the handful of postings on this relatively tepid topic, I’ve copied two below for your edification. I did not include the ones which merely condemned Christians as hypocrites since they did not specfically link hypocritical behavoir with conservatism or the posting on the NAZI position of homosexuality since it did not specifically link conservatives to NAZIs.

“Please note that I bet if you kicked all of the drunkards, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, revilers, and covetors (if that’s a word) out of the GOP convention hall you would have a pretty empty room.”

“Anything that sets back the misguided conservative agenda of today, and bitch slaps religious wackos across the face, is a great thing. I cannot relate to the gay lifestyle but I can respect their position. I cannot say the same thing for conservatives.”

Are you so inured to your position that name calling and tittering over the prospect of bitch slapping doesn’t even register on your radar?

Posted by: goodkingned at February 4, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #120711

Bush’s election year message to his “base”:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state’s definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern. And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring — honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.

Thank you very much.
_____________________________________

I’m a tad bit slow but this sounds like a promise to discriminate against gays to me. Welcome to freedom Bush style, Yeeeehaaaa! Ride-em cowboy!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 4, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #120712

Oops!

While I was writing my post, two more anti-conservative slurs popped up. You dems must know how to spread fertiler.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 4, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #120719


(pssst. - goodkingned - it’s called humor.)

Posted by: tony at February 4, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #120720

goodkingned,

We libby’s didn’t start this one, Bush & Co. did. I’ll not be stupid enough to use the B-word or C-word in a post again so I can be censored for responding to comments that include words like “silly” and “tacky” describing someone I consider honorable.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 4, 2006 8:21 PM
Comment #120721

is this humor?

“Homosexuality is a sexual perversion no matter how much money it makes.”

I know it is an opinion, but I willing to bet the author does not think of it that way.

Posted by: tony at February 4, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #120722

goodkingned,

Please define “hate speech”. It seems to me that some have very broad ideas of what constitutes hate speech. Dissent is not hate speech. Calling a spade a spade is not hate speech.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 4, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #120726
Oops!

While I was writing my post, two more anti-conservative slurs popped up. You dems must know how to spread fertiler.
Posted by: goodkingned at February 4, 2006 08:08 PM

GKN:

Have you listened to any conservative talk radio lately? How about the RNC annual meeting with Ken Mehlman? Ever heard of Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? Sean Hannity? Nothing but 24/7 anti-liberal slurs. I don’t think I have ever heard Rush talk about anything of substance. Its just all liberals are bad, liberals are un patriotic…blah, blah, blah.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 4, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #120728

KansasDem,

This is just another example of Bush’s disregard for our Constitution and our country.

There is a new breed of Democrats out there that are willing to stand up and tell it like it really is, expect no apologies. This has left some Republicans crying and whining like babies and demanding apologies they won’t get. The last thing the Republicans want is a Democrat with backbone. My favorite is Ohio’s Paul Hackett:

The Columbus Dispatch Sunday, January 15, 2006

By Joe Hallett

The tip-off that a politician is about to speak gobbledygook is when he or she says, “I’ll be candid with you.”

Except for Paul Hackett, and he says, “I’ll be candid with you” a lot. But rather than spewing mindnumbing nothingness, this politician and lawyer actually is candid to a fault.

For four of us from The Dispatch public-affairs team who met him for the first time last week, Hackett’s candor was extra sugar in our coffee. It was easy to see why the 43-year-old Democratic upstart from Cincinnati almost won election to Congress against impossible odds last November in southern Ohio’s overwhelmingly Republican 2 nd District.

And it was easy to see why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had recruited the strappingly handsome, 6-foot-4 Marine who had spent seven months in 2004 fighting insurgents in Ramadi and Fallujah to run against Republican Sen. Mike DeWine this year. Then, unexpectedly, Rep. Sherrod Brown of Lorain changed his mind and figured 2006 is his year to beat DeWine. Everyone expected Hackett to be a good soldier and run for a second-string office. But there was no putting the genie back into the bottle. Hackett’s congressional run had made him a folk hero among Democratic bloggers and the money was pouring in. Brown would get a fight in the May 2 primary. “We’re at the point where we’ve raised enough money that we’ve got overhead covered through the primary,” Hackett said. “So, anybody who thinks we’re going away before the primary is delusional. It’s not going to happen. It’s not my style.” Nor is gobbledygook his style. An hour spent with Hackett foretells that candor will be his friend and enemy before the campaign is finished, captivating voters with his simple eloquence and repelling them with unthinking insults.

Hackett said he and Brown probably agree on nine out of 10 issues, except the extent of 2 nd Amendment rights. Hackett grew up hunting, he relied on guns in Iraq and he has a concealed-carry permit (he wasn’t packing at our coffee klatch). Rather than restricting gun access for lawabiding citizens, Hackett wants the laws enforced and the cops fully funded “to make sure that the men and women who break the laws with guns are prosecuted so they quit screwing up our right to enjoy them.”

Hackett said he opposes capital punishment – too much risk of executing an innocent person – for everybody except the fool who violates his family and home.

“Break into my house, we won’t have to worry about the application of the death penalty. It’s going to be a simple 911 call: Come pick up the body.”

With succinct coherence, Hackett said: “I’m pro-choice, I’m pro-gayrights, I’m pro-gun-rights. Call me nuts, but I think they’re all based on the same principle and that is we don’t need government dictating to us how we live our private lives.”

Asked to define being pro-gayrights, Hackett said anybody who tries to deny homosexuals the same rights, including marriage, as every other citizen is un-American. Are you saying, he was asked, that the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted in November 2004 to constitutionally deny same-sex marriages are un-American?

“If what they believe is that we’re going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that’s un-American. They’ve got to accept that. It’s absolutely un-American.”

Hackett called DeWine a “professional politician” who “is all over the map on issues,” and who’s afraid to stand up to the “radical religious fundamentalists” controlling the GOP. At that point, Hackett’s candor went on steroids.

“The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren’t a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world,” he said. “The challenge is for the rest of us moderate Americans and citizens of the world to put down the fork and spoon, turn off the TV, and participate in the process and try to push back on these radical nuts – and they are nuts.” So much for gobbledygook.

Damn! I wish this guy was running in my state! Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett demanded an apology from Paul and called upon Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern to condemn the remarks. Bob got neither. Boo-hoo :^{

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 4, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #120730

JayJay:

Oops!
While I was writing my post, two more anti-conservative slurs popped up. You dems must know how to spread fertiler.
Posted by: goodkingned at February 4, 2006 08:08 PM

GKN:

Have you listened to any conservative talk radio lately?

Rather than having you resort to the “they do it too” argument, I’d have rather seen you condemn slurs of any kind. It would carry much more weight, don’t you think?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 4, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #120732

joe -

How very PC of you!

:)

(I do agree we should be able to discuss the issues without having to resort to names and generalizations.)

Posted by: tony at February 4, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #120736

RDAVIDC,

The Bible, Christianity & Homosexuality

A marriage amendment based on Biblical principles

Rather than having you resort to the “they do it too” argument, I’d have rather seen you condemn slurs of any kind. It would carry much more weight, don’t you think?

joebagodonuts,

I realize that “they do it too” is a Republican argument, but you’ll get no apologies here.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 4, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #120740

JayJay Snowman,

Thanks for the info, I knew nothing of Paul Hackett. I live in Kansas where Senator Pat Roberts endorses Bush’s use of illegal wire taps and Senator Sam Brownback wants to take us back to the days of Ozzie & Harriet.

Check out their official sites and then google Dominionist Theocracy. You’ll need a lot of time to get a good idea of just how deeply the religious right has reached into our domestic and foreign affairs. It actually gets pretty scarey.

In order to gain control of the government the Neo-cons have pandered not only to the K-street gang but also the G-street gang. Did you ever hear Bush truly denounce Robertson’s call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 4, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #120743

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Rom 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
Rom 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Act 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (If you won’t believe GOD you won’t believe me)

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 4, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #120744
“It is funny how many people claim to believe every single word in the Bible and yet ignore the dietary laws that are laid out in Leviticus.”

If you actually attempted to UNDERSTAND the Bible, you would realize why dietary laws have no impact on other than practicing Jews. That line is old, tired and uninformed.

As Socrate said, there is no shame in being ignorant…

So please explain to me what it is that is happening in Leviticus Chapter 11, when “the Lord” says that the flesh of pigs is unclean and not to be eaten, that I don’t get. It seems to me that if the Supreme Being is quoted saying that the flesh of pigs is unclean and not to be eaten, and you want to believe every word of the Bible, then you should not eat pork.


Posted by: Woody Mena at February 4, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #120746

KansasDem,

I live in heavily Democratic Michigan, and I am fairly happy with my Congressman and Senators, all Democrats. I check out their voting records from time to time and they seem to do a pretty good job of representing my area. Rep. John D. Dingell is the longest serving member of the House for a reason. Senator Carl Levin does a respectable job. The only one I have concerns about is Senator Debbie Stabenow, who voted for the Patriot Act and some other questionable bills. She is a first termer and judging by local reaction to her, it will probably be her only term.

That is something that I am very proud of in my county, the people are not afraid to vote out incumbants if they don’t represent them. Heck, we’ve even elected local officials with a write in vote, when we don’t like anyone else on the ticket. (now just if we could get the rest of the country to do that)

Did you ever hear Bush truly denounce Robertson’s call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez?

I think his little cronies did it for him? Maybe?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 4, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #120747

RDAVIDC -

What’s all this about? Please - explain… in your own words.

(Personally, I don’t buy a thing written to today’s Bible - at least not enough to take it anything more than a basic idea of what was actually written. Form everything I’ve seen and written, there aren’t even copies of copies of copies of the original books.)

Posted by: tony at February 4, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #120748
If you actually attempted to UNDERSTAND the Bible, you would realize why dietary laws have no impact on other than practicing Jews. That line is old, tired and uninformed.

curmudgeon-at-large,

I have heard this before, but I don’t UNDERSTAND. Since you claim to UNDERSTAND, could you please enlighten me?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 4, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #120749

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 4, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #120750

‘…that the flesh of pigs is unclean and not to be eaten, that I don’t get. ….’

‘Flesh’ can also mean skin, can it not?

Posted by: biblefordummies at February 4, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #120751

goodkingned,

I gather you are accusing me of hate speech for writing,

I bet if you kicked all of the drunkards, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, revilers, and covetors (if that’s a word) out of the GOP convention hall you would have a pretty empty room.

It wasn’t really meant to be that big of an insult. Drinking and fornication are part of our American way of life. Without coveting, our economy would grind to a halt. I don’t have any problem with Republicans doing these things (well, the thieving gets a little tiresome), it just makes it a little hard to claim that the Big Man in the Sky is on their side.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 4, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #120752

Woody -

I guess sin is in the eye of the beholder? Your quote sounds a lot like my time in college… and that’s def. not hate.

(It wasn’t productive either, it took me 7 years to get a degree.)

Posted by: tony at February 4, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #120753

RDAVIDC,

New scripture:

KansasDem 101: I’ll treat no one on earth with less respect than I feel is due unto me.

KansasDem 102: Anyone who places their own existence or the existence of another above the existence of someone they deem less valuable shall lose all value to everyone else on the face of the Earth and shall be banished from the face of the Earth.

Well, that was easy, now that I’m god all i have to do is get everybody signed up, that should be easy.

KansasDem
PS: if you didn’t already guess, I’m agnostic!

Posted by: KansasDem at February 4, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #120754

RDAVIDC,

Thanks for the Bible study. Now it’s my turn:

1 CORINTHIANS 13:4-7 NKJ
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

ROMANS 13:9-10 NKJ
9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

GALATIANS 5:14 NKJ
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

JOHN 15:12 NKJ
12 “This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

JOHN 13:34 NKJ
34 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

1 JOHN 3:23 NKJ
23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

Matthew 22:36-45 NKJ
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

JOHN 13:35 NKJ
35 “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

1 JOHN 3:17-18 NKJ
17 But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?
18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.

EPHESIANS 4:31-5:2 NKJ
31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice.
32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you.

1 JOHN 2:10-11 NKJ
10 He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him.
11 But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

1 JOHN 4:19-21 NKJ
19 We love Him because He first loved us.
21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.


“The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision.” Lynn Lavner

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 4, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #120758

Woody,The laws governing sexual behavior are still in effect,as stated in Leviticus, Jesus restated them and his Apostles and New Testament Scriptures teach them,but we do not stone people under Christ’s law.The old law was to teach us what was wrong in GOD’S sight,but it condemned,Christ’s law forgives all who repent that is why HE was sent to the Jews 1st and then to the Gentiles,to keep the promise of Blessing to Abram(Abraham).GOD also promises vengence to those who don’t repent(stop sinning)Mat 9:9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
Mat 9:10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
Mat 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Mat 12:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying,
Mat 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles.
Mat 12:19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
Mat 12:20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
Mat 12:21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
Mat 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Mat 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Mat 12:27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Mat 12:29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man and then he will spoil his house.
Mat 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Mat 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Mat 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
The HOLY SPIRIT inspired these written words,If you don’t believe them,YOU will not be forgiven.Those aren’t my rules they are GOD’S!

Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 4, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #120761

Is this a political blog, or a biblical blog?

Inquiring minds.

How boring.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 4, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #120762

I wandered into this site and when I saw that it was a ‘discussion’ essentially about queers – I was just about to weigh in about queers; you know, the queer agenda and queer movies and, of course the queer ‘lifestyle’, until I remembered I was one. So I’ll just mosey on out the way I came in. Glad to see you guys are getting it all worked out. :)

Posted by: J H Robbins at February 4, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #120765

I cannot argue with what you quoted but it doesn’t mean I condemn them,I stand ready to forgive as does GOD,but the sin is to be hated not the sinner.GOD loves us all and Jesus died to give the New Testament its power to save,but repentance is only the 1st step toward forgiveness,but God forbids the sin not I,GOD gave us HIS word so we could know what HE accepts and what HE rejects.If Sinners do not reject sin GOD will reject them and GOD demands that we do not keep company with those who live sinfull lives,my telling you is a sign that I love you as GOD does and am willing to risk ridicule to spread HIS message.1Jo 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jo 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
1Jo 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jo 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1Jo 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.
1Jo 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
1Jo 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.
1Jo 3:13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.
1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
1Jo 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jo 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
1Jo 3:17 But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
1Jo 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
1Jo 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
1Jo 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
1Jo 3:21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jo 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. There is more if you want more.I am here for you!You can ridicule me but heed GOD’S warning and do not speak against(blaspheme) GOD’S WORD!

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 4, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #120766

Speaking of cowboys. I was listening to a country music station today and Ernest Tubb song made me think of this thread:

The Lord knows I’m drinking and running around
And he don’t need your loud mouth informing the town
The Lord knows I’m sinning and sinning ain’t right
But me and the good Lord’s gonna have us a good talk later tonight.

Posted by: Jack at February 4, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #120768

womanmarine,People don’t realize how close religion and politics are.Some peoples politics is their Religion,my politics is a product of my Religion!

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 4, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #120769

Woman Marine,

“Is this a political blog, or a biblical blog?

Inquiring minds.

How boring.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 4, 2006 11:23 PM “

It’s boring now but wait ‘till we get into the “begettin” part. That’ll get ‘yur glasses steamed!

Sorry, I can be a cynical SOB sometimes.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 4, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #120770

Jack,you are not paying attention,GOD requires you to stop,then you can be forgiven. Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 4, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #120771

Kansasdem,you’re not paying attention either.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 4, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #120773

>>>>>I wandered into this site and when I saw that it was a ⦣x20AC;˜discussion⦣x20AC;™ essentially about queers ⦣x20AC;“ I was just about to weigh in about queers; you know, the queer agenda and queer movies and, of course the queer ⦣x20AC;˜lifestyle⦣x20AC;™, until I remembered I was one. So I⦣x20AC;™ll just mosey on out the way I came in. Glad to see you guys are getting it all worked out. :)

Posted by: J H Robbins at February 4, 2006 11:37 PM

JH, you got a belly laugh out of me. Not nearly enough of those going around these days.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 5, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #120774

Kansasdem,you’re not paying attention either.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 5, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #120777
Jesus restated them

RDAVIDC,

What did Jesus, himself, say about homosexuality? Nothing.

womanmarine,

Sorry, to bore you, maybe you can turn the topic to something else.

Tony,

The Bible has had a long and sorted history at the hands of man. Without going into the long biblical history, I will just say that what we know as the bible today is the reader’s digest version. The other great biblical diseption happened in 1881 with the release of the Revised Version. All modern bibles (over 100 versions of the whole bible, and over 300 translations of the New Testament) are based on the Revised Version of 1881. The key word here is “revised”. The only one not based on the Revised Version is the King James Version. However, the King James traslators put a nine paragraph warning in the 1611 Edition about traslation problems and the possiblility of errors. That warning disapeared in subsequent editions.

RDAVIDC,

You are operating under the impression that homosexuality is a sin. The bible passages you cite are about sexual acts (rape, idol worship, prostitution, pedophilia) Those passages do NOT condemn consenting committed homosexual relationships. In fact, read about these relationships in the bible: Ruth and Naomi (“Ruth clave onto her.” (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as “clave” is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”); David and Jonathan (there is good reason to believe that David was married to both Michal and her brother Jonathan.)

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 5, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #120778

I like to laugh,but what we are talking about is no joking matter!

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 5, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #120779

Jack:

Ernest Tubb knew what he was talking about, LOL

KansasDem: thanks! I needed that laugh. Today is my birthday, too sobering!!

Rdavidc: You really think copying and pasting biblical passages is going to change anyone’s mind? All it does is numb them!

I would be interested in what you think if you expressed it in your own words. I (and others) may not agree, but pasting the bible in here isn’t helping anything.

Just my opinion of course :)

Posted by: womanmarine at February 5, 2006 12:19 AM
Comment #120780

JayJay:

Sorry, not meant for you particularly. Your response was right on the money.

I appreciate your posts!

Posted by: womanmarine at February 5, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #120781

Rdavidc:

Isn’t that all up to God to sort out? You can teach and persuade, but it’s all up to God in the end.

You can’t legislate religion!

Posted by: womanmarine at February 5, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #120782

I may be in the minority of conservatives on this one, but I acutally saw Brokeback Mountain and thought it was pretty good film.

I’m a fan of the the director Ang Lee anyway, which is why I saw the movie—not because of its gay theme, which I don’t care about one way or another.

I had a lot of problems with the film (for artistic reasons not relevant to this discussion, so I’ won’t go into them).

I liked it, but I didn’t find it be even one of Ang Lee’s best movies—not even close. Not even his best movie about a gay theme, which was his The Wedding Banquet in 1993 which was a much better, more complex story and which got no attention whatsoever.

The reason this movie is getting so much attention, I worry, is that there’s a lot of feeling like the poster here upthread who wrote:

Anything that sets back the misguided conservative agenda of today, and bitch slaps religious wackos across the face, is a great thing.

The idea that this film has anything to do with “the conservative agenda” is preposterous, as is the idea that the movie itself is “a slap in their face.”

To put a fine point on it, the “conservative agenda” has nothing to do with castrating and mudering gay men and then displaying their bodies to young children or beating gay men to death with tire irons.

Have such things happened, yes. Are they celebrated or called for as part of any conservative agenda. Absolutley not.

It was a beautifully shot film, and the story of two gay men struggling to come to terms with their sexuality was competently presented, and there was one very good acting performance turned in by Heath Ledger. But that’s about it. Otherwise it had all the subtlety and artistic merit of an after school special.

The slap in the face here, if there is one, will be that a good but not great film will be hyped way out of proportion just to advance a political point of view.

It’s also a slap in the face that a great director like Ang Lee is getting recognition for some of his lesser work. The real injustice is that Lee should have won Best Picture six years ago for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon instead of Ridley Scott’s dumb as a rock Gladiator.

Brokeback Mountain’s publicity people have just found a smart marketing strategy here—to claim that the movie is “bold,” “risky” and “ground-breaking.”

But in a day and age when we’ve got Will and Grace on primetime TV, there’s no actual ground being broken in making an after-school special styled “consciousness-raising” flick about two gay sheep-herders.

If Ang Lee wins Oscars and rakes in the cash, he deserves it. But please remember that Titanic, the most idiotic movie ever made, also made tons of money and won a boatload of Oscars (no pun intended.

If you’re interested in high-quality gay-themed films with genuine artistic merit, there are literally dozens of them out there which have been released on the indy movie circuit that have gotten no MSM attention at all but are FAR more genuinely daring and worthwhile than Hollywood bubble-gum like Brokeback Mountain.

Posted by: sanger at February 5, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #120784

JAY you need to study.Homosexuality is not rape, but,homosexuals can and do rape.GOD is also under that impression,so was Jesus.Men lying with men as with a woman is not about rape,it is about consent.People who are raped are victims,not sinners,the rapists is the sinner.If you are trying to justify homosexuality you must be in favor of it. I hope not,for your sake! Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 5, 2006 12:41 AM
Comment #120785

Good night!

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 5, 2006 12:43 AM
Comment #120786

“Kansasdem,you’re not paying attention either.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 4, 2006 11:58 PM “

Yes, I am.

#1. I’m not gay.
#2. If I were it would be none of your business.
#3. You obviously can’t be satisfied unless you at least try to convert agnostics like me. Don’t bother, many have tried and failed including one son who’s a Mormon, another who is Lutheran, and a daughter that’s Roman Catholic. Each of their mother’s thought they’d show me the way. I respect each of the kid’s religious choices and they’ve learned to respect my lack of religion. Oddly, although they follow each of their mother’s religions they’ve all chosen to live within a mile of me and no less than 300 miles from their mothers.
#4. I have a very high moral standard. I find it abhorant to harm another human other than in defense of one’s self or their country. That includes both physical and mental harm.
#5. Every life I’ve taken and any harm I’ve done are on my head forever. There is no repenting and there is no forgiveness. I’ve done what I’ve done.
#6. If you eliminated the idea of all gods, every single god that was ever created by every culture that felt they needed a boogie man, we wouldn’t be talking about forgiveness.

Life is simple. If you do the right thing you will do well in life. If you do wrong you will do poorly in life. If you’ve done right and you find yourself doing poorly in life don’t blame some fictitious god. Cry, whine, and b*tch if you must but don’t blame god.

KansasDem
PS: I’m sorry if I’m offensive but IMO reading scripture is offensive.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 5, 2006 12:44 AM
Comment #120791

womanmarine,our laws against murder,rape,incest,stealing and so many are rooted in the word of GOD.Some of the laws of GOD are ignored like the one allowing divorce for other then infidelity.GOD gave these laws to man to guide them to an orderly life on this earth which HE provide for them,the disorder in the world is because GOD’S laws are ignored! Goodnight!

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 5, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #120792

Odds are RDAVIDC is a gay homosexual. Like Shakespeare says, “He doth protest too much!!!”. It is really sad the way people compensate by attacking those like them.

Oh well…

Posted by: Aldous at February 5, 2006 1:01 AM
Comment #120793
GOD gave us HIS word so we could know what HE accepts and what HE rejects.

RDAVIDC,

The only thing that God accepts is LOVE.

sanger,

I have not seen Brokeback Mountain yet. You are right, except there are actually hundreds of high-quality gay-themed films with genuine artistic merit. One of my favorites is called “Big Eden”. I highly recommend it to everyone. If BBM is anything like Big Eden (sounds like it), then I know I will love it.

womanmarine,

Thanks. It kind of amazes me that people who practice their religion freely thanks to the 1st amendment as so quick to want to restrict the freedoms of those they disagree with.

RDAVIDC,

Gays and lesbians are guaranteed freedom of their religious beliefs by that same amendment that allows you to be a free “Christian”. My religious belief is that homosexuality is not a sin and denying people the right to equality in marriage and family is immoral, unethical and hypocritical.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 5, 2006 1:05 AM
Comment #120795

Look, in the universe of American politics, I’m a right wing religious conservative.

But the one single thing that makes me ashamed of my movement is the attitude toward gay people advanced by some (far too many, but not all) on my side. I have no reservations about admitting that this is a huge black mark on our record.

It’s really a disgrace, and if apologizing for such a mess would mean anything, I would absolutely grovel.

But I don’t think that adhering to one side of the political spectrum or the other requires you to agree with EVERYTHING others on your team believe. In fact, if you do believe in absolutely everything, you’re a lackey and it’s time you showed some spine and independent thinking.

In my opinion, there are two extremely shameful clouds hanging over both sides of the political spectrum at this point in history. Choose your poison.

1. The Right’s unthinking (and in my opinion unbiblical) unacceptance of and willful ignorance about homosexuality.

2. And the Left’s frightening and absolute embrace of an unconditional right to abortion.

I consider both faults to be totally immoral.

I’ve yet to meet a right-wing Christian who can convincingly argue that the Bible is obsessed with homosexuality to the same degree that they are, especially when other issues like love and grace are emphasized over and over again in the tenents of the faith.

And I’ve yet to meet a liberal who can explain why a “woman’s right to choose” is more important than another human being’s right not to be bathed in saline solution, chopped into bits, and have his/her brain an internal organs sucked out by a vaccuum cleaner.

The conservative will point to the story of Sodom and Gomarrah, which is really a story about something very different from homosexual love and commitment.

The liberal will say, “well, we don’t know” when a fetus is really a human being and science can’t tell us, so let’s err on the side of saline solutions, brain-sucking and limb-chopping in order to protect whatever a woman finds the most convenient in order to protect her pocketbook and lifestyle.

Are you a conservative or liberal?

Hate gays or kill babies?

Not an easy choice.

Posted by: sanger at February 5, 2006 1:15 AM
Comment #120796

KansasDem,To offend you is not my purpose,I’m speaking my piece just like you and I just like you have that right.You don’t have to believe me that is your right,and I don’t have to believe you.I read yours because I want to you do not have to read mine.If you don’t like reading scriptures I have no control over that,but,GOD IS REAL and HE commands that I speak and write the TRUTH as it is in the scriptures. Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 5, 2006 1:17 AM
Comment #120799

Sanger, these are words to live by:
“But I don’t think that adhering to one side of the political spectrum or the other requires you to agree with EVERYTHING others on your team believe. In fact, if you do believe in absolutely everything, you’re a lackey and it’s time you showed some spine and independent thinking.”

I’ve now found two conservatives that I’d be glad to have covering my back. It’s America first!
KansasDem
PS: don’t be thinkin’ I’ll flip-flop.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 5, 2006 1:30 AM
Comment #120801

I’m wasting my time.But here it is again,GOD says homosexuality is a sin,it can be forgiven if you stop.Loving my fellow humans means letting them know what GOD will do if you stop and what HE will do if you don’t stop.The scriptures I quoted are GOD’S words not mine.We show we love GOD by doing what HE tells us,and that includes telling others because we care.1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jo 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
1Jo 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 5, 2006 1:37 AM
Comment #120802
lying with men as with a woman is not about rape,it is about consent

RDAVIDC,

Now, let me get this straight, none of the other abominations listed in Levitacus count (unless your Jewish) except this one? How does that work? I have done much study. I think you need to do a little more. The passage you refer to is Levitacus 18:22: “V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.” Translated literally: “And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman”.

Now, this passage from the Mosaic Code. There are two types of sins in the Mosaic Code:

1)Moral sin; translated from the Hebrew word “toeyvah” into English words such as “abomination,” “enormous sin,” or “detestable.”

2)Ceremonial uncleanliness; translation of the Hebrew Scriptures translated “to’ebah” into Greek as “bdelygma,” which meant ritual impurity.

The second part of this passage is “to’ebah”- ritually unclean, Leviticus deals with things that are ritually forbidden. Which foods you may and may not eat, you were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman’s bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement. In other words, the act is not the sin here, where the act occurs is.

If you are trying to justify homosexuality you must be in favor of it. I hope not,for your sake!

Well, if you couldn’t tell from my last post, yes I am in favor of it. My sake is between me and God and does not involve you.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 5, 2006 1:38 AM
Comment #120803

Sanger:

The liberal will say, “well, we don’t know” when a fetus is really a human being and science can’t tell us, so let’s err on the side of saline solutions, brain-sucking and limb-chopping in order to protect whatever a woman finds the most convenient in order to protect her pocketbook and lifestyle.

Perhaps if you didn’t put it in quite such inflammatory terms, we could discuss it. Just as you can seem to discuss what you disagree with on the Republican side, couched in much more….shall I say “tolerant” terms?

Posted by: womanmarine at February 5, 2006 1:40 AM
Comment #120804

JayJay Snowman, I’ve seen Big Eden and thought it was okay. Did you see Mudge Boy? I thought that was an excellent, highly complicated and artistic film with a homosexual theme. And yet another production that got no attention from the media at all because it took real risks ad didn’t include big name Hollywood stars.

In my opinion, the problem with too many gay-themed movies is that they resort to idiotic simplistic cliches.

In the real world (as opposed to the world portrayed by Hollywood) gay people are real human beings. They are not angelic, beautiful and totally blameless—just as no human being is. And those who don’t accept them are not all evil murderous stereotypes with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

The problem with movies like Brokeback Mountain is that they turn gays into complicated totally innocent human beings while they turn everybody else into simplisic and totally evil cartoon devils, which is not how reality actually works.

Brokeback Mountain is really a cartoon: the gay characters are portrayed as totally blameless and innocent, and everybody else is portrayed as psychopathic. That appeals to the left and to Hollywood, but it’s not reality. And it’s not real art.

Posted by: sanger at February 5, 2006 1:46 AM
Comment #120806

I have not seen the movie, I intend to. When a human loves another what diff does it make. To have this high-tone lynching of a person because of their sexuality is inmoral. To say my religion is where I get my politics is NO Different than our friend in Iran, the Taliban, etc. Yet you will comdem then for their religious choice. Bet those in Iran think their God is better than your God. What crap. I agree that if one spends so much time worried about who someone is sleeping with, it makes me think they must be fighting their own demons about this issue. Afraid you might try it and like it? Please join the discussion without cutting an pasting bible quotes. Womanmarine is right, it’s boring.

Posted by: Michael at February 5, 2006 1:48 AM
Comment #120807

sanger,

I agree with you 110%, both on the conservative view of homosexuality and the liberal view of abortion. We align ourselves with the political party that represents the things that are most important to each of us. The liberals simply represent me closer than conservatives, even though I have conservative views on abortion and other issues. However, abortion does not and will not effect me directly so it is second tier in terms of importance to me. My own observation is that, generally, Conservatives think of morallity in terms of sex. Liberals, generally, view morallity in terms of helping others.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 5, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #120808

JayJay

I think of morality neither in terms of sex nor helping others. I want to do the right thing. Sometimes that means helping others; sometimes not. Some people don’t merit my help and some actual deserve my opposition. Sex rarely comes into it at all. The only thing I would say about that is fidelity is important because anything else is betrayal. It is important to keep your word.

The more I think about it, the less I think the conservative idea of morality is about sex. Abortion is the big issue. This is gender issue, but it is not about sex. I (and many others) didn’t really have a problem with President Clinton’s intern affair, but we didn’t like the perjury and I personally didn’t like the idea of my president being weak willed and unable to resist temptation in those circumstances.

I also disagree that liberals want to help others more. Liberals want to use government money to help others. There is no indication that they are more generous with their own time or money and some studies in fact to the contrary.

Posted by: Jack at February 5, 2006 2:02 AM
Comment #120811

Sanger,

I have not seen Mudge Boy, but I will put it on my Netflix list. Actually, if I remember correctly, in Big Eden, none of the characters were portrayed as evil murderous stereotypes with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I can’t think of the titles of the movies, but I have seen some that did not portray gays in an angelic light.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 5, 2006 2:03 AM
Comment #120812

Womanmarine, I’m grateful at least for the possibility you offer of acutally discussing the issue. Progess? Let’s hope so.

But honestly and with all due respect, I don’t agree that it’s inflammatory to actually describe what an abortion entails. Turning our heads and not acknowledging a reality doesn’t make a reality go away.

Please let’s pretend that an abortion is just “a choice” made by one person in which no other persons are involved.

The fact is, and there’s absolutely no way to spin this, that a person who otherwise would have had the chance to live and grow into full human being just like you and me, is being chopped up, sucked out and thrown into a garbage can when other people exercise their “choice” to make that a their destruction a reality.

You may be okay with that. I’m not, and never will be.

Posted by: sanger at February 5, 2006 2:10 AM
Comment #120813

Jack,

As I said that was just my “general” observation. I could be wrong, but it does really seem to me that the right is hung up on sex. When I talk about liberal and conservative, I am talking about it in political terms. As we all know there are several conservatives that voted against gay issues that wound up being outed as gay themselves. We often don’t practice what we preach, more often than not.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 5, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #120815

We often don’t practice what we preach

Amen

Posted by: KansasDem at February 5, 2006 2:26 AM
Comment #120816

RDAVIDC,

We will just have to agree to disagree. You are entitled to your religious beliefs and I am entitled to mine. I think everyone is getting tired of the Bible school, so all I will say is that many are called but few are chosen. God warns us over and over about deceptions and delusions (II Thess. 2:11: “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie”), read what Jesus had to say about the Scribes and the Pharisees (it wasn’t very nice).

It is my belief that the real understanding is in the spirit and not neccessarily in the letter. God uses both, but the emphasis is on the former and not the latter. Goodnight.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 5, 2006 2:36 AM
Comment #120817

Wow!

I put my little post up and went out of town for the evening and look what happened. Just for the record, I’m not outraged at anything stated on the thread before I made my post, I was just firing a shot of the bow in response to the presumption that all conservatives might have a problem with the themes in this movie.

I don’t agree with all the many biblical incitements to bring the hammer down on gays. As I have stated before, I’m not a christian. I’m not opposed to most things that fall in the general category of partying. Indeed, I am quite fond of some of them. I am opposed to referring to women as stupid c***s as part of political debate and I am pleased the KansasDem is going to refrain from that practice.

And come on Woody, you meant all those names in a positive way? Casual slurs are still slurs. They are signs of sloppy thinking.

And ya’ll do know why pork was prohibited don’t you?

Posted by: goodkingned at February 5, 2006 3:09 AM
Comment #120911

No,I’m not gay,but,I can see I was wasting my time!Or was I.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 5, 2006 9:02 AM
Comment #120928

There’s evidence in the bible to claim that homosexuality is a sin, but plenty more to indicate that it’s not our job to condemn others for it. Paul’s list of offenses could easily sink any one of us, but his point has little to do with any one offense in particular, but in the fact that nobody there was perfect, and nobody here will be either.

Homosexuality, in proportion to the population, is actually somewhat rare. Moreover, the indications seem to be that this is something innate, so it’s not catching. Hell, if it was, then Mankind would have been eradicated long ago. Most people by their very natures are heterosexual. This is probably why the bible doesn’t dwell on homosexuality to the extent that many readers of it do. It’s not that big of a problem.

Decadent societies often attack scapegoats in efforts to become more moral, instead of addressing the fundamental issues of how they deal with their other moral concerns. People are stealing left and right, and yet the focus is on a fairly minor issue of sexual orientation. People are lying and reviling each other, and yet this is what folks discuss.

True Christianity is not merely about the negatives, about the thou shalt nots. It is also about the positives, the thing one does. Being more patient. Being more honest. Being more helpful. Being more charitable. Being more merciful. Being more forgiving. It took me a long time to reconcile Christianity to a positive outlook on humanity and human behavior. I had to actually read the bible to find it, which is troubling, seeing the numbers of vocal Christians out there.

In politics, it gets even worse. Even while they allow cheating and fraud on a massive scale, our politicians are busy protecting Marriage from the gays, never thinking that perhaps its our immature view of the relationship of sex and marriage that’s the problem, and not the extension of civil marriage rights beyond the traditional boundaries.

Worse yet, the qualities of mercy and love seem in short supply. Our politicians do their best to prove how tough they are by seeking or legally obligating the worst penalties time and time again, never concerning themselves about whether the sentences are just.

All in all, there’s a good reason that so many don’t understand or like Christianity, despite it’s transcedant virtues, and it’s gospel of forgiveness and mercy. Unfortunately, that reason seems to be the Christians themselves, many of whom have forgotten that God has told them that they’d only get the forgiveness and mercy that they are willing to pass on to others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #120930

I’m not for abortions either and therefore I don’t perform them.It really doesn’t make sense to speak out against something you practice or agree with.To say one thing and do another is the definition of hipocrite.I study GOD’S word so I know how to avoid that and I will continue to study for the rest of my life. 2Timithy 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. (KJV) 2Ti 2:15 Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane babblings: for they will proceed further in ungodliness,(American Standard Version 1901)
2Ti 2:15 Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vaine bablings, for they will increase vnto more vngodlinesse.(actual KJV of 1611) The Old English KJV and the American English KJV and the ASV say the same thing.

I’m not making this up,I’m just using what GOD has preserved for me to use,it is HIS standard not mine.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 5, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #120957

JayJay:

The “they do it too” argument is not the sole domain of any party. Rather, its the domain of those who are unwilling to stand against hypocrisy. It’s hypocritical to say that something is wrong, but to defend it because “they do it too”.

The right thing is to say that something is wrong regardless of who is doing it. I won’t hold you to that standard, as you don’t seem to want to hold to it yourself. But I will be among all those who recognize the inherent hypocrisy of doing otherwise.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 5, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #120960
And come on Woody, you meant all those names in a positive way? Casual slurs are still slurs. They are signs of sloppy thinking.

Sloppy thinking? Now them’s fightin’ words! ;)

You need to look at what I wrote in context. RDAVIDC see quoted some Bible passages listing homosexuality with other alleged sins such as fornication and drunkenness. My point, which I was perhaps not %100 clear in expressing, is that most of these things are quite common in American society. Many people who consider themselves devout Christians or Jews engage in premarital sex. So to my mind, equating homosexuality with fornication is a pretty weak criticism. Drunkenness? Even Noah gets drunk in the Bible.

Yes, I was tweaking the GOP a little bit, but it was really beside the point.

bugcrazy,

You are right about it being sheep they are herding, not cows. I’m a city boy.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 5, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #120961
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

IMO filling up huge blocks of this blog with entire chapters of any book qualifies as vain babbling. Practice your religious beliefs, but don’t legislate.

As for the laws being based on the bible, please remember that laws existed before the bible because leaders needed them to control the people they ruled over. The writers of the bible didn’t invent laws.

Posted by: Loren at February 5, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #120963

I enjoyed Broke Back Mountain, but I think the reason it works as a film is because it uses an old tried and true Hollywood formula. Think about it- how many romance movies have been made about the love that could never be because the parents or society couldn’t accept it. Think of BBM as Wuthering Heights with gay cowboys.

Posted by: Loren at February 5, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #120978

I have started my own Religion.

We’re called Kelvinists.

If anybody is interested let me know.

Posted by: Rocky at February 5, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #120984

Sanger:

Having been in the medical field most of my life, the attempt to shock with the “reality” doesn’t work with me. Most medical “reality” would shock non-medical people. It’s a common ploy by the anti-abortion folks.

You’ve already indicated by your post that it isn’t discussable, so lack of discussion isn’t on my shoulders.

Interestingly enough, I’m against abortion. I would do all in my power to discourage it as an alternative for anyone I am close enough to to have any influence. I am for the right of choice, and the right to privacy though. The last thing I want is the government making ANY medical decisions.

This is my other indication that contrary to your claim to be willing to discuss it, that you aren’t willing.

in order to protect whatever a woman finds the most convenient in order to protect her pocketbook and lifestyle.

I would bet that you know this isn’t the only reason, that the reasons are many and varied. Just another ploy.

You can say it isn’t inflammatory all you want, I disagree, it is and is intended to be.

My biggest disagreement is that you nor any one else should be saying that it’s killing, unless you also don’t support the death penalty or this supposed “war”.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 5, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #121000

I think women would go in droves to see Heath Ledger (sp?) get it on with a squirrel. Give me a lesbian movie with Angelina and I’ll watch it 100 times … oh wait, she already made one and I already watched that many times. My bad.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 5, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #121013

womanmarine:

There are two big hypocrisies used by people—depending on which side of the coin they choose.
1) How can you oppose abortion if you support the death penalty?
2) How can you oppose the death penalty if you support abortion?

Both have inherent hypocrisy in them. I think both arguments are simplistic versions of a more complex argument.

I’m with you in being against abortion, and I’m with you in being in favor of choice. Where we differ is that I think the child should have a choice. It’s my view that in most cases, the mother had a choice.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 5, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #121023
It’s my view that in most cases, the mother had a choice

So what you’re saying is that a baby is the price all whores should pay for having sex?

Posted by: Loren at February 5, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #121024

Stephen,

Very well said!

womanmarine,

Spot on. I too work in the medical field and people would be shocked at some of the stuff that comes through our doors. Abortion is a very miniscule problem in comparison. When I first started, on thing that really shocked me was the amount and variety of rape that goes on. Every type of rape you can think of (and some you can’t and wouldn’t want to), from infants to the elderly to the invalid, and only once in the last 5 years did the rape involve homosexuality. I have seen child abuse (torture) that would cause most to throw up. Shaken baby syndrome, children and adults who are ravaged by disease to the point you question your faith, only to be drawn back by the faith and wisdom of the suffering themselves.

I don’t agree with abortion as a form of birth control, but when you see some of the things I have, you realize that this society suffers much worse moral problems than abortion or homosexuality, yet those things get much less attention.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 5, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #121027
So what you’re saying is that a baby is the price all women should pay for having sex?

Getting pregnant is the lesser price woman might pay for having unprotected sex. You can’t chose to abort HIV or AIDS. I believe in choice, but I believe the choice happens when you decide to have unprotected sex.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 5, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #121031

What is the price a woman must pay for having protected sex that fails? Are ignorant people damned to parenthood? JayJay have you ever had a condom break?

Posted by: Loren at February 5, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #121038

Joebagodonuts:

I agree with your premise about abortion/death penalty.

How does the child have a choice? When?

We appear to be more in agreement, at least about some things, LOL.

JayJay:

this society suffers much worse moral problems than abortion or homosexuality, yet those things get much less attention.

Isn’t it the truth?

Posted by: womanmarine at February 5, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #121039
No,I’m not gay,but,I can see I was wasting my time!Or was I.

RDAVIDC,

If you’re not gay, then stop trying to act like you know anything about it. Yes, you were wasting your time on me, just as I am sure I was wasting my time on you, but hopefully our discussion caused others who struggle with these issues to question their positions. One of the worst things that the “love” being spread by some “Christians” is that some gays and lesbians can’t reconcile being gay and Christian, so they turn away from God. I would argue that turning someone away from God is the ultimate sin.

I encourage anyone that struggles with this issue to seek out the truth not only by studying what the Bible says, but also by studying the Bible’s tumultuous history, including the numerous mistranslations present in the modern Bible.

“Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.” -Jesus, The Gospel of Thomas

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 5, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #121044

These are all about chioces and GOD gave us the free will to choose. In my perfect world nobody would get pregnant unless they wanted a baby. People would left alone to Love whom ever they wish. And people would treat each other as they would wish to be treated.
Here’s an Idea, lets all try !

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at February 5, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #121046

I really came back just to correct the spelling of Larry McMurtry in my earlier post. He’s the most significant living person to come from Texas, more significant than GWBush, and I’m glad that he is getting some acknowledgement for his great writing.

I will probably watch the movie on DVD eventually, since I like Heath Ledger from The Patriot, Knight’s Tale, and Monster’s Ball. He is an example of how someone can come from the other side of the world and do well. I do not care much for Jake Gyllenhall, an example of how people can get ahead if they know or are related to powerful people.

I would actually be more interested in seeing Capote, about a great writer who happened to be gay.

It amazes me that people, who find homosexuality so objectionable, quote so much from a book authorized by a king who liked older men when he was younger, and younger men he was older, assisted by a dirty old man that got into trouble for liking young boys too much.

These same people are confused about when the book was actually written. Scholars, who know what they are talking about, keep moving the date later. The book is basically a biography of King David, written at least 500 years after his death. The stuff that comes before him was written to prefigure his coming, and the stuff that comes after shows how bad things were without him.

People around the year 800 of the Greek Era, 780 of the Roman era, 3780 of the Hebrew era, knew that very well, including a Buddhist disciple supposedly born in a barn in the city of David, who spent most of his life close to the Greek philosophy school at Gadara. People at that time were still writing things that they wanted to insert 1000 years into the past. You might as well say that the book was written by William, the powers that be, Tyndale, 1500 years later, but they caught up to him and strangled him for it.

I just can not wait for us to go back to the good old days, when women had a child every year until they wore out or died, but we really need to increase the infant mortality rate to 90 per cent to make it have the full flavor of a society with religion substituting for laws and morals.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 5, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #121056

Once more into the fray, dear friends, here goes.

I favor abortion on demand, through the second trimester, at government expense if necessary. Women can’t compete economically in the US with anything less and the government can’t afford to pay the price for all the unwanted children that live in squallor and neglect.

But I believe in reincarnation so the issue of everlasting life or death as an individual identity isn’t on the table for me. Abortion is a more of a hot button if you think we only go around this ball of dirt once.

The debate of third trimester abortions is too thorny to go into so early in the day. And be advised, don’t bother to quote scripture for my benefit. I won’t respond.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 5, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #121059

I find it reprehensable to compare the death of a murderer(by leathal injection) to that of an unborn child who is more or less tortured untill it’s demise). This person , given the chance to live may or may not become a great person or one that was ment to die, but we will never know that. One can definatly be for the death of someone like OBL and yet want to save the life of a child , how dare you say it is all or none. Individuals and situations are much more complex than your simple minded view of other people.
As far as the movie goes, I hope it makes millions, no billions and then all the simple minded folks out there will maybe, for once , shut up and live thier own lives, so that when they meet there maker they themselves are in good standing.

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at February 5, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #121060

Ah yes, the myth of the 3rd trimester abortion.

Thank god for people like Larry McMurtry. A fascinating, openminded, artistic Texan. Texas shouldn’t be judged for people like GW alone.

Posted by: Loren at February 5, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #121070

I understand that McMurtry has a huge bookstore in his hometown of Archer City with the largest collection of antiquarian works in the country.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 5, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #121072
JayJay have you ever had a condom break?

Loren,

I apologize; those are my own personal beliefs. I believe in personal responsibility, therefore I do not support the overturning of Roe V Wade, which is a decision that must be reconciled between the person having the abortion and their personal spiritual beliefs. Another reason that I do not support the overturning of Roe V. Wade is because countries that have legalized abortion do not necessarily have higher abortion rates. The United States along with Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, and Western Europe, (all have legalized abortion), have the lowest abortion rates in the world (

Loren,

I apologize; those are my own personal beliefs. I believe in personal responsibility, therefore I do not support the overturning of Roe V Wade, which is a decision that must be reconciled between the person having the abortion and their personal spiritual beliefs. Another reason that I do not support the overturning of Roe V. Wade is because countries that have legalized abortion do not necessarily have higher abortion rates. The United States along with Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, and Western Europe, (all have legalized abortion), have the lowest abortion rates in the world (

The regions with the most restrictive abortion laws also have some of the highest rates of abortion. Asia accounts for 58% of abortions, Africa 11%, and Latin America 9%.

The remainder are Europe, which accounts for 17% and the rest of the world combined (including the United States) accounts for the other 5%.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 5, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #121073

Watchblog editor could you please delete my post above. Sorry, I’m not sure what happened with that last post. Here is what it should have been:

Loren,

I apologize; those are my own personal beliefs. I believe in personal responsibility, therefore I do not support the overturning of Roe V Wade, that is a decision that must be reconciled between the person having the abortion and their personal spiritual beliefs. Another reason that I do not support the overturning of Roe V. Wade is because countries that have legalized abortion do not necessarily translate into higher abortion rates. The United States along with Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, and Western Europe, (all have legalized abortion), have the lowest abortion rates in the world (

The regions with the most restrictive abortion laws also have some of the highest rates of abortion. Asia accounts for 58% of abortions, Africa 11%, and Latin America 9%.

The remainder are Europe, which accounts for 17% and the rest of the world combined (including the United States) accounts for the other 5%.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 5, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #121074

Ok, I apologize, but for some reason part of my post is being dropped, I don’t know why. Sorry.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 5, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #121084

I will keep this brief. The topic of this blog was the apparent success of a movie about homosexual cowboys. How did it transition from that to discussions about what the Bible says what we should or should not eat and then to Roe vs. Wade? No wonder our political system is so screwed up, the people doing the voting can’t stay on track long enough to learn about the issues!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich S at February 5, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #121087

Rich S,

Sorry you feel that way, but it is all inter-related. The real reason that our political system is so screwed up is because people don’t see the big picture, but instead concentrate on just one small area of a much more complicated issue.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 5, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #121095

Wah!Wah!Wah! Rich S

After 114 comments about this topic, the mind tends to wander. It’s just a movie. No one on this thread knows a great deal about the factors that determine profitablitiy in the movie industry so there’s only so much we can say on that topic.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 5, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #121096

JayJay

My original post(the one you originally responded to) was directed at joebagodonuts, who I believe is anti-choice. I believe in personal responsibility, and that includes the right to terminate an accidental or unwanted pregnancy as well as make responsible birth-control decisions. I don’t believe that every sexual act should result in parenthood. Accidents happen and people make mistakes. I am a happy father of an extremely loved daughter because I believe that adults have the right to decide when to be parents.

Posted by: Loren at February 5, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #121107

A CHALLEGE TO SAM BROOKS’ LIES —- CANDIDATE FOR CITY COUNCIL

I would like the DC political community to be more honorable although that is asking a lot.

One candidate’s website is so riddle with blatant lies it is sickening.

That candidate is Sam Brooks for ward 3 city council.

Brooks needs to explain those false representations on the flashpoint part of his homepage.

Mr. Brooks…isn’t Tamela Gordon your campaign chair? Didn’t Tamela Gordon contribute $500 to your campaign according to the filings you made this past week with the DC Office of Campaign Finance? When you quoted her on your website boasting how perfect you are for ward 3 did you tell the voters that she was your campaign chair, that she had given you $500 and that she is a paid staffer? No you did not. That is dishonest and you need to disclose that fraud you are passing off on the voters of ward 3!!!!!!

Mr. Brooks, here is something you might want to put on your website for all the voters of ward 3 to consider which is a real posting made about you by the Washington Post:

The WASHINGTON POST, September 11, 2004; Page A20 speaking of Sam Brooks
said:

1. The District deserves a better choice for city council.

2. He doesn’t come anywhere close in the needed experience overall in representing the city.

3. He is long on energy and ambition but short on community service, and lacks substantive knowledge of the problems confronting the city and ideas for solving them.

4. The District needs someone who knows how the government works, is familiar with the city other than through a political door-to-door campaign and who doesn’t need on-the-job training in the basics.

With this kind of fraud Sam Brooks, how can anybody believe a word you speak?

All candidates need to clean up their act!

Posted by: T Roque at February 5, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #121109

Was Christianity even an issue in the movie? I don’t remember anybody debating Christianity or even being Christians in the story.

As for abortion, there is only defense of it: the inconvenience of raising the child, and that’s the argument I hear people raising here in different versions.

Because some people are merely inconvenient to raise and provide for is no excuse for killing them, especially when you can give the kid up for adoption.

Posted by: sanger at February 5, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #121118

Sanger,

An inconvenience is when you have to park down the block and carry your groceries further to your front door. Carrying a child for nine months is orders of magnitude more than an inconvenience, and one you’ll never have to undergo.

Posted by: Loren at February 5, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #121125

Loren, being chopped into bits and thrown into a garbage can is an incovenience I’ll never have to undergo either.

One person’s life vs. another’s person’s inconvenience. It’s an easy call.

Posted by: sanger at February 5, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #121130

Sanger:

The adoption option doesn’t remove the barriers for women who want a position of power in the workforce. Pregnancy debilitates women reducing their ability to perform high stress jobs. During the later months and after the delivery, extensive time off is required. Employers are often afraid to delegate important tasks to employees who can later be unable to devote less energy to the task. Some positions can’t be handled with a two or three month performance lag.

Aside from professional concerns, pregnancy has the potential to severly affect the health and well being of the mother. No one should suggest that women don’t have to right to refuse to undertake those risks.

I believe that it is the responsibility of all sexual partners to make all possible efforts to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion should not be the preferred birth control method, but pregnancy should not be the penalty for an error in judgement.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 5, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #121140

JayJay:

That’s a bit oversimplistic answer. Protection, of any sort, is not 100% effective. Many people can and do get pregnant who USED protection.

Posted by: Jarandhel at February 5, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #121142

Jayjay:

Sorry, I see that was already addressed before my post went through. I did not mean to rehash something already covered.

Posted by: Jarandhel at February 5, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #121174

That’s right Sanger, because you qualify as a person. And again you misuse the word inconvenience.

We’ll never be able to have a discussion when the life of the women is totally unimportant to you

Posted by: Loren at February 5, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #121175

That’s right Sanger, because you qualify as a person. And again you misuse the word inconvenience.

We’ll never be able to have a discussion when the life of the woman is totally unimportant to you

Posted by: Loren at February 5, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #121187

Go ahead suck the brains out of the little lib bastards one less vote at the ballot box works for me . As for queer cowboys and nazi homo sporting events I get it now George Bush is a nazi cowboy homosexual butcher. thank you for clearing that up for me with your wonderful Democratic talking points rendition of Mein Kamph.Personaly I prefer the peaceful loving all careing religion of Islams soical policy on homosexuality and I belive these soical policys should be made law here in the USA after all such laws have served Islam so well for thousands of years. blog master you are a punk mother you can knock me off this blog but you will never defeat men like me or salience us in the real world when the shit truely hits the fan.

Posted by: whiteman at February 5, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #121206

I’m merely jumping in here to state that both Brokeback Mountain and Capote (who was gay) are amazing films and I think the attention being showered on them have nothing to do with their politics.

Sanger’s comments about thinking it isn’t one of Ang Lee’s best is simply that: an opinion. I think it is his best (and thank god, The Hulk was horrid). Of course, that is my opinion! lol

It is a beautiful film and if one conservative (who somehow mistakenly believes that gays should not have any rights to live their lives) changes their mind, then that is a wonderful thing. Films can influence — One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest in the 1970s influenced the mental health profession and questioned the use of mental institutions.

This thread is simply stating that this film is doing well which really puts a lid on the conservatives’ claims that nobody wants to see gay cowboys and that the great majority of Americans are homophobic. Which, of course, is the usual b.s. that comes out of conservatives’ mouths today.

Great films. I’ve studied film all my life and BBM (and Capote) are two of the best films I’ve seen in recent years. BBM will win Best Picture, not because it is about gays, but, because it is a well-crafted and heartfelt film.

Posted by: Chris at February 5, 2006 9:28 PM
Comment #121230

Loren:

I already said earlier that I am pro-choice, but just in favor of the baby having a choice. Seems to me that women have a choice to prevent pregnancy by using birth control (95%+ sure) or by not having sex (100% sure), though there are undoubtedly cases in which they do not have a choice (rape and incest). By law, women have a choice now to end a pregnancy, which I believe is ending a life.

womanmarine:

How does the child have a choice? When?

Current law gives an unborn child rights at some point during the pregnancy—I think after the first trimester, the options for abortion are limited. We know that a healthy pregnancy cannot be terminated, for instance, in the 8th or 9th month. While this isn’t technically a “choice”, I consider it such for the purposes of our conversation.


Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 5, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #121231

whiteman-
Why defeat people like you? You do a a good job of achieving that yourself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #121249

Stephen Daugherty:

There was documentary some years ago called “Blood In the Face” which consisted of white supremacists speaking their mind on race relations. There was no narration, just jackboots of various sorts expressing their opinions. It was the most compelling argument against racism that I’ve seen.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 6, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #121250

Anyone remember the old joke that started:
Well, Doc I got me this friend…
and the doctor says back, “…you mean you think of yourself as a friend…” Nor funny but you get the point,

and The defense in the 60’s and 70’s and on and on that …”well I got me lots of Black friends….” and you say ..”name one”…, and there’s this sudden silence.

Or what about my gay male friend who committed suicide at the age of 22 because he could not change who he was and was condenmned by his entire family, friends and neighbors, once they pushed him up against the wall and made his life their business.

In small town America, gossip being what it is, he was fired from his job as a teacher, a young man who wanted nothing more out of life but teach children the love of learning.

He honestly tried to keep his bedroom private, and ended up dying because of narrow-minded nosiness.

By the way he was not in any type of relationship at the time.

Prejudice doesn’t change. just its’ targets.


Posted by: Linda H. at February 6, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #121251

JBOD,

Could you clarify a little more, do you mean that you support a woman’s right to choose during the first trimester and oppose abortion throughout the remainder of the pregnancy?

If that is true than I agree with you, we as a society do not protect life all the time; that is a fact. We destroy animal, plant, bacterial, fungal, and other forms of life everyday; be it for food or other reasons. We also destroy human cells often, such as cancer cells, human cell cultures in laboratories and unfertilized sperm & egg cells. What truly makes the human life that we protect special is the conscious and sentient human brain, which is not present during the first half of a pregnancy. Before then, an embryo is only an animal in terms of development and has only the rights that an animal has.

Also, you admit that birth control is not 100% effective; with 6 billion people in the world and a little less than 300 million in the US, birth control is inevitably going to fail and result in unwanted pregnancy. In my opinion, if a woman discovers that she is pregnant and is nearly certain that she cannot care for the baby I think she should get an abortion ASAP so as to minimize the risk of the embryo developing any conscious brain activity. That’s why I think morning-after-pills that are otherwise safe enough to be over-the-counter should be. That way a woman does not need to deal with a doctor or a pharmacist and can take the drugs as soon as possible; thus maximizing their effectiveness.

Posted by: Warren P at February 6, 2006 12:07 AM
Comment #121282

Joebagodonuts:

Thanks for the clarification, and with the exception of the health of the mother, I agree.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 6, 2006 1:45 AM
Comment #121283

WELL THAT’S THE END OF COWBOY HATS!!!!!

I’m Not kiddin’ ya’ that trend is done!!! Yay the seige is over!!!!!!!

(i hear propellor caps are making a comeback—unless it comes out that tweedle dee and tweedledum are ya know queer and whatnot)

Posted by: Sum damn guy at February 6, 2006 1:48 AM
Comment #121335

Warren P.

I was sorta playing word games in response to an earlier post. I was called “anti-choice”, which to me is the same kind of backhanded language use as calling someone “anti-life”. Its the verbal equivalent of giving someone a big friendly hug, while slipping a knife into their back.

I’m not in favor of abortion at all. I prefer a woman’s reproductive rights to come BEFORE she gets pregnant, as opposed to afterwards. I recognize that many use the viability rationale in determining when an abortion is acceptable. The problem is that this time line changes with technology, so we may find in the future that a day old “fetus” or “baby” is viable.

You seem to focus on brain activity—that’s another way of determining life. Its not the only one, but I certainly understand your position.

In the first world, there is not much reason for someone to get pregnant if they properly avoid it. The percentage of pregnancies that come from rape, incest, or birth control failure is very small—-while I don’t know the percentage, I’d suggest its certainly less than 5% and likely closer to 1%. Its different in the third world because of cultural and economic issues. The goal should be to bring the numbers in the third world into alignment with the first world.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 6, 2006 7:47 AM
Comment #121342

If you don’t believe that GOD could create the heavens and the earth with the power of HIS voice,then you will have trouble believing HE could preserve the Bible’s integrity,despite man’s bumbling attempts to destroy it HE has preserved it for us because HE has said the New Testament of Jesus Christ will be the standard we will be judged by on judgement day.HE being the Loving GOD HE is would not let it be changed so it could not be trusted.Greater men and women than we have given there life to preserve GOD’S word so we could learn the TRUTH obey it and be free from the curse of sin which is eternal punishment in Hell. Rom 1:15 So, as much as is in me, I am eager to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes, both to the Jew first and to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Rom 1:19 Because that which is known of God is manifest among them, for God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Divinity, so that they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 Because, having known God, they did not glorify Him as God, or give thanks, but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for a likeness of an image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and reptiles.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of the own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 6, 2006 8:31 AM
Comment #121375

RDAVIDC, you’ll be horrified to learn that the New Testament was changed many times over its first millenium. Bits were added, some were taken out, some were changed.

In fact, there are several versions of the New Testament available today. Which one are you referring to?

Posted by: American Pundit at February 6, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #121413

RDAVIDC
I’m kinda jumping into the middle of this and haven’t read all the comments. But I’m 1000% with you on you last post.

God very clearly states that he hates homosexuality. If a person pratices it they are doomed to hell unless they repent.
I reckon if someone wants to be homosexual thats their problem and thye’re the one that has to answer to God for it.
But I personally cann’t see why folks that aint would want to pay their hard earned money to see such perversion. It aint natural and NOBODY is born that way. If it was natural and people were born that way God wouldn’t condem it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 6, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #121416

Baaaa Baaaa Baaaaaaaad!

Posted by: Reporting for Doody at February 6, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #121461

BBM is an excellent film. I saw it Saturday evening in conservative Salt Lake City. The theatre was about 3/4 full, and the majority of the folks in the audience seemed to be man + woman couples. I was one of the few people going solo.

I’m not a big fan of major blockbuster films that cost so much to make. I like to see more films with smaller budgets that are more about story and characters than special effects.

Off topic:

As for the bible quotes in this thread — the bible was written by a bunch of old men who created God in man’s image — judgemental, quick to anger, revengeful, punishing, sexist — etc. I choose to believe that if any kind of God exists, he/she would have evolved past such human traits to become all loving. Such a God would have no problem with small percentage of the human and animal population having an attraction for those of the same sex.

As for the abortion debate on the thread, I think we can’t make abortion illegal until there is a law for mandatory vasectomies and artificial insemination. We now have the technology to improve upon nature and every pregnancy would then be a wanted pregancy. Unless we are willing to take such drastic measures, it’s vitally important that abortion remain safe and legal.

Posted by: Jen at February 6, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #121466

Personally, I’m heading towards the idea of seperation of church and state to be taken more literally. Therefor, I commandeth:
All evangelical religious idealogues who want religious law to supercede constitutional law need to leave this country immediately. Go find your own. Try starting with Iran. Then move to the Vatican if it doesn’t suit ya’. While you’re at it, make sure take that stupid jerkoff W with you.

Posted by: Dave at February 6, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #121472

“It aint natural and NOBODY is born that way. If it was natural and people were born that way God wouldn’t condem it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 6, 2006 11:52 AM”

Ron,
The American Psychological Association seems to disagree, I quote:
“Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.


Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.

What About So-Called “Conversion Therapies”?

Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients’ sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.

The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association’s Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology’s opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client’s right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?

Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent’s sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children’s.

Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.”

from:http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#whatcauses

Of course what would a bunch of college educated doctors know.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 6, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #121502

God very clearly states that he hates homosexuality

Wow, God hates, and hate kills, are you sure your not a Satan worshipper?

Posted by: ray orhealy at February 6, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #121599

“Wow, God hates, and hate kills, are you sure your not a Satan worshipper?

Posted by: ray orhealy at February 6, 2006 03:31 PM “

Ray,

I think actually the preferred opinion would be that Satan uses guys like me to quote science and history to influence people to believe their christian (or any other) belief is faulty.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 6, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #121629

AP,

Many don’t know that many scriptures and books were removed from the cannon of the Original church. Why? Because they were gnostic scriptures, that downplayed the role of the church. You see the gnostic scriptures teach the spiritual side of religion. The idea that those who believe will know the truth because they sought it. The church thought it had destroyed all of the gnostic scriptures, but that was proven wrong with their discovery in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. Amazingly, a second major discovery in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls, also contained fragment of the gnostic scripture.

The Gospel of Thomas:

16. Jesus said, “Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.

For there will be five in a house: there’ll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone.”

26. Jesus said, “You see the sliver in your friend’s eye, but you don’t see the timber in your own eye. When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend’s eye.”

If it was natural and people were born that way God wouldn’t condem it.

Ron,

He doesn’t condemn homosexuals any more than he condemns heterosexuals. All those passages that people point out in the Bible are about sexual sins that are forbidden to heterosexuals as well. Rape, pedophilia, prostitution, ritual uncleanliness, and orgies in temples.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #121936

Lesbian movies would be very popular.

There should be special award categories.

Best gay - lesbian - homosexual - back gay - asian gay - hispanic straight - white gay - cowboy gay - mud wrestling asian lesbian - etc —

and the beat goes on

Posted by: Reporting for Doody at February 7, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #121991

Ron,
The American Psychological Association seems to disagree, I quote:
“Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

KansasDem
I don’t believe a word that Psychologist say. The few that I’ve run across are morans. And from what I’ve read about what’s comming form the rest of them I’d have to say they are too.

JayJay
The Gospel of Thomas aint scripture. That’s why it’s not in the Bible. The 66 books of the Bible are inspired by God. That’s why they’re in it. The other books aren’t.
From your comment that the books in the Bible put moe inportance on the church than God I asume that you haven’t read the Bible. The Bible outs ALL the emphisis on GOD. Not man or the church.
And yes God DOES condem honosexuality. Read the first chapter of Romans. He also condems sexual imorality from hetrosexuals too.
If homosexuality is natural then why did God create Adam and Eve insted of Adam and Steve? And why would he condem it? God doesn’t condem heterosexuality. He doesn’t comdem you for being a man or a women, or for being Black, White, Oriental, or any other race. All these things are natural. So why would he condem homosexuality if it’s natural?

ray
No I’m not a Satanist. I’m a born again Christian that believes that Jesus died for my sins and reads and believes the Bible.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 7, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #121997

“God very clearly states that he hates homosexuality.”

Does God know you’re speaking for him? I can understand that this is your interpretation of the Bible… but it’s far from a fact or a ‘clear’ statement. personally, I’ll live my religion through my own heart and mind - I’ve the seen the crap people write down as ‘the word’ and their motives.

Posted by: tony at February 7, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #122057

Ron Brown, what was wrong wth the way you were born the first time? I was raised very religious, but eventually learned to think for myself. The Bible is just a book. Some of it is very good. I like the psalms, and wise King Solomon and all his wives and girlfriends. King David is considered a little gay by many people. A lot of it is filler taken from other sources, to have a book big enough to impress illiterate people.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 7, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #122073

Ron Brown, what was wrong wth the way you were born the first time?

ray
Nothing, except we are all born sinners and need a Savior. Jesus is that Savior.
The Bible isn’t just a book. It is the the Inspired Word of God.
I learned to think for myself too. My parents taught me that. I was raised as a Southern Baptist. While I was in my first enlistment in the Air Force I questioned everything the Baptist believe. The thing is, the more I questioned it, the more I became convinced they were right. I’m not a Southern Baptist, but I am Baptist. I believe this is because I did question their teachings. There were things that the Southern Baptist do that I don’t agree with. But I still believe the Baptist Doctrine.

tony
I’m not speaking for God. I’m only saying what He has already said in the Bible.
I’ve seen the crap that people have written as the word too. And I’ve seen their motives. Most isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. That’s why I only except the Bible as the athourity on livng a Christian life. And believe me some of it I don’t like either. But it’s what God said so I except it.
As far as the motives of a lot of so called Christians go. It’s the motives of folks like them and the way they do things that gives Christianity a bad name.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 7, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #122090

Ron -

“But it’s what God said so I except it.”

Ever played ‘telephone’ or ‘pass it on’? It’s where you sit in a group, and one person wispers in another’s ear a statement. It then gets passed person by person until the last person says what the statement is. I’ve never played it where it was even close, and these are usualy easy statements to pass along.

Think about what you read in the bible. How many people has the text gone through to get into the book you are reading? Do you really beleive that no one anywhere down the long line of translations added or changed anything? that not only was it a direct translation, but an exact social translation as well?

We don’t even have anything younger than 10th generation translations… and many of the books are completely unknown as to how many hands it has passed through.

Can you still look at the bible and expect to get anything other then vague ideas of the original context and lesson?

Posted by: tony at February 7, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #122110

In order to be able to beleive the Bible you first have to beleive that God can as has preserved His Word from the beginning and that he will continue to preserve it. In order to believe this you have to believe in the Soverignty of God. And that he is more powerfull than all those that want to detract from the Bible and destroy it.
I believe this, so I have no troulbe believeing what the Bible says.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 7, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #122155
The Gospel of Thomas aint scripture. That’s why it’s not in the Bible. The 66 books of the Bible are inspired by God. That’s why they’re in it. The other books aren’t.

Ron,

The words of Jesus, himself, are not inspired? Sorry, but I will have to disagree with you on that one. The 66 books are in the canon of the Bible, because they were selected by the Church. Please read what Jesus had to say about the religious scholars of the time; the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23 The scriptures at the time were written on materials that degraded quickly. The scribes transcribed the Old Testament over and over and over to preserve them.

13 “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.”

From your comment that the books in the Bible put moe inportance on the church than God I asume that you haven’t read the Bible. The Bible outs ALL the emphisis on GOD. Not man or the church.

I never said that, I said the Church put more importance on the Church. I’m not sure what the second part of your comment means.

If homosexuality is natural then why did God create Adam and Eve insted of Adam and Steve?

Because if it had been Adam and Steve, they would still be living it up in the Garden of Eden, and it would be fabulous!

In order to be able to believe the Bible you first have to believe that God can as has preserved His Word from the beginning and that he will continue to preserve it. In order to believe this you have to believe in the Soverignty of God. And that he is more powerfull than all those that want to detract from the Bible and destroy it. I believe this, so I have no troulbe believeing what the Bible says.

God did protect his word and will continue to do so, but he does that more through the Holy Spirit than he does through the letter. God prescribes the punishment for adding to or removing from the words because he knew it would happen. Why would God include a warning and a punishment if he knew it wouldn’t happen? In fact we know it happened, several times. Every bible today, with the exception of the King James Version is based on the Revised Version of the 19th century. Does the word “revised” mean anything to you?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 8, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #122218

Ron -

More power to you! Keep the faith. Seriously, it’s good to know people actually have honest faith.

I don’t agree with your belief that God hate Gays, but that really is between God and each gay person… as far as I see it.

Posted by: tony at February 8, 2006 6:59 AM
Comment #122230
In order to be able to beleive the Bible you first have to beleive that God can as has preserved His Word from the beginning and that he will continue to preserve it.

So, all those scriptures that were thrown out of the New Testament… How do you explain those? I mean, if He preserved them, they’d still be there. Unless, of course, Jesus made some mistakes that had to be edited out… Is that possible? :)

Seriously Ron, you can still have faith without taking the Bible literally. It was, after all, written — and edited — by men.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 8, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #122318
Seriously Ron, you can still have faith without taking the Bible literally. It was, after all, written — and edited — by men.

AP,

Very true. It has been edited over and over again. Personally, I believe that the bible is written the way it is (using symbols, and figurative language, and allegories, and parables) because God didn’t want you to just read the Bible and put in your one day a week at church and you are in his good graces. If that is what he wanted then he would have just sent down a rule book clearly stating what was right and wrong. I believe he wants you to seek out the truth, in doing so seeking out him. He wants you to come to him on your own terms for guidance and answers to spiritual conflictions. If you do that then he will open your spirit and reveal the hidden secrets of the Bible. That is my own religious belief and as such I believe that a ban on same-sex marriage would be an attack on the first amendment’s freedom of religion clause, a dangerous attack even for those who support it.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 8, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #122327

BTW, I don’t think people who support a federal marriage amendment know what such an amendment would do. It not only would ban same-sex marriage; it would also give the federal government the power to regulate all aspects of marriage. There are many SCOTUS decisions based on the fact that the Constitution does not give the power of marriage to the federal government, including one decision that overturned a law that forbid stores from selling contraceptives to married couples. We need to always be mindful that the government works in baby steps, it starts with same-sex marriage and ends with full-blown regulation.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 8, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #122341

Jay Jay
God does protect and preserve his word thruogh the Holy Spirt. And he also protects the written word. If he didn’t, the Bible would have been destroyed back in the 1st century.
The 66 books of the Bible were inspired by God. When King James ordered the Bible translated to the English language the text used was the Textus Receptus, or recieved text. This is the text recieved down through the years and preserved from the original writers.
There was other text but they were found to be in era. How this was done I din’t know but they were. So the King James Version was translated fron the recieved text.
As a Baptist I feel this is the only true english translation. The other translations were taken from the Westcott Hort and other text that were found to be defective and not used in translating the King Janes Version.
God did warn against adding or subtracting from the Bible. The new translations do this as they leave out verses that the translators didn’t like because they refuted their doctrines.

AP
Jesus didn’t and still doesn’t make mistakes. But men do. I asume that when you talk about those verses that you say were thrown out that your talking about verese that are in the King James and not in other translations. If you are it’s like I told Jay Jay, Those verses were left out by the men that created those translations because the refute the doctrines they want to teach. If your talking about ones that never made it into the Bible, They were judged not to be inspired by God.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 8, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #122575

This discussion is about as profitable as trying to bail the Atlantic with a teaspoon. Literalists and nonliteralists should either agree to disagree or clear their schedules and pull up a chair because they are going to be occupied a long time.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 9, 2006 4:38 AM
Comment #122760

Ah yes, Brokeback Mountain…..didn’t see it.

But you know what they say, all independent films are about gay cowboys eating pudding anyway. So there’s no new ground broken here.

Posted by: Paul at February 9, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #122765

Brokeback Mountain is the biggest piece of crap movie ever made. Ang Lee needs to kill himself. I hope it doesnt win an Oscar and shouldnt have won any Globes for that matter. What shit!

Posted by: DJ at February 9, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #122791

Mention homosexuality on a forum and it really brings out the hate.The popularity of Brokeback Mountain is something called hoyay, or ho-yay or Ho-Yay! It stands for homoeroticism, yay, and is a term coined by some recappers at a fansite. It originally jokingly referred to the overacting between male actors on Buffy in 1997 and Angel in 1999. The people that made the shows read the fansites, and decided to write it into their scripts, and the female audience members responded well. They are also responding well to this movie.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 9, 2006 3:34 PM
Post a comment