I've Had Enough

Those damn gays are at it again! They are trying to force their deviant lifestyle onto us. They are corrupting the morals of this country. I’ve had enough of their “flair” and it’s time to take action. Now! Why can’t the gays and the queer loving left just show us some respect and leave us alone? Gay Marriage

Why? Because we haven't given them any reason to leave us alone on this issue. Thanks to the media and the extreme right, gays and their supporters believe the trash in the first paragraph is representive of every Republican, and guess what, ITS OUR OWN FAULT.

How could I know this, I'm one of those Republicans who believes that trash, right?

Wrong. I fully support gay people wanting, no, deserving equal rights. I have been to rallies and parades and people almost faint when I mention that I am from the right side of isle. To them, I am one out of a million. To me, I don't think I'm as rare as some people would like us to think.

I'm not trying to pass-the-buck by crying liberal-media bias on this issue either. For every stereotypical Jim-Bob on TV yelling "queer," there is also some flamboyant gay person running around acting like a fool on TV. This is what makes the news and this is how both sides see the other. Both sides are wrong in thinking this way.

All Christians do not hate gay people and not all gay people want you to adopt their lifestyle. As with politics, the sane people are lost in the middle.

I am aware that this issue transcends party lines. Traditional marriage bills swept through the country in 2004 and passed with Democrat and Republican support. Yet, in the eyes of many, it is the Republicans who hate gays.

To me, marriage is just a word. I realize it has religious significance and that many feel the importance of its foundation would be tarnished by allowing something which goes against the will of God. I respect this belief and do not think we should try to change it. But the will of God has no place in creating our laws.

I also realize the symbolism that the word marriage carries and respect the will of same-sex couples who wish to use the word marriage to express their love and commitment to the one they love.

Some people simply disagree with gay-marriage because they think it is disgusting and don't want to see it in public. They don't think it is possible to love somebody of the same sex. I respect their right to think this way, but their personal feelings are failing to equate homosexual love to the heterosexual love they share with someone.

But let's be honest. Most of us don't say a word about this because we don't really care, one way or another, if somebody is gay. We don't approve, so why defend their rights, they can do it themselves. We'll just sit back, be quiet and let them fight it out.

We can no longer do that. It's not their right to be gay that they are fighting for; they are free to be gay if they choose. It's their individual right to be equal in the eyes of the law that is at stake and to me, individual rights are worth dying for.

So what can we do? Well, for starters, we need to make it crystal clear that people like Pat Robertson, do not speak for Republicans, he is an ultra-conservative.

We need to understand that this is a political issue and that we should not give the left ammunition by keeping silent. We must speak out in favor of ALL rights and not just the ones we agree with. Silence is our own worst enemy.

We don't have to succumb to political correctness or even accept the gay lifestyle into our own lives, we just have to respect their right to be treated the same as everybody else.

Its time we quit treating them as "gays" and started treating them as people.

Posted by Tim Huff at September 8, 2005 5:47 PM
Comments
Comment #79090

Tim,

“I’m not trying to pass-the-buck by crying liberal-media bias on this issue either. For every stereotypical Jim-Bob on TV yelling “queer,” there is also some flamboyant gay person running around acting like a fool on TV. This is what makes the news and this is how both sides see the other. Both sides are wrong in thinking this way.”

The problem is that right or wrong, people belive those stereotypes. Most gays are not the flaming queens that are the stereotype, they are like you and me, and on the street or in your church you would never know the difference.
Fundamentalists can’t get past their Bibles. Their belief is infallible, and the Bible says that homosexuals should be put to death.

The loudest voices seem to be on the fringes of the issue.

The far right needs to get over the “sexual” in homosexual, and the gays need to spend a little less time in people’s faces.

Posted by: Rocky at September 8, 2005 6:24 PM
Comment #79091

Tim,

Marriage may be just a word to you but it isn’t to most Americans which is why the gay movment insists on the use of the world marriage. They are not so much interested in in civil rights and benefits as they are intent on forcing the American society to legally endorse their behavior and so establish that all religions conform to their personal desires.

i will not support the gay movement’s subjugation of American citizens of faith.

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 6:27 PM
Comment #79094

We must speak out in favor of ALL rights and not just the ones we agree with.

Could not agree with you more Tim. I believe the government should not be involved in marriage at all, that it is a religious ceremony. If the government, federal and state wants to award benefits to those who are “married” it should be under the grounds of a civil union. Those that wanted the additional religious ceremony would be free too, those that did not? Would not.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at September 8, 2005 6:37 PM
Comment #79098

This piece seems to say, “can’t we all get along.” I think you underestimate the opposition and their goals. They don’t want mere tolerance and formal legal equality, they want acceptance and they want, in Marxist fashion, to rearrange traditional marriage and have said so explicitly. They label this state of affairs “the patriarchy” and complain about the “oppression” of “compulsory heterosexuality.”

The language of rights has no place in the disposition of public benfits such as marriage, any more than it does on the disposition of other public honors like public offices. Rather the burden is on those who would undo thousands of years of western tradition and make the case that this institution, chiefly aimed at creating a stable hard-to-break bond within which to raise children, also serves an important purpose in memorializing homosexual romantic love.

Minorities can and should be tolerated, including homosexuals, but they owe society and its mores some respect as well. Instead, they’re actively trying to rearrange that broader society. John Derbyshire wrote, “I think that while minority rights ought to be respected, civic majorities ought not be asked to endure offense for the sake of abstract metaphysical or juridical theories, unless dire and dramatic injustices like slavery are in play. Majorities have rights too; and while I want to see minority rights respected, I don’t think that every minor inconvenience consequent on being a member of a minority should be raised to the level of an intolerable injustice requiring drastic legislative or judicial remedy… . Tolerance is not approval; and while I do not agree with the pope that homosexuals are ‘called to chastity,’ I do think that they are called to restraint, discretion, reticence, and a decent respect for the opinions of the majority. I certainly do not think that they ought to be allowed to transform long-established institutions like marriage on grounds of ‘fairness.’ Nor do I think they should be allowed to advertise their preference to high-school students, as they do in some parts of this country.”

I have to wonder who you think is voting Republican. Look at a map. Do you think people in Arkansas, Alabama, and Oklahoma give a fig about “capital gains tax cuts” and other pro-business minutia of the pro-business part of the Republican party. The social issues, tax cuts, and national security are the glue of the party. Without these constituencies satisfied, we become the listless Rockefeller Republicans of the 1970s, with all of the cultural and political decline that entailed.

If nothing else, your message is suicidal politically, in addition to being an artifact of the braoder moral and cultural suicide that’s characterized the West for some time.

“Vice is a monster so frightful to mein
that but to be seen is to despise
yet, seen too oft, familiar with her face,
we first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
-Alexander Pope
Moral Essays on Man

Posted by: Roach at September 8, 2005 7:07 PM
Comment #79101

Roach,

“John Derbyshire wrote, “I think that while minority rights ought to be respected, civic majorities ought not be asked to endure offense for the sake of abstract metaphysical or juridical theories, unless dire and dramatic injustices like slavery are in play. Majorities have rights too; and while I want to see minority rights respected, I don’t think that every minor inconvenience consequent on being a member of a minority should be raised to the level of an intolerable injustice requiring drastic legislative or judicial remedy… . Tolerance is not approval; and while I do not agree with the pope that homosexuals are ‘called to chastity,’ I do think that they are called to restraint, discretion, reticence, and a decent respect for the opinions of the majority.”

So what John Derbyshire seems to be sayiing is that gays should shut up and be glad we “the majority” don’t follow the Bible’s advise and put you to death.
If this is “compassionate conservatism” what could possibly be next?

Posted by: Rocky at September 8, 2005 7:42 PM
Comment #79104

Rocky
“The far right needs to get over the “sexual” in homosexual, and the gays need to spend a little less time in people’s faces”

I don’t believe Republicans make up the “far right.” There really is no chance in reasoning with the “far right” either.
I also believe it is the “flaming queens” you refered to that need to spend less time in peoples faces.
I think many gay people would like to vote Republican but choose love over issues.

Jo
“intent on forcing the American society to legally endorse their behavior and so establish that all religions conform to their personal desires”

I don’t believe that for one minute. The average gay person doesn’t care if you endorse what they do and I don’t think they wish to alter religions. Taking the media’s portrayal of gay people and slapping it onto all of them is just plain wrong.

Roach
“If nothing else, your message is suicidal politically”

Thats all it boils down to isn’t it. People should be denied the ability to love who they wish and be denied certain benefits based on how other people think they should live their lives.
I don’t know about you, but I get real pissed when liberals try and tell me how to live my life to suit what THEY believe in. So why is it ok for us to tell gays how to live theirs?

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 8, 2005 7:45 PM
Comment #79105

Tim,

“I think many gay people would like to vote Republican but choose love over issues.”

And I think that many gays vote Democratic because of the possibility that they may someday be treated as other than second class citizens.

“I also believe it is the “flaming queens” you refered to that need to spend less time in peoples faces.”

The “flaming queens” I refered to are the stereotype not the norm.

Posted by: Rocky at September 8, 2005 7:54 PM
Comment #79107

The Neo-Cons and FREC’s (Fundamentalist Right Evangelical Christians) are losing their grip on the Republican Party. And this is a great thing to see, IMO. I am at this moment listening to Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas deliver a lengthy speech on the floor of the House of Representatives debunking the Whitehouse’s motives for invading Iraq, slamming this administration for throwing live American GI’s after dead in their latest creative reason for killing, shame if we depart.

It is encouraging to see that the Republican Party is far more diverse than the Whitehouse or Congressional Majority leaders would have us believe, and I am encouraged to see such Republicans finally assert their voice courageously despite the potential consequences from their party’s leadership.

Excellent article, Tim. With respect,


Posted by: David R. Remer at September 8, 2005 7:55 PM
Comment #79109

Tim,

Excellent post. It is refreshing to see someone on the right standing up for equal right for ALL. You, and others on the right who think like you, are a voice of reason and need to be heard above the hypocritical, hysterical cries of the Robertsons and Dodsons.

As you point out, many will probably disagree with your viewpoint because it “goes against the word of God.” Well, to people who say that, I would ask them to actually read the whole of Leviticus, and not just the part about homosexuality. There, they will find many other “abominations” that are also offensive to God — a few of which include wearing a garment made of two different fabrics, plowing a field with 2 different crops, picking up fallen grapes from your vines, and trimming the hair around your temples. A Christian (conservative or otherwise) who is therefore against gays for Biblical reasons should also be against cotton/polyester blend shirts for the same reason!

How hard is it for us to simply live and let live? You don’t have to be a Christian to understand that tolerance is a wonderful value. And if you are a Christian, you should do what Jesus commands you to do — love one another.

Homosexuality won’t crumble the empire. But hatred and intolerance will.

Bravo, Tim. Thank you for trying to nudge us back to center.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at September 8, 2005 8:00 PM
Comment #79110

Great post.

Although to me, marriage is a meaningful word, the ways in which it is meaningful do not relate to the government’s role in it, but the couple’s and, if applicable, church’s role in it. As far as I am concerned, the government’s only role in marriage is controlling legal benefits and obligations, and those should be applied regardless of whether the couple is heterosexual and homosexual as long as they have commited to each other.

Posted by: Erika at September 8, 2005 8:02 PM
Comment #79111

jo,

“Marriage may be just a word to you but it isn’t to most Americans which is why the gay movment insists on the use of the world marriage.”

If marriage isn’t just a word to the majority of Americans, why do over 50% of American marriages end in divorce?

Posted by: Rocky at September 8, 2005 8:08 PM
Comment #79112

Tim, with all due respect, read this (emphasis added):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Last time I checked, gays qualified as people, and are covered by it. So it seems pretty obvious to me that state marriage laws that are worded to exclude gays are a violation of the 14th amendment.

Posted by: ElliottBay at September 8, 2005 8:10 PM
Comment #79113

You don’t have to be affiliated with either party to know that ‘gay marriage’ is part of the moral decay which is going on in this country. To force God out of public life, and schools is mainly the reason to find excuses, and justification for this type of behavior, whether it is gay , marriage, abortion etc..
I don’t care whether you are conservative or liberal, this type of behavior is a sin, and violates all moral values. Now, you can express your opinion all you want, there are no margins of errors. You either tolerant or not, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you consider yourself to be a Christian, you have to demonstrate it by your actions, and accepting gay mariage, abortion etc is NOT one of the christian teachings. As Proverbs says: “By the company you keep, will I be able to know who you really are!” Think about that one next time, when you exercise judgement towards those who would like to remain on the right path.

Posted by: cali_sun at September 8, 2005 8:10 PM
Comment #79115

Rocky
We are on the same page my friend. As I am more of a Republican, I am mainly speaking with them in mind.
Besides, I have seen what happens on here when we try to offer advice to the blue side. LOL!

Magoo and David, thank you for your supportive words.

Erika
Not trying to argue over a word here, just trying to let you know where I am coming from when I said it was just a word.
I was not trying to downplay the importance of the word marriage, it is a very special word. But without the love that creates it, marriage IS just a word, IMO.

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 8, 2005 8:14 PM
Comment #79116

Tim,

Good post.

Posted by: Rocky at September 8, 2005 8:16 PM
Comment #79118
Jo
“intent on forcing the American society to legally endorse their behavior and so establish that all religions conform to their personal desires”
I don’t believe that for one minute. The average gay person doesn’t care if you endorse what they do and I don’t think they wish to alter religions. Taking the media’s portrayal of gay people and slapping it onto all of them is just plain wrong.

It is easy enough to dismiss flaming queens and Rush Limbaughs, more difficult are the chronic activists attacking through legislature, judiciary and civil servants. Like you, i think health care, insurance and hospital etc visitation to be afforded to all. While i tolerate rude behavior in public, i do not condone it. While i tolerate each person’s right to privacy and freewill, i do not necessarily agree with or condone their choices or actions. i don’t care to know what goes on in the bedrooms of my heterosexual friends anymore than i am interested in what homosexuals do. It’s none of my business. It has no place in the public square. i will NOT stand idley by while the homosexual movement—not necessarily every gay person nor even the average gay— tries to force their beliefs on me, my church or other people of faith be they Christian, Muslim or other.

If the average gay is not satisfied with the way they are being represented by the gay movement, perhaps the average gay should move a little to the middle and find representation which seeks to eliminate oppression rather than switching who plays top dog.

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 8:25 PM
Comment #79119

EliottBay
I am aware of what of the 14th says, thank you.
If you are speaking of my last line, asking to treat them not as gays, but as people, then I believe you are reading too far into what I am asking. I am not disparaging the term gay in any way.
I do not believe in seperating people into groups, I consider everybody the same.

Cali
“Think about that one next time, when you exercise judgement towards those who would like to remain on the right path.”

I made no such judgement and clearly stated that I respect a persons religious beliefs.
Your morales and what you consider sins are different than what others believe. You should not be forced to live by their beliefs and they should not be forced to live by yours.

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 8, 2005 8:27 PM
Comment #79121

Well since the supremes gave people the right to sodomize others, and the primary cause of AIDS is sodomy, why would giving special rights to sodomizers be anything but wrong?

The institution of marriage is an established institution. Those who want to change the establised institution of marriage are treading on dangerous cultural, spiritual and legal ground.

Already NAMBLA is suing to have all rape laws abolished.

Homosexual groups are not as interested in rights as they are in destroying foundations involving the family.

Lawsuits are in motion to remove “father” from birth certificates.

Marriage is not a right.

Beastiality is not far behind.

Have we become so smart, wise and knowledgeagle that we cast all mores aside for the purpose of satisfying a small minority?

The majority (60-80%) have voted for the establishment of constitutional amendments that define marriage as between one man and one woman.

There are many more effective arguments against changing the institution of marriage.

Posted by: tom at September 8, 2005 8:30 PM
Comment #79122

tom,

“Homosexual groups are not as interested in rights as they are in destroying foundations involving the family.”

And of course the divorce rate had nothing at all to do with that.

Why is it you guys always bring up beastiality?

Posted by: Rocky at September 8, 2005 8:41 PM
Comment #79123

Rocky,

If marriage isn’t just a word to the majority of Americans, why do over 50% of American marriages end in divorce?
If the majority of Americans agree murder is wrong, why are there murders in America? Maybe we should just legalize murder and promote divorce so we can all have a nice happy society with individual liberties so each one can do whatever it is that gives him pleasure.

Despite the divorce rate, no one (as far as i am aware) is trying to promote and legally define it as something good and normal. The majority makes up the society. Minorities usually help us to become a better society, although history IS replete with instances of minorities taking over societies…

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 8:44 PM
Comment #79124

jo,

“Despite the divorce rate, no one (as far as i am aware) is trying to promote and legally define it as something good and normal.”

And yet the divorce rate has more to do with the degradation of the American family than anything having to do with gays. Couples now enter into the “sacred” vows of marriage without a thought of what they are doing. That has more to do with American “values”.
Gay couples would like to enter into a bond that they appear to want to do this seriously. That is more than I can say about the way marriage has been treated by the straight community.

Posted by: Rocky at September 8, 2005 8:54 PM
Comment #79132
And yet the divorce rate has more to do with the degradation of the American family than anything having to do with gays. Couples now enter into the “sacred” vows of marriage without a thought of what they are doing. That has more to do with American “values”.
Perhaps they enter into ‘marriage’ ignorantly thinking that Marriage is soemthing the civil government can bestow.

First the state got into marriage requiring priests provide the Sacrament…

Then people objected to the Church being involved (hmmm.. wasn’t it originally part of the Church and the state intruded?) .. so they set up civil positions to ‘marry’ people…

Yeah, since the government has done so fabulously with the ‘institution of marriage’ let’s keep the ball rolling, further descimate Marriage and ‘marry’ homosexuals.

It is the intrusion of the state into the Church which has caused the degradation of Marriage and the family. It is the secular “values” that humanists hold up as sacrosanct. The answer is to get the state back OUT of Church affairs and confine it. Take Marriage back to the Church where it belongs and the registering of partnerships for civil benefits to the state— gay or straight, religiously sanctioned or not. If gays want to something to show they are serious, they are free to worship at the church of their choosing or start a new one. There remains a semblence of religioous freedom in the nation despite the best efforts of the gay movement to thwart it.

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 9:13 PM
Comment #79136

tom, you said:

Well since the supremes gave people the right to sodomize others, and the primary cause of AIDS is sodomy, why would giving special rights to sodomizers be anything but wrong?

That is an extremely US-centric point-of-view. Since we are talking about the US, I suppose it is somewhat legitimate. Even in the context of the US your statement is misleading. It does not matter whether or not sodomy is the leading cause of AIDS. What matters is whether or not the majority of homosexuals end up with AIDS, which they do not. You argument is analagous to saying we should ban cars because they are one of the top causes of death in the US, despite the fact that most people who drive do not get into an accident in any given year.

Posted by: Erika at September 8, 2005 9:17 PM
Comment #79137

Sodomy is responsible for AIDS - What hogwash
I have not worked in public health for about five years so I do not know current policy but as of five years ago. Did you know that if you contract certain STDs it is reported to the health dept by your name. You are asked who your contacts were. The health dept notifies them and requests they come in for testing. If you refuse they have the power to have the police pick you up and bring you in to have you tested. If you test positive they offer treatment and the cycle starts again. This does not occur with HIV. It is reported by number not by name. Now why is that? HIV positive individuals sued and won this right because of the homophobic public decided to fear even touching them. The largest growing population of HIV positive people are heterosexual people. HIV first occured in the gay and Hatian population in the US. It could have started in the hetrosexual populaiton but it did not.
I have witnessed first hand when a homosexual person is ill we have to locate the next of kin if possible. The family comes in and suddendly they are interested in the person’s property, their insurance, if they are responsible for the bill. Their final request is to keep that other person away from the patient. My job is to help that person back to wellness and if that means allowing their partner to visit with them and in most cases it does, I will allow that to happen. There are more and more nontraditional partnerships both straight and gay. There are a number of arguments both for and against marriage for homosexuals but sodomy causes AIDS is not one of them.
I have taken you bait Tom. I should have not because how anyone jumps from having a caring relationship with another person to having sex with animals is beyond me. Attitudes like yours are responsible for the spread of AIDS and I fully understand why the HIPPA laws were passed.

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 8, 2005 9:20 PM
Comment #79138

Where’s Perplexed? I’m sure he would have something to say about this.

Posted by: Denuded at September 8, 2005 9:20 PM
Comment #79144

jo,

“If gays want to something to show they are serious, they are free to worship at the church of their choosing or start a new one.”

They already do, and they already have.

denuded,

“Where’s Perplexed? I’m sure he would have something to say about this.”

He got banned yesterday.

Posted by: Rocky at September 8, 2005 9:35 PM
Comment #79146

Yeah they have and do.. so what’s the big deal if the government calls it marriage? The big deal is they want what THEY call marriage to be the STATE ESTABLISHED definition and so force their own beliefs onto others.

As i said, get a new group of representatives that are willing to go the middle ground with the rest of us and do the right thing.. get the state out of our churches.

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 9:39 PM
Comment #79148

“As i said, get a new group of representatives that are willing to go the middle ground with the rest of us and do the right thing.. get the state out of our churches.”

I fully agree and please while we are at it get the church out of our state

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 8, 2005 9:52 PM
Comment #79150

jo,

So it’s ok with you that they receive the benefits of marriage if they all become Republicans?

Posted by: Rocky at September 8, 2005 9:59 PM
Comment #79152
I fully agree and please while we are at it get the church out of our state

HERE! HERE!! Can i get an AMEN!! ; )

Seriously, i agree. I am sick to death of the Pat Robertson’s and Jerry Falwell’s attempting to paint all Christians with their brand. i think we all have our ‘flamers’ we’d just as soon do without. i would not them to define Marriage anymore than i would gays. Let us all live and let live.

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 10:02 PM
Comment #79153

It seems to me that most folks who are against gay marriage are gay bashers to begin with. I am a Christian. I don’t agree with the gay lifestyle. However, what I believe does not have anything to do with constitutional rights. I don’t agree with abortion either. Is that my main voting topic. Absolutely not!

If many so-called christians would spend more time trying to change hearts as they do trying to change laws then this would be a better place. Let’s face it, sin will abound here in this world…no matter how many laws we pass. Rather than focusing on eliminating sin, which will not happen in this world, why not focus on changing hearts.

Our government is a secular one. Sure, most folks had a moral fabric based on some form of christianity at the time of the writting of our constitution; still, our government is secular. We did not want the state forcing a certain sect of christianity on us nor did we want the government forcing us into a different religion. This is why we established a secular government. Thomas Jefferson stated it best (I’m summarizing): what harm does it do me if a man says there is no God or many Gods. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.

In other words: the government is here to protect us from financial thievery (picks my pocket) and bodily harm (breaks my leg), but not to establish ANY form of religion. Let’s leave changing hearts to the Church and passing laws to the state. If the state passes an immoral law and the church is doing its job few if any will take advantage of this immoral law. Sure, there will alway be those that do….but won’t they anyway.

The moral fabric of our country is in each of our hearts. Some hearts are immoral and will not be changed. Many are looking for what Christianity has to offer. They will find it through the Church and Christ….NOT a federal law banning any type of behavior.

For some reason folks see Homosexuality as a “bigger” sin than, say, alcoholism or drug addiction. I’ve got some news for you….sin is sin. If someone is going to “sin” there is no law that can be passed to stop them.

Posted by: Tom L at September 8, 2005 10:02 PM
Comment #79155

Rocky,

What do i care? According to the political compass site i am a bleeding heart liberal of the Ralph Nader, Ghandi, Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela ilk.

Ya gotta watch those stereotypes. ; )

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 10:05 PM
Comment #79159

I have counseled HIV/AIDS people. I have sat with them and cried with them. I have lifted their fragile bodies up and laid them upon a bed because they had no strength. Some of them contracted HIV/AIDS through bad drug practices and some through sodomy. The hetrosexual people generally get it through their durg usage. Some get it through not being faithful to their spouse. There are a variety of ways to get HIV/AIDS. The larger number of HIV/AIDS patients contracted it through sexual deviation practices.

Now onto divorce. Divorce is a failure of society. It is not a rationalization for same sex unions. Marriage is not a right. Most major religions teach that sexual conduct outside of marriage is contrary to the teaching of those organizations. It has been for centuries un-natural for people to practice same sex behavior. Christianity teaches to respect people not matter what because they were created in the image of GOD. Some Christians fail in that teaching. Only GOD can forgive us when we break “the laws of nature and nature’s GOD”.

Posted by: tom at September 8, 2005 10:26 PM
Comment #79162

Tom,

Yes, we often fail in what we are taught as Christians. Even the most horrendous mass murderer is created by God in His Own Image. Yet we are called to love as we have been loved, to forgive as we have been forgiven, and to comfort with the mercy with which we have been comforted. It’s a tough road. Many reject it. Some try and turn away, others keep struggling. Falling down and getting up again, Falling down and getting up. Falling and rising..

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 10:38 PM
Comment #79166

cali_sun,

this type of behavior is a sin.

As a Christian, I agree; homosexuality is a sin.

You either tolerant or not

I am tolerant.

If you consider yourself to be a Christian, you have to demonstrate it by your actions

I do demonstrate my faith by my actions; I do not participate in homosexual relationships or homosexual sexual acts.
I pray each night that homosexuals might change their ways.


But, our Constitution forbids the establishment of any law establishing a state religion and any law prohibiting gay marriage can only be founded on a principle from a certain religion. Our founding fathers were wise enough to add this amendment to the Bill of Rights so no religion may dominate over any other.

Tom,

Well since the supremes gave people the right to sodomize others, and the primary cause of AIDS is sodomy, why would giving special rights to sodomizers be anything but wrong?

That statement is a complete falsehood; the cause of AIDS is the HIV virus. The HIV virus can be transmitted in four ways: direct blood contact, drinking of breast milk from an infected woman, being inside the womb of an infected woman and having unprotected sex of any type; heterosexual or homosexual.

Beastiality is not far behind.
Animals cannot engage in contracts and the last time I checked they are not persons; they have no rights guaranteed by the Constitution. We have no fears from bestiality.
The institution of marriage is an established institution. Those who want to change the establised institution of marriage are treading on dangerous cultural, spiritual and legal ground.
Slavery was an institution that had been established for millennia as moral, yet Abraham Lincoln outlawed it with the Emancipation Proclamation. He changed its definition from a moral institution to an immoral one. Posted by: Warren P at September 8, 2005 10:43 PM
Comment #79169

Jo,

Yeah they have and do.. so what’s the big deal if the government calls it marriage? The big deal is they want what THEY call marriage to be the STATE ESTABLISHED definition and so force their own beliefs onto others.

Just because the marriage is a part of the legal code of the state does not mean that the marriage is sanctioned by God or that you, me or any other Christian has to recognize it. There is no forcing of sin on us if the government recognizes these marriages.

Posted by: Warren P at September 8, 2005 10:51 PM
Comment #79170

Stealing, Robbery, Rape, Morder, etc. are based upon historical biblical practices. Therefore your argument should be interpreted as those above crimes are legal because they were founded on biblical history.

Posted by: tom at September 8, 2005 10:53 PM
Comment #79171
They are not so much interested in in civil rights and benefits as they are intent on forcing the American society to legally endorse their behavior and so establish that all religions conform to their personal desires.
You don’t have to be affiliated with either party to know that ‘gay marriage’ is part of the moral decay which is going on in this country. To force God out of public life, and schools is mainly the reason to find excuses, and justification for this type of behavior, whether it is gay , marriage, abortion etc..
Homosexual groups are not as interested in rights as they are in destroying foundations involving the family.

Such anger and fear! I want to know, if someone can explain it to me, what it is that gays have to gain by “destroying foundations involving the family?” How does it benefit them? What’s the conspiracy?
I know it’s difficult to imagine this, but gay people are just people. They want the same rights you have and they don’t want to take any rights away from you. Really. This is not a war on Christianity or Christian values, it’s just people trying to live their lives in a fair world.
Remember: The Constitution does NOT begin, “We the Straight People….”

Posted by: Alejo at September 8, 2005 10:57 PM
Comment #79174
But, our Constitution forbids the establishment of any law establishing a state religion and any law prohibiting gay marriage can only be founded on a principle from a certain religion. Our founding fathers were wise enough to add this amendment to the Bill of Rights so no religion may dominate over any other.
Any law establishing gay marriage can only be founded on a principle from a certain religion to the exclusion of other religious beliefs.

As i said, the gay movement is only worsening the problem. The solution is to remove the state from the church and the church from the state. Keep marriage where it belongs.. in church. Keep civil contracts where they belong.. the state.

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 11:08 PM
Comment #79175

Women of reproductive age are the fastest growing population with HIV. Common signs and symptoms have become more moderate or subclinical, and new clinical presentations have emerged. It is quite apparent that HIV disease affects multiple organ systems.

S Evron and others. Human Immunodeficiency Virus: Anesthetic and Obstetric Considerations. Anesthesia and Analgesia 98(2): 503-511. February 2004.
Madeline Gonzalez, a single mother with HIV is among the fastest-growing population with HIV - minority women who are poor, young and without a college education. These women were the focus at the Lemuel Shattuck Hospital’s seventh annual HIV conference held in early April in Boston. “The number of women who are getting HIV is going up substantially, and the number of women reported to be at risk through heterosexual sex is also increasing,” said Dr. Alfred DeMaria Jr., assistant commissioner at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health’s Bureau of Communicable Disease Control.

Linda L. Bailey, Office of Minority Health, Orange County Health Department, 475 W. Story Rd., Suite 1, Ocoee, FL 32761, 407-667-6209, Linda_Bailey@doh.state.fl.us and Kathy M. Walker, BA, Area 7 HIV/AIDS, Orange County Health Department, 604 Courtland Street, Ste 200, Orlando, FL 32804.
Black women with heterosexually acquired HIV are the fastest growing group with AIDS. In Florida, the Black, non-Hispanic population is over-represented in the current AIDS epidemic. Blacks tend to be diagnosed with HIV infection within a month of developing AIDS, and to die within a month of an AIDS diagnosis. This is the result of two important indicators: (1) not accessing early testing and (2) lack of treatment. Most HIV prevention activities target women who exchange sex for drugs or money with very little attention given to the professional woman.

I am sure you are a compassionate person however you facts are out of date. This is way past the IV drug user and gay man. Sexual deviation has noting to do with the current situation. As I said before this could have easily started in the heterosexual xommunity. I wish sometime it has. Then we could have concentrated on treatment instead of tose that think this is God’s punishment. We easily forgot that the Hatian community were also targeted at the start of this problem. The Red Cross would not accept blood donations from gay or HATIAN people. THey did not yet know why but they knew there was a problem. Do not think it can’t happen to you or yours because you do not do drugs and you do not participate in “deviant sexual behaviors”
Attitudes like yours have caused us a problem and I know you do not understand how. I would encourage people to exam their thoughts and behaviors.

These people do not need God’s forgiveness. They did nothing wrong.

As for Gay marriage. I have no problem with the govt allowing people to get a license for tier partnerships. It would be fine with me to put marriage back in church. Make it meaningless to those outside the church similiar to christening, baptisim or even last rites. Let the registered partnerships get the govt benefits. It would get the state out of the church and the church out of the state.

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 8, 2005 11:16 PM
Comment #79176

As a Republican, the thing I dislike about my party is the general attitude toward gays.

Frankly (and I’ve had this debate many times, and), the Bible has virtually nothing to say about homosexuality and never outright forbids it.

Christian resistance to the acceptance of gays is largely based on cultural prejudice intead of an accurate reading of the Bible.

The Bible mentions homosexuality six times, and in each case homosexuality itself is not condemned so much as an abuse of homosexual behavior.

Homosexual rape is condemned, yes (as in the story of Sodom and Gomorah). Homosexual prosititution is condemned, yes, as is the notion of burning with lust towards other men, especially if you’re a Chruch leader. But since Church leaders (priests in our modern version) aren’t supposed to be lustful toward women either, what’s the criticism of homosexuality there? And heterosexuals aren’t supposed, according to the bible, to be burning with sexual lust either.

There’s nothing in the Bible to forbid a monogomous and committed homosexual marriage. Nothing. If this was such a big deal to Christianity (as it to contemporary American Christians) don’t you think Jesus might have mentioned the subject even once. He didn’t, though.

The Old Testament book of Leviticus, I grant, pretty clearly prohibts men laying with other men. It also forbids shaving your beard and wearing fabrics made of more than one material. It also tells us to sacrifice animals to atone for our sins. How many Christians in America do that, I wonder? No Christians I know say that Christianity requires us to live according to the Old Testament laws laid down for the tribe of Israel.

Fortunately, except for this one issue, I find the Republicans to be more sane in general than the Democrats so I prefer to remain in the party and try to convince them of my views from within.

Posted by: sanger at September 8, 2005 11:19 PM
Comment #79177

Alejo
Homosexuals do have the same rights everybody else has. They want special laws and rights. It is a war on Christian values. To Christianity, homosexuality is wrong. When GOD created man, he created a help mate called a woman. He did not create a second man to be a helper to Adam. That was the establishment of a man and woman for a family. Adam and Steve cannot reproduce as mates. Anne and Betty cannot reproduce as mates.

You read anger and fear into some of these threads. I am not angry nor fearful. I am displeased that someone would try to change the majority attitude about the subject of marriage. If it is correct to allow the minority to adjust laws and rules to accomodate themselves, then NAMBLA will have its way and what once was an illegal practice of sodomy will be universally accepted by law. That is wrong.

Posted by: tom at September 8, 2005 11:21 PM
Comment #79179

C.L.O.

Sorry, i was using the blog to communicate one Christian to another. It is Christian teaching that all have fallen short (sinned) and so need forgiveness. i was not suggesting that anyone who falls ill, or does not have a nice house, car etc (health wealth and happiness ‘gospel’ so often preached on tv) has sinned and somehow deserves his fate much less that God is punishing them.

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 11:26 PM
Comment #79181

If the idea is we must produce in order to please God then we have accomplished the mission. World population is at an all time high.
Gay partnerships do not have the same rights as
Marriage. That is what the argument is about. I know of no one who has stated that we want to shake the pilliars of Christian community.
Would it be acceptable to you to have both groups to register their partnerships in order to gain the same benefits?

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 8, 2005 11:31 PM
Comment #79182

Sanger,
Not every Christian is of the evangelical protestant sola scripturae ilk. Both the Roamn Catholic (largest Christian Church) and the Eastern Orthodox (second largest Christian Church) include the Bible as the main but not exclusive source of Faith Tradition. Apostolic contemporaries and other Early Fathers wrote explicilty against homosexual behavior. That said, there is to be freedom of religion in this nation which requires us all to work together to keep the state and the Church separate for the benefit of us all.. gay and straight.

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 11:32 PM
Comment #79184

tom, you said:

Stealing, Robbery, Rape, Morder, etc. are based upon historical biblical practices.

I assume you mean laws against these. Although if you’re arguing that these things come from the Bible, feel free, although it seems a bit odd.

However, I question your knowledge of history. Believe it or not, the Jews were a very small community compared other societies, and those societies looked down upon stealing, rape, and murder. Morals are not exclusively Christian, no matter what you may have been led to believe.

Posted by: Erika at September 8, 2005 11:39 PM
Comment #79185

Sanger
You say one thing then deny it in another breath.
You say that “the Bible has virtually nothing to say about homosexuality” and then you say the Bible “clearly prohibits men laying with other men”. It can’t be both ways. Homosexuality is an abomination to GOD. That means he hates homosexual behavior.

Posted by: tom at September 8, 2005 11:41 PM
Comment #79186

I mean this in the kindest possible way. Is it possible to have a discussion about homosexuality/homosexual marriage without bringing in the Bible? It is a silly thing to bring up because (a) supposedly our government is separate from Christianity, (b) not everyone in this country is a Christian, and (c) not all Christians take the Bible literally.

Posted by: Erika at September 8, 2005 11:42 PM
Comment #79188

Jo
I understand what you are saying and I have no problem. It has been a long history of the church to resist change. I remember reading once about the heiracy of people in line for God’s love if I remember it correctly Gabriel was first, women were last behind dimwitted oxen, only nobility went to heaven etc. People quote the Bible to fit their purpose for the times they are in.

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 8, 2005 11:44 PM
Comment #79189

Erika,

It would be nice to be able to have a discussion about homosexuality without bringing up the Bible. Problem is the gay movment has decided it can’t possibly be satisfied with anything other than the word ‘marriage’.. which is religiously based in more than just the Christian Faith.

Keep the state and the church apart and i think the civil rights issues would be solved quickly and painlessly. Some don’t seem to want that.

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 11:46 PM
Comment #79191
which is religiously based in more than just the Christian Faith.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand this statement. If marriage is based on more than just Christian faith, by which I assume you mean other faiths also have marriage, isn’t that all the more reason to leave any particular religion’s texts out of the discussion?

Posted by: Erika at September 8, 2005 11:48 PM
Comment #79192

Erika
I earlier posted that most religions…
Most people were using Christianity as reference.
You are correct. People of whatever belief practiced abstinance from stealing, rape, robbery, etc.

Posted by: tom at September 8, 2005 11:48 PM
Comment #79193

C.L.O.

Ridiculing the Christian faith such as you just did seems to be a hallmark of the contemporary progressive left as well as the gay movement. Though i must admit, it made me laugh.

Did you also know there was (i don’t know if it is still on the books) a law in the United States explicitly defining what size/weight an animal had to be before beastiality was not considered animal cruelty? If i remember right it was a little over a hundred pounds.

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 11:51 PM
Comment #79194

Erika,

i think you will find that Muslims for one also have a view of marriage which prohibits homosexual behavior.

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 11:53 PM
Comment #79195

Tom, I can agree with most of what you said. God created man to procreate—fine.

But is therefore a sin for a man with the ability to procreate to marry a woman past childbearing age? Is it a sin to not marry at all? Or to marry and then not have children?

Jo, I don’t presume to say what non-evangelical faiths consider to be their own rules and I base my comments only on what the Bible says. I do know thatthe Bible itself says that if you add or subtract one whit from what it says, you’ve commited a damnable heresy.

God forbid (and I do mean God) that the United States of America should have to live according to all the extra-scriptural speculations jotted down in journals and letters by Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic monks and scribes throughout the last twenty centuries.

Posted by: sanger at September 8, 2005 11:56 PM
Comment #79196

The Bible is the first in a line of historical documents for moral behavior. That is one reason I use it.

Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 18:23
Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Posted by: tom at September 9, 2005 12:04 AM
Comment #79198

jo, I am aware of that. That’s not surprising given that Islam also accepts the Old Testament. However, there are other religions which may or may not condemn homosexuality, I must say I have not studied them all. Furthermore, there are branches of Christianity which do not condemn homosexuality. Finally, not everyone is religious.

Posted by: Erika at September 9, 2005 12:06 AM
Comment #79199

Jo
I really remember reading that. King James also threw out some books that his scholars did not feel fit the Bible. Here is a nice link written by Xtains on th bible and translations.
http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/king.htm
(I hope I am allowed to put a site in here if not let me know and I will not do it again)
I really am not attempting to ridicule anyone’s belief system. I just wanted to point out that using the Bible as a reference point is not always a good idea.
I would also like to be able to talk about this issue without someone quoting the Bible.

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 9, 2005 12:07 AM
Comment #79200

Tom, my wording was bad. Sorry. When I say the Bible has virtually nothing to say about homosexuality, I meant it in comparison to other things which the Bible has a great deal to say about. Homosexuality is actually alluded to six times in the Bible.

I specifically said that a verse in Leviticus, which lays out laws for the ancient Jews, really and undeniably does prohibit homosexuality. Do you know Leviticus? It also tells us to never shave. It tells us to sacrifice goats. To not only sacrifice goats, but to sacrifice goats without any blemishes. If you’re really so strict about every single word of the Bible (even though Christ said you needn’t be if you’re a Gentile), that you’re sacrificing goats and letting your beard grow, then I guess you really do have grounds to condemn gays.

But if you are a contemporay Christian and not an ultra Orthodox Jew, then where does the Bible say that homosexuality is an abomination before God?

If you don’t know, then you are in trouble, my friend, because you are putting your words in the mouth of Almighty God.

Posted by: sanger at September 9, 2005 12:09 AM
Comment #79201
Finally, not everyone is religious.

Erika,

All the more reason to heed (eek!) history and our forefathers in keeping the state and the church separate. Marriage is a function of the Church. Civil contracts are a function of the state. Let us live and let live.

Posted by: jo at September 9, 2005 12:09 AM
Comment #79202

If we’re going to bring up Bible verses…

Leviticus 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.

Are you picking and choosing to suit your needs?

Posted by: Erika at September 9, 2005 12:11 AM
Comment #79203

Yet marriage does have non-religious connotations now. Thus, as long as heterosexuals get government sactioned marriaged then so should homosexuals. I’m all for taking the word marriage out of the government, but as long as it is there, we should not deny homosexuals the use of the word.

Posted by: Erika at September 9, 2005 12:13 AM
Comment #79204

Erika
Well there goes Gumbo. Guess it is a good thing that NO has flooded. Sorry it sometimes seems that the only thing to do in these cases is laugh

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 9, 2005 12:15 AM
Comment #79205

You are wasting your time. Republicans need Gays the same way Bush went to Bob Jones College. They need the votes Gay Bashing gives them.

What’s funny is that the most aggressive Republican Gay Bashers are almost always Gay themselves. Gives you an idea on who is gay on the Red Column, eh?

Posted by: Aldous at September 9, 2005 12:16 AM
Comment #79206

C.L.O.

While perhaps many would prefer us not to speak of our faith on this site.. the mixing of politics with religion sort of makes it necessary. Unfortunatley your link did not work?

Others,

For those asking a bit about the Tradition which explicitly reveals the Early Christians interpretated Scripture even after Christ’s Resurrection with the view that homesexual behavior is sinful.. a quick link

Posted by: jo at September 9, 2005 12:19 AM
Comment #79208
Look at a map. Do you think people in Arkansas, Alabama, and Oklahoma give a fig about “capital gains tax cuts” and other pro-business minutia of the pro-business part of the Republican party. The social issues, tax cuts, and national security are the glue of the party.

Roach,

Thanks for this. It’s not something I didn’t know but it’s so clearly stated that it’s crystalized some things for me. The tax cuts of the Republican party, along with it’s profligate spending, are slowly burying this nation under debt, making us a wholly-owned subsidiary of China. The former puts us at a much greater national security risk even as we fight an expensive war, in blood and money, that decimates our military preparedness. This leaves me wondering how long until the people who most value the economy and security will stay with the party.

And then there are the social issues, which are the subject of this particular thread. It makes me clearly realize why the Republicans are stressing the kind of “cultural” issues that often strike me as so peripheral to American well-being. It’s because the people in Arkansas, Alabama, and Oklahoma, as you identify them, care so deeply about them. Gay marriage, for example, doesn’t threaten them in any real way that I’ve recognized but it feels deeply sinful, like a national vice, to them. It threatens their sense of right and wrong.

It’s a deep, visceral thing and most liberals just don’t grasp it well enough. Instead, they too often see it as appealing to petty bigotries of the uncouth and ignorant. And this very attitude is losing them elections.

It helps me see both the strengths and the weakness of a party that, in many ways, is failing its key constituencies. And it makes me finally recognize why something like an actual amendement against gay marriage was proposed during the last election cycle. The Republican party is deeply vulnerable. If it weren’t, it would never have resorted to such a thing to solidify its base. We’ll see how this works out over the long haul.

I think the Democratic Party is the true party of values, but it does a terrible job of selling this to the cultural conservatives. It needs to make the emotional connection, not just the rational arguments, or it will never have any serious power again.

As for Alexander Pope, the lines you cite are actually from “An Essay on Man: Epistle Two.” And you don’t have that second line quite right, from what I can tell. (See line 218). Still, I think you’re right to quote Pope, who was no moral relativist. He was, however, a man who understood human nature. I particularly enjoy the lines that comes just after the ones you quote:

“But where th’ extreme of vice, was ne’er agreed:
Ask where’s the North? at York,’tis on the Tweed;
In Scotland, at the Orcades; and there,
At Greenland, Zembla, or the Lord knows where:
No creature owns it in the first degree,
But thinks his neighbour farther gone than he!”

That sums it up pretty well. We always think our red-state or blue-state neighbors are farther gone than we. Which is the greater vice: what one side sees as unfair and harmful “bigotry” or what the other side sees as deep and abiding “sin”? I know what side I’m on and you know your side. But at least we’re both able to draw some wisdom and humor from Mr. Pope.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at September 9, 2005 12:23 AM
Comment #79209

Sanger
I do not condemn homosexuals. I will condemn their actions that are not scripturally right.
An abomination is something that is disgusting or loathing. GOD does not love the acts of homosexuals. He hates the acts of homosexuals. These are written in the Bible; I am not putting words in anybodys mouth.

Posted by: tom at September 9, 2005 12:24 AM
Comment #79211
Yet marriage does have non-religious connotations now. Thus, as long as heterosexuals get government sactioned marriaged then so should homosexuals. I’m all for taking the word marriage out of the government, but as long as it is there, we should not deny homosexuals the use of the word.

Erika,

The gay situation makes clear to us the problem with the state being involved in the affairs of the church and the solution is to remove such religious Sacraments from the state venue altogether, not to further complicate things by establishing one faith over another. That is expressly forbidden in the constitution. What we need is to return Marriage to the Chruch where it rightfully belongs and stop having religious clergy filling out secualr state forms concerning our Sacraments.

Each person can use whatever word they want in their own church. The state however is to be separate from and not involved in such matters.

Posted by: jo at September 9, 2005 12:25 AM
Comment #79213

Here’s a completely different idea.

Not allowing homosexuals to marry weakens marriage more than allowing them to marry. By not allowing them to marry, it encourages states to give homosexual couples protections and responsibilities that get them what they would get out of marriage. These protections and responsibilities are often applicable to heterosexual couples are well.

Not allowing homosexuals to marry makes it easier for heterosexuals to not marry.

Posted by: Erika at September 9, 2005 12:26 AM
Comment #79215

As a well-adjusted, “out” gay man from deep in the heart of Dixie I would like to offer my opinion to the stereotypes mentioned in many of these posts and the debate over gay marriage. First the stereotype of the “flaming queen” or “butch dyke” is more accurate than the liberal left likes to admit. I lived in Atlanta’s gay community for 10 years, Savannah’s gay community for 12 years, and have traveled to 35 of the 50 states and several European countries. In each of the places the stereotypes most people associate with gays are the norm, or at least degrees of the stereotypes are evident. I find that even Conservatives are being a bit too PC in their attempts to say we gays are “just like everyone else” and it is difficult to know when someone is or is not gay. Most gay people also tend to laugh at the idea of gay marriage ( when not in the company of an “understanding” straight person) because our relationships tend to last less than a few months. You heard it straight from the gays mouth this time, monogamy is not the quality we are known for. Yes, there are exceptions to this also with some gay couples having long term relationships, mostly within the lesbian community. However, In my 25 years of being “out” I have never known a single gay or lesbian couple that did NOT decide to have an “open relationship” after the first 4 or 5 years. These relationships usually consist of the gay people that straights like to pretend are “just like anyone else” and non-stereotypical in appearance and actions. I have found that the gay men and women who have honestly accepted their sexuality without any quilt or self-condemnation can see the faults within their own communities and admit that we are indeed different. Somehow I expect a flood of postings telling me that I am dead wrong, however, unless you are gay yourself and have known hundreds of other gays and lesbians you probably don’t have the insight I do. I did not write this so that those who bash gays can justify their actions but instead for straight people who want to be accepting and understanding to realize that we gay people do have faults and lifestyles that are not like your own and it is OK to say it, we won’t hate you for it.

Posted by: Bill at September 9, 2005 12:29 AM
Comment #79216

jo, I completely agree with you, and as soon as I see a politician seriously proposing that route, I’ll take it seriously.

Posted by: Erika at September 9, 2005 12:29 AM
Comment #79217

Tim H.,

leave it to the “gay” community and their supporters to try and put the focus back on their pity party. Our nation is facing one of its biggest crisises, lives, property,etc., have been
devastated. We’re close to economic and political
turmoil and the “gays” can only scream…”woe is
me”. Well “I’ve had enough” of people letting their hearts bleed so much over the whole “gay”
rights issue, that they don’t use the common sense
GOD gave them and try researching the issue of
homosexuality enough to realize that it’s NOT a
condition one is born with and therefore isn’t
deserving of special rights.

Tim and others like him say, “we just HAVE TO
respect their ‘right’ to be treated the same as
everybody else.” Hello!!! They are NOT the same as
everybody else. Just as pedophiles are not the same as everybody else. And I know, I know. Their
relationships aren’t all just about the sex act.
Depending on who you ask. My oldest brother spent
more than a decade of his life in the “gay” lifestyle and was fully involved in it. He believed he was born that way too. Until he chose
to put an end to that lifestyle, got right with
GOD and came back to the natural disposition of
heterosexuality. He has some horror stories from
the 14 or so years he spent in that “lifestyle”
that would make some of you more “tolerant” types
cringe.

Yes it’s true that not all homosexuals are the
negative “flamer” stereotype and many at least
attempt to be monogamous(unlike alot of staights),
but the FACT is that there is still NO conclusive
proof, from all of the studies that have
attempted to find a genetic cause, that they are
“born that way”. If there was scientific proof of
a physiological cause, then don’t you think that
all rights afforded everyone else in this country
would’ve already been extended to them fully by
now? Hmmm?

I’m not saying we treat homosexuals like dirt.
They are still GODs children whether they chose to
follow HIS teachings or not. Christians, or any of the many other major world religions that oppose homosexuality, should not hate or fear the
homosexual community. But we also can not sit
back and let them cram their unnatural (to GOD and
nature) lifestyle down our throats either. Forced
acceptance is not tolerant of what a majority of people on this planet believe.

Blind,blanket approval or the more PC “tolerance”
is the last virtue of a degenerating society. Wake up and do your homework on what causes homosexuality. Isn’t it liberals who stereotypically want to understand what makes a
criminal do what he does so we can treat him rather than punish him? Let’s put that same concept to work with homosexuality. And btw, I
don’t like to use the word “gay” because it is
simply a euphamism probably thought up by some
homosexual marketing strategist decades ago to
make homosexuality sound less icky and more fun.

By the way, my conservative, white, Christian
Republican family did not shun my older brother or kick him out of the family when he “came out”
to us back in the mid to late 70’s. We continued
to love him, but practiced “love the sinner, but hate the sin”. We are all sinners and I don’t believe GOD sees homosexuality as more of a sin
than let’s say adultery, despite the fact that
homosexuality contradicts the natural order of
things, including survival of the fittest as it is
contrary to evolution.

After my brother came out of the proverbial closet
all those yaers ago I decide to do some research
on homosexuality. Something I previously had little knowledge of. After years of research and
observation of homosexuals in interviews, etc., I concluded that homosexuality is nothing more than
a psychosexual emotional disorder/addiction. In
other words, it’s not born, it’s bred. It’s not
genetic, it’s psychological. There are a variety
of potential causes ranging from the stereotypical
distant/absent father and domineering mother, to
the most likely and common cause. Sexual molestation on a child by a same sex adult. This
type of emotional trauma inflicted upon an impressionable child can lead to conflicting and
confusing emotions and attractions in later life.

And whether anyone wants to admit it or not, that is why there is a link between homosexuality and
pedophillia. Not that all or even most homosexuals
are pedophiles. Just as not all or even most heterosexuals are pedophiles. Although I believe internet porn is creating more of both. And I do
believe that there is a higher percentage of
pedophiles in the homosexual community because of
that link. It’s how they’re “created”. Over the past decade or so I have discussed my theories
with licensed psychologists who have agreed with
me and have pointed out that more is being
discussed now in the psychological community that
the A.P.A. back in 1973 gave in to politically
correct pressure to take homosexuality out of the
sexual deviations category.

It wasn’t long after the APA gave it’s blanket
approval of homosexuality as just another lifestyle that S.T.D.s, eventually including AIDS,
began to increase. So while we should treat our
homosexual friends and neighbors like everyone
else(and who cares what they do in the privacy of
their bedrooms), we shouldn’t allow our bleeding heart, well intentioned emotions to overrule our
common sense or our moral convictions. An “open”
mind shouldn’t be defined as acceptance; rather it
should be defined as the objective to absorb,
reason, then conclude.

Posted by: Dale Garland at September 9, 2005 12:31 AM
Comment #79220

Bill, thanks for your post.

I’d add though, to my chagrin, that I also know of few heterosexual relationships and marriages that don’t also end in divorce or seperation, become “open” (whether it’s acknowledged that that’s what going on or not) or at least involve one slip up or incident of cheating after five years.

I appreciate your honesty, but the roving eye is in my opinon is not as exlusive to the homosexual community as you suggest. It’s something like 50% of marriage, isn’t it, that ends up in divorce?
And that includes the most religious of the religious. Monogamy is not a market that anybody has exactly cornered. Except for lesbians, maybe. Jeez. I’d be surprised if lesbians aren’t far more monogomous that straights.

Tom, you say it’s written in the Bible that God hates the acts of homosexuals, but you can’t say where. If all you can cite is Leviticus, then I do hope you’re also sacrificing goats, never eating pork, and letting your beard grown down to your waist.

Posted by: sanger at September 9, 2005 12:43 AM
Comment #79223

I think that one of the problems in any discussions of gay marriage is for some it is earth shattering for this concept to be considered, for other it is a who cares attitude.
For the xtians the comment It is a SIN is a big deal. For other, they are not too much worried what someone else thinks about the state of their soul.
The Republicans have done an admirable of using this issue to gain a base. You are right who cares about poverty, tax cuts, medical care, drug costs. the deficit when the gay guy next door is gonna rape my kid mentality happens.
How do we over come this? How do we come together to decide what to fix and how we fix it.
Neither side wants to give so what is the solution?

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 9, 2005 12:58 AM
Comment #79224

Dale, when it comes to sexual matters, who knows what anybody is born with? Science lacks the ability, so far, to really understand that. Does science know why you or I are attracted to women? Nope.

Some people aren’t interested in sex, relationships or marriage at all. Are they going to hell?

Considering the terrible things human beings are capable of doing to each other(mass murder, rape, etcetera) who gives a flying XXXXXX what any two people enjoy doing in their bedrooms?

Do you think that God looks down from heaven, sees people being beheaded for the camera, genocide happennng in Sudan, Saddam Hussein murdering thousands, but really really gets angry when he notices that Ted finds Fred attractive? This is an impoverished and sad view of not only morality but the entire universe.

The sooner Republicans and Christians realize this, the sooner we can occupy the high moral ground and give the libs the sound butt-kicking I in my modest way think they so roundly deserve.

Posted by: sanger at September 9, 2005 12:58 AM
Comment #79227

There’s an awful lot of good stuff in Leviticus, but there are also parts that not too many people tend to think about today:

Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed

Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material

Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves.

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wifewith the wife of his neighborboth the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death.

The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. ….Anyone who does not deny himself on that day must be cut off from his people. I will destroy from among his people anyone who does any work on that day.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at September 9, 2005 1:07 AM
Comment #79228

Bill,

Thank you for your post. My son-in-law’s mother is a part-time professional clown. Even not in character i can’t take her for more than an hour, which is better than i am able to stomach such characters as “Georgette” on the old Mary Tyler Moore Show. i also fit a stereotype, the classic midwesterner of Northern European heritage as portrayed in the movie “Fargo”. We all have likes and dislikes and i am just not ‘into’ flashy. i do not have any gay friends but both my daughters have— then again they got some of my hubby’s French flair.

As i do not know any homosexuals that i am aware of personally, i think i treat them the same as i would anyone else.. avoid the flash and try to think the best rather than the worst. That said, even the small minority of clowns *sigh* deserve health care and visitation etc and so too i think should gays have similar benefits afforded the rest of us: the presence and support of loving relationships.


Dale,

Isn’t it liberals who stereotypically want to understand what makes a criminal do what he does so we can treat him rather than punish him? Let’s put that same concept to work with homosexuality.

You want to punish homosexuals? How? What penalty do you propose for an abomination against God Almighty? Remember the next time you reach for a second helping of dessert that gluttony is also an abomination to God Almighty.

Posted by: jo at September 9, 2005 1:09 AM
Comment #79229

Sanger,

I don’t know what PC version of the Bible you
are reading from, but “homosexuality” is also referred to in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:24-28. So it’s not strictly a
Jewish/Old Testament law. And as Paul is a
disciple of Jesus Christ one could safely assume
that Paul, arguably the greatest Apostle, was
speaking for JC on this issue perhaps from a
previous discussion that they may have had on the
issue.

So even if Jesus is never quoted directly in the
Bible as opposing homosexuality, that doesn’t mean
HE was for it. Jesus never specifically mentions
child molestation or bestiality either. That
doesn’t mean he wasn’t against those other pervertions. In the book of Revelations, chapter
2, Jesus refers to an early Christian sect that
allowed or even taught moral/sexual looseness
called the Nicolations and says that HE hates their “deeds”. This could be interpreted as a
reference to homosexuality and other perversions.

Posted by: Dale Garland at September 9, 2005 1:11 AM
Comment #79231

Paul was a disciple of Jesus in as much and only in as much as any one who has claimed to have a Christian mystical experience is/was. He never knew Christ the person.

Posted by: Erika at September 9, 2005 1:14 AM
Comment #79233

Jo,

apperantly you misunderstood the analogy I was
attempting to make. But then, since when do liberals think instead of react with emotion?
I didn’t say that we should punish homosexuals.
They punish themselves enough as it is through the
lifestyle they lead and the treatment they get
from morons like the “Reverend” Fred Phelps and those whose mission it is to physically assault them.

What I was trying to get across was that it’s
usually “liberals” who want to understand why
criminals do what they do, so we can treat them
rather punish them. The same CONCEPT should be
applied to homosexuals by those same liberals.
Try to understand why they are the way they are
rather than BLANKETLY accepting that they are
“born that way”. If we become even more of a
gullible society, then how long will it be before
pedophiles are saying that they’re born that way
too and we should just accept that and try to
accommodate their behavior. Oh wait. I forgot.
Those homosexual pedophiles in N.A.M.B.L.A. are already pushing that message and agenda.

Diligent Dale

Posted by: Dale Garland at September 9, 2005 1:37 AM
Comment #79234

Good, Dale. Let’s look at that entire passage you cite and the surrounding scripture as well. What you see is St. Paul describing a situation when people reject god—even profess hatred for god—and also murder, lie, worhsip idols modeled after animals and burn with lust towards one another, man for man and woman for woman.

Yes, this does say that burning with homosexual lust is sinful. But lustfulness is also condemened throughout the Bible for heterosexuals. Does this make monogomous heterosexual behavior wrong as well? Does this really have any bearing on a monogomous and loving homosexual relationship? It would take a serious stretch to say so.

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.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
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:
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 recompence of their error which was meet.
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;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,0 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents….

At worst you’d have to say that this forbids a member of one gender “leaving” the use of tje other gender. Does this mean that bisexuality is okay, so long as it doesn’t become homosexuality?

I don’t really think so, because there’s so much else that goes along with this passage. It leaves a loophole for gay behavior, so long as the gay individual also worships god. And that’s something the bible demands anyway, for everybody.

Posted by: sanger at September 9, 2005 1:38 AM
Comment #79235
What’s funny is that the most aggressive Republican Gay Bashers are almost always Gay themselves.

Did someone say Karl Rove? Ooops. I guess I did.

Gay marriage, for example, doesn’t threaten them in any real way that I’ve recognized but it feels deeply sinful, like a national vice, to them. It threatens their sense of right and wrong.

It’s a deep, visceral thing and most liberals just don’t grasp it well enough. Instead, they too often see it as appealing to petty bigotries of the uncouth and ignorant. And this very attitude is losing them elections.

Reed, good post. Unfortunately, I would rather lose elections than pander to bigotry and ignorance as the Republicans do.

Posted by: Burt at September 9, 2005 1:39 AM
Comment #79236

One of the problems I have with people quoting the Bible is that so many times it has been used to harm or subdue people by class, sex, belief, or race that have been eventually rejected by the majority.
Any use of biblical text in support of an arguement will most often result in the conversatins that occur above. I do not beleive that serfs did not go to heaven. I do not believe that women are last in GOD’s love. I do not believe that women who died in childbirth were unclean and along with the child could not go to heaven, I do not believe women are property and all the own belongs to a man. I do not believe in slavery. People use the Bible even today to support beating their wives. I do not beleive that beating your wife is OK. You may say I am foolish that of course those things aren’t true. At the times they were occuring the Church and the christians used the Bible to support those concepts. This was mainstream thinking, not some cult nutcase.
I do not diminish anyones faith, but men makes errors in judgement that seem foolish in the context of history. Is this one? If it isn’t why not?

Posted by: C.L.O. at September 9, 2005 1:41 AM
Comment #79237

jo wrote: “What we need is to return Marriage to the Chruch where it rightfully belongs and stop having religious clergy filling out secualr state forms concerning our Sacraments.”

so…um…my wife and i are agnostic, and when we were married we had a civil service. our JP was wonderful and gave a moving speech and let a beautiful ceremony.

by your logic, our marriage is null and void? do all of us who don’t believe in any particular mythos just get screwed out of getting married?

i am so happy to have my life with my wife. the day we signed the documents declaring us married was one of the happiest of my life.

your obsession with the secular humanists borders on unhealthy and is REALLY innaccurate…but it’s what you believe so whatever.

however, your condemnation of civil marriage would banish alot of incredible unions and in my opinion, your view is the greater threat to the institution of marriage.

Posted by: views at September 9, 2005 1:50 AM
Comment #79238

God said it, I believe it, that settles it (PERIOD)Thanks for HIS support. Judge not, see y’all when the Judge gets here!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: wally at September 9, 2005 2:04 AM
Comment #79239

What Christians ought to think about, in my view, is this: if homosexuality really is a sin, why in all the thousands of verses that quote Christ, and in all the books of the New Testament (the centerpiece of the Christian faith) isn’t there even one single and unambiguous statement to that effect?

All that would be needed is “Men shall not sleep with men, and women shall not sleep with women,” or something to that effect and the debate would be over. But it just isnt’ there. It just is not.

There are a couple complicated passages that can be interpreted that way if you really stretch and ignore other things that surround the relevant passages which seem to be driving at some other lesson (as that passage in Romans does, which describes a state of murder, lust and idol worship that befalls those who hate God).

But can’t it be agreed pretty easily that anybody who hates god is on shaky ground, even if they’re heterosexual? Reading that passage in Romans, what would you say about somebody who professes love for God, worships Gods, obeys their parents, doesn’t murder or lie and is involved in a monogomous homosexual relationship? Think about it.

Do you really think that if God wanted to tell us something so imporant he would bury it in a bunch of fine print that can be interpreted in a number of different ways?

Posted by: sanger at September 9, 2005 2:13 AM
Comment #79242

Sanger,

I guess interpretation is in the mind of the
beholder. Where you see “loopholes”, I see
something else. And if that means that I see certain scriptures as black & white ( while
you apperently see them as “gay” gray ), then so be it. Call me a tradionalist, a CONSERVE-ative,
or whatever. All I know is that I’d rather be
“fashioned” by the “old”, than corrupted by the
new (age).

You may want to reread verses 21,22 & 25 and if
you’re a praying man, pray for wisdom and
discernment. I suspect you’ve “lapsed” into the
ways of the world so much that you can no longer
understand the message.

Posted by: Dale Garland at September 9, 2005 2:29 AM
Comment #79260

The Boat is being missed by a great many here. The underlying and relevant issue being debated here is whether or not The United States should be declared a Christian Nation embracing laws that discourage all other beliefs and affiliations.

Many Christians are tolerant and even embrace their brothers and sisters with differing beliefs and religions. Others can’t tolerate living amidst people of other faiths and beliefs and values and seek to use Government to force conformity or reject and even punish non-conformists.

The Bible is useless in this dialogue since passages from it can be quoted till the cows come home to support either side. The Bible is not the issue. What is the issue is intolerance and tolerance for other people with differing views. Fortunately, our founding fathers recognized this potentially explosive frailty in human nature to force conformity as a means to personal security and anxiety reduction especially where religion is concerned and wrote into the Constitution’s Bill of Rights an unalienable right to subscribe to differing religious values or none, without the government’s interference.

Those who would have the US declared a Christian Nation have no love for our Constitution and in reality seek to subvert it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 9, 2005 7:15 AM
Comment #79275
Unfortunately, I would rather lose elections than pander to bigotry and ignorance as the Republicans do.

Thanks, Burt, but that’s part of the dilemma: A good hunk of the Right just doesn’t see it in those terms. Sure, a cynical part of the leadership panders to the homosexuality-is-sin or our-majority-Christian-rights-are-threatened or Western-culture-is-in-decline point of view, but some conservatives honestly see this as a moral issue, as the posts here have demonstrated. They don’t see themselves as ignorant and, as we’ve seen here, some are quite nuanced and articulate about their views.

So, I’m not suggesting that the Democrats pander or even change their position (which is unclear, at any rate). I’m suggesting they try to honestly understand rather than stereotype the position of the other folks. That way, they can craft their own message of legitimate values in a different way.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at September 9, 2005 9:38 AM
Comment #79282

A persons religious beliefs are not the issue here, individual rights are.
Govt has no business creating laws that dictate who a church is required to marry and the church should not expect the govt to use religious law when deciding who it marries.
Some have said allowing gay people to marry would be forcing the gay lifestyle onto the majority, well, are you not forcing your lifestyle, straight, religious etc… onto them by not allowing them the same basic rights you have?
I am hardly part of the gay community, I’m what many call redneck. A typical male pig. I get grossed out and look the other way when two guys are being affectionate with each other but yet, I stare when its two women. I tell and laugh at gay jokes. I don’t know or care if some of my friends are gay but if allowed to choose, I would rather they all be straight.
These are MY beliefs and I should not expect other people to live their life based on them.

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 9, 2005 10:15 AM
Comment #79292

David,

“The Bible is useless in this dialogue since passages from it can be quoted till the cows come home to support either side. The Bible is not the issue. What is the issue is intolerance and tolerance for other people with differing views.”

Au contraire.
The Bible becomes the issue when those that are intolerent continue to use it as an excuse for their intolerence.
The Bible is rife with hypocrisy yet those among us that can’t see the forrest for the trees continue to use this book to forward their agenda of hate. They pick and choose those verses that support their position and ignore those that don’t.

For those of you that think that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, I would ask you, who would choose a lifestyle that subjects you daily to ridicule, to be denigrated?
Who among you would choose to be a second class citizen?

Posted by: Rocky at September 9, 2005 10:56 AM
Comment #79294

Seems to me the answer to this is relatively clear. I don’t believe most people would want to deny partner rights (estate transfer, medical guardianship and decisioning, etc.) to gays or straights for that matter. The term/word marriage to me seems more symbolic of specific traditions and beliefs. I think the problem is that the STATE is involved and should not be. Here’s an idea: Have the STATE (all jurisdictions) Call all “marriages” Civil Unions whether they are hetero or not. All rights relative to the civil and fiduciary aspects to state recognized marriage would be valid only the government would use the term civil union. Only the term would be invalidated. The term marriage could then become the territory of churches, or other non-governmental institutions and the traditionalists would enjoy their rituals and the non-traditionalists could do likewise.

Posted by: DMS at September 9, 2005 11:03 AM
Comment #79298

Rocky is right, David. Your point is well taken, but the Bible will always be used to support the ideology of the ultra-conservative.

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists Association, stating:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

So yes, our founding fathers got it. But for the millions of people who are too blind to understand the danger religion poses when it becomes wedded to government will continue to pick and choose those Biblical passages that support their ideology while dismissing other Biblical passages that don’t. This is divine ignorance, which in turn fosters divine intolerance.

You are correct, David, in believing that the United States should not be declared a Christian nation embracing laws that discourage all other beliefs and affiliations. But millions of people are too blind to their Christian faith to understand this point. Thus, those people will always miss the point.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at September 9, 2005 11:20 AM
Comment #79301

The gay community has done an excellent job at drawing media support and as a result clearly demonstrated their alternative lifestyle equality to the general public.

There are gays in virtually every TV reality show, many if not most of the situation comedies, TV talk shows, TV drama shows and movies and, unfortunately, childrens cartoons.

I believe even certain religious orders have approved gay and lesbian preachers.

As long as the gay rights movement in terms of the ability to be united in marriage is heading in the opposite direction, I am among a large throng of very happy people. Actually, let me correct the above statement, the “movement” may be gathering strength but the “resistence” is standing firm.

All we need do is sit and wait for the Democrats/Liberals to regain majority control of government and we will have a same sex wedding bonanza. Wise to buy stock in flower shops and formal wear retailers.

Posted by: steve smith at September 9, 2005 11:26 AM
Comment #79305

Tim-

Thanks for addressing an important issue. Pat Robertson and his followers have succeeded in fragmenting the Repubilcan party and eroding our core values. Limitation of government and protection of individual rights are the traditional core values of the party. The Pat Robertsons of the world have never supported these values. Their extremist agenda promotes just the opposite: government involvement in personal individual matters. They are really a lot more like fascists than Republicans in many ways.

Abortion and gay rights are the two issues that have been allowed to divide our party. They both involve personal, not political matters that effect a very small percentage of people anyway. Most women are thrilled when they find out they are pregnant. Very few ever even cnsider an abortion. And the percentage of people who are gay is small even if you include bisexual people.

The public would rather debate about these things than aabout more boring things like the trade deficit and the fact that we are a nation of debtors on every level.

THere is no reason for gays to have fewer rights than straights. It is about time we recognized this. We are a civilized country after all.

-Monica

Posted by: Monica at September 9, 2005 11:40 AM
Comment #79318

Monica,

Abortion is only a personal issue if you believe it is not a human. If you believe an unborn baby is a human, then protection of that human’s right IS the role of government, especially this government. They are supposed to keep the strong from destroying the weak.

So the issue is not if it is common enough to worry about or even if it is right or wrong. The issue is whether or not an unborn baby is human and deserving of the right to life (,liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness.) And it certainly was this governments role to declare that slaves were human.

And if homosexuality is not a political issue, then why is the left trying so hard to push the politics of homosexuality? It’s a two-way street.

Posted by: jacktruth at September 9, 2005 1:03 PM
Comment #79324

jacktruth,

Is the left trying to push the politcs of homosexuality or the politics of equal representation under the law? Seems to me it is the latter.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at September 9, 2005 1:17 PM
Comment #79330

JackTruth-

My point is that we have allowed two fringe issues to divide and Republican party to our country’s detriment.

We have so many real pressing issues like the trade deficit I mentioned and the decline of the US dollar. Hurricane Katrina has brought to light the fact that our infrastructure is in need of repair not just in Louisiana, but in a lot of other places throughout the country. We are in a war on terrorism, Jack. These are the issues that really need our attention.

Let’s keep government out of medical decisions like abortion and personal matters like gay marriage. We need to unite on the things that are really important for all of us.

-Monica

Posted by: Monica at September 9, 2005 1:30 PM
Comment #79336

Mister Magoo-
Either way, they are making politics out of something personal. I’m not saying they are right or wrong, I’m just saying that it’s not just the right that are making a personal matter political the issue.

Monica-
In the original post I responed to, you said: “Limitation of government and protection of individual rights are the traditional core values of the party.”

Abortion is at the very core of the “protection of individual rights.” It’s only a medical decision for the mom. But if an unborn baby is a human with rights, it becomes much more than just a medical choice of the mother. It is a medical choice of the baby, who cannot speak for themselves and their rights should therefor be protected until they can make that choice.

So, you can say that it’s not a human and that is your opinion, but you can’t say protection of thier rights is not at the core of the party.

Posted by: jacktruth at September 9, 2005 1:43 PM
Comment #79337

steve smith wrote:” All we need do is sit and wait for the Democrats/Liberals to regain majority control of government and we will have a same sex wedding bonanza. Wise to buy stock in flower shops and formal wear retailers.”

wow steve…way to make fun of the stereotypes. couldn’t spend a few more brain cells to come up with something more original?

this particular topic by Tim Huff has clearly pulled out of the woodwork every bigoted, hateful, bible-thumping, close-minded person. rarely have i read such hatred and vitriol from people claiming to be “loving” folk. it appears that the reverend fred phelps of “godhatesfags” has more of a following than i had feared.

how sad it is to know that people actually feel this way. my wife and i have several gay friends, most of them dedicated couples, and they have made my life better for knowing them. not because they are gay, i could give a damn about that, but because they are good, honest, caring people.

comments by steve do nothing more than demean others and highlight the commentors stupidity.

Posted by: views at September 9, 2005 1:48 PM
Comment #79340

Both parties and all Americans are harmed when these personal issues are politicized. When all this controversy is ablaze in the media people are focused on fringe issues rather than the real problems that need to be solved. It’s like your house is burning down and you rearrange the furniture instead of putting out the fire. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives are guilty of this tremendous failure to prioritize.

-Monica

Posted by: Monica at September 9, 2005 1:59 PM
Comment #79342

My personal, Christian view of homosexuality is that the church (people of the church) hammer on it way too much. This country and this world is riddled with habitual sin, all of it is treated the same in the Bible. Homosexuals are easy to target, I guess. I really don’t see the obsession. Yes, it is a sin (no real reason to argue—the bible defines sin and this is one of them). But the bible also says that the church judges inside the church and God judges those outside the church. Unfortunately, human nature leads us to attack those that are different. That human nature is sinful. By the way, attacking those that are different also applies to the anti-churches attack on the church. I personally don’t care if I am attacked. God is bigger than man anyway. Man can take my life, but God has given me eternal life. So why do Christians feel like they are losing control of the nations that they never had control of to begin with (God has always had control.) Christians, show some confidence in your Savior!

Posted by: jacktruth at September 9, 2005 2:00 PM
Comment #79354

JackTruth-

You’re right- church people do hammer on it way too much. And not just church people. Athiests do it too. A scapegoat to focus on - someone perceived somehow worse off than you. For some it is gay people. Others prefer foreigners, fat people, anybody but themselves. It keeps your attention on others’ behavior and gives you an easy target for blame when things don’t go your way. Also while your focusing on the defects of your particulr scapegoat you’re not addressing your own problems or striving to improve your self and eliminate your own defects. It is so much easier to rely on the scapegoat. I am not a Christian but from what I have read Jesus did not llike self righteous smug people any more than you do. He prefered down to earth people open to new ideas.

-MOnica

Posted by: Monica at September 9, 2005 2:25 PM
Comment #79374

views,

Good post in response to mine. Please point out the part of my post that “makes fun of the stereotypes”.

If you are referring to the flower shop and formalwear stock purchase statement you missed the point. The point of that was that the abundance of marriages would require flowers and formal wear making financial interest in both a wise investment.

Posted by: Steve smith at September 9, 2005 3:21 PM
Comment #79391

sorry steve….re reading your post cleared that up….my apology for my rant.

i was caught up in the massive amounts of gay-bashing posts, and attacked what i saw as a cheap joke.

with all the hatred on this blog, it gets hard to tell the difference.

Posted by: views at September 9, 2005 3:53 PM
Comment #79397

views,

No problem. I must say that there are certain issues which bring out the worst in me. The entire gay issue is near the top of the list. Truth be known it is not the individuals that bother me as much as the lifestyle which I personally find repulsive. I am not talking just about “stereotypes”.

I would be a “stereotype” lunatic right winger for some of my views. I would be better off not posting on issues that I have such disdain for that whatever I say I am vulnerable.

Posted by: steve smith at September 9, 2005 4:00 PM
Comment #79399

I’m a Democrat and I’m saying if more Republicans spoke like the OP the Democratic Party would be in worse shape than it already is. A return by the Republican party to it’s core values (ie. smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense) with some concessions (ie. softening positions on gay marriage and abortion) would be enable a Republican candidate to run a purely positive campaign. Truth is most Americans want a lot of the same things and a campaign like that would attract enough independents and conservative Democrats to win an election in a walk. Unfortunatly the neo-cons that have taken over the Republican party are too busy pandering to the extreme right wing of the party to notice, and attack politics became the word of the day.

IMHO

Posted by: Christian at September 9, 2005 4:04 PM
Comment #79414

I’m blown away by the notion that the “liberals” or the “Democrats” are “promoting” the homosexual lifestyle. You think there are some otherwise heterosexuals sitting there thinking, “Hmmm, should I be straight or queer? Let’s see, what are the pros and cons? Hatred by right-wing gay-bashers is definitely a down-side, but then that liberal across the street would still be my friend. Yep, gay it is then. Ooooh, that jacktruth is pretty cute. Hey, sailor!…”

Yeah, that’s got a ring of reality to it. By all means, let’s create legislation to avoid that scenario.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at September 9, 2005 4:53 PM
Comment #79550

Christian, I believe there is great wisdom in what you say. Thankfully, the Party will not return to those values in the near future. The reason I make such apparently obtuse comment is, the Neo-Cons have this nation now committed to either faltering or causing immense suffering amongst large numbers of Americans in the enactment of policies based on those values.

Can you imagine how many Americans would have to suffer to reduce the national debt by half in 20 years? We would have to end social security, Medicare, Medicaid, pull back on investments in environmental technologies, space exploration, and medical research. We would have to raise taxes enormously, and with all that, we might reduce the national debt by half in 20 years.

No, the course now is either faltering or going through a painstakingly slow process of returning to those values over the course of 40 years or more, and that is if we can maintain a competitive edge in the globalized economy and maintain the interest payments on our debt.

The harm done to this nation by this Republican government will take decades to remedy and has denied us the progress and edge we could have had if the 2000 elections had brought true fiscal and foreign affairs conservatives into power.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2005 1:36 AM
Comment #79585

David,

Show me one place that i condemned your or any other civil union. i have not. Your accusation is baseless.

The underlying and relevant issue being debated here is whether or not The United States should be declared a Christian Nation embracing laws that discourage all other beliefs and affiliations.

Your statement, David, is a great example of a biased one-sided perspective unable to see the opposite also true: that the progressives want the United States to be declared a Secular Humanist Nation embracing laws that discourage all other beliefs and affiliations.

Both the far right and the progressive left have blinders bolted onto their heads for fear they should have a glimpse of the dreaded ‘other’. Both censure any and all voices not categorically filled with their branded vitriol.

You have clearly presented your brand of humanism as one, not agnostic, but which denounces faith as myth. At least your tenuous clinging to the agnostic label hints an allowamce for the slim possibility you don’t know it all. Unfortunately this has not effected your lockstep conformity to the humanist blacklisting of all faith despite the absence of any proof against God.

The humanist imperative that the whole of education, especially science, must advocate the non existence of God (other than as mythos) is no less narrow-minded and bigotted than the evangelical fundamentalist demand for a creationism based education— both of which censure all views contrary to their own.

The humanist imperative that the whole of education and in fact legitimate public discourse be filled with animadversions of faith and God is no less bigotted and narrow-minded than the evangelical protestant fundamentalist demand a creationism only world view. Imo, it is the all encompassing denunciation of faith throughout public education curriculae that is the causality of far right radicalism. Decades of oppression and education in a hostile environment results in angry intransigent extremism. Oppression is not a solution. It is the problem.

Posted by: jo at September 10, 2005 10:44 AM
Comment #79598
the progressives want the United States to be declared a Secular Humanist Nation embracing laws that discourage all other beliefs and affiliations.

You’re entitled to believe this, of course, but it’s just not true.

The humanist imperative that the whole of education, especially science, must advocate the non existence of God

Science as properly taught doesn’t say that God doesn’t exist. It says that questions of religion are out of the scope of science, by definition.

Decades of oppression and education in a hostile environment results in angry intransigent extremism.

Oppression? You feel that Christianity in America is oppressed? The religion is followed by a strong majority, its holidays are accepted as civil holidays, many TV shows and movies have religious themes, Presidential speeched end with invocations of God, etc.

Christianity is not oppressed in this country unless you take the position that you are oppressed when your point of view isn’t forced on others.

As I said in another thread, your thinking essentially says that that your religious beliefs require that our civil laws agree with your interpretation of your holy books. It�s not enough simply not to disrupt your worship; you must be allowed to decide the law. Otherwise, your rights are infringed.

It’s a mentality that makes more sense in Afghanistan than in America.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 10, 2005 11:46 AM
Comment #79605

“Christianity is not oppressed in this country unless you take the position that you are oppressed when your point of view isn?t forced on others.”

I would have said “when your point of view isn’t allowed to be forced on others.”

All are allowed the freedom of worship in this country, as long as it doesn’t impinge on Christian sensitivities.
Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, et al, don’t require that the talismans of their religions be displayed in public places.

Do the fundamentalists truely think that the tennents of Christianity did not exist anywhere in civilized societies before the Bible?
For that matter, do Christians truely belive that there was no civilization before Christianity?

As can be seen in this thread, the different sects of Christianity can’t even agree on what their message should be.

If you can’t play nice with everybody, I don’t want you running my country.

Posted by: Rocky at September 10, 2005 12:25 PM
Comment #79606

Rocky,

Better phrasing. Thanks.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 10, 2005 12:39 PM
Comment #79610
Science as properly taught doesn?t say that God doesn?t exist. It says that questions of religion are out of the scope of science, by definition.
While i agree that science, properly taught should not say God does not exist (or further that God does) i disagree that the definition of science should not include religion in its scope. Such attitude of dismissing religion is closed-minded and unscientific. Scientists should be open to all possibilities, not merely those which support our own view. Would a study sample of the state of racism in this country be scientific if it excluded anyone under the poverty level (since some seem to believe black poverty does not exist)? No. And neither is a course scieintific in its approach by prejudiciously excluding the possibility of God or aliens or any other possibility.

My own family is diverse in geography, color and religion. For a couple years i was on our High School’s parent advisory committee, for three years i volunteered as an aid in a first grade classroom, one year i was charged with directing the education of three Vietnamese immigrants and teaching them ESL, my cousin (a humanist/unitarian) creates public school curriculae. i may be uneducated to a lot of people but i am not without some experience or common sense.

Rather than centering views in objective reality, the public school curriculae writers have swung the penduluum completely to the other side providing courses which disparage western culture and Christianity as much as earlier courses applauded both blindly. i oppose both extremes.

i also oppose the simplistic and irresponsible style of teaching Maslow’s Heirarchy which compelled one first grade student to be joined by chorus of others in calling a christian student, who was silently praying before lunch, a phony because she had mentioned she was hungry earlier and they were all taught it was impossible to pray if you are hungry.

One year when the sex ed teacher told my daughter’s class, after the proper application of a condom, use of spermacides and how to get IUD’s etc, that should those fail they should not be afraid to get an abortion because their parents would never be told. The teacher’s pedagogical technique and total disregard for the fetus enraged my daughter who had watched and worried and prayed as i struggled to carry to term a ‘clump of cells’ that doctor’s diagnosed would kill me her mother; and who also rejoiced with relief and gratitude when she was able to hold and feed a bottle to her new little sister. i never heard from the teacher, but my daughter and her classmates filled me in on my eldest’s animated classroom defense of her little sister.

While i do not want to force my choice on others (nor teach my children to be disrespectful), the total disregard for life in the womb is made more vexxing when it is taught in our public classrooms. Yet just as the left claims the poor are not given choice if they cannot abort their child easily, neither are poor parents who value their unborn children given the choice to instill respect for life in their children. (vouchers)

Yes, the educational atmosphere in America today is oppressive and hostile to Christians.

Posted by: jo at September 10, 2005 1:16 PM
Comment #79624

jo,

“While i agree that science, properly taught should not say God does not exist (or further that God does) i disagree that the definition of science should not include religion in its scope. Such attitude of dismissing religion is closed-minded and unscientific.”

Science requires proof, or at the very least plausibility, religion requires faith and nothing else. The very concepts are mutually exclusive.
In that sense creationism is at best theory.

You take what seems anecdotal evidence and make an empirical conclusion that Christians are being oppressed by the educational system.
Do you assume that because of the actions of your school system that all school systems are the same?

I find the concept that those that say they are the majority on one hand, and say they are being oppresed on the other, to be quite unbelivable.

Posted by: Rocky at September 10, 2005 2:34 PM
Comment #79628
I disagree that the definition of science should not include religion in its scope. Such attitude of dismissing religion is closed-minded and unscientific. Scientists should be open to all possibilities, not merely those which support our own view.

Then you misunderstand me. I’m not saying that Scientists should dismiss religion. Religion and Science work in completely different spheres. Science is the practice of observing the world as it is, measuring that which can be measured, and coming to the most logical conclusions. Religion is the practice of believing that which cannot be proved or measured.

It’s neither close-minded nor unscientific to have this separation. It’s a result of the two concepts being orthogonal.

And neither is a course scieintific in its approach by prejudiciously excluding the possibility of God or aliens or any other possibility.

Science doesn’t say that God or aliens don’t exist. It says that, if they exist, they cannot be measured or observed, so we should try to figure how things happen. If there’s a “why” behind the scenes involving a deity, that’s not Science’s business.

The separation of Science and Religion into their respective spheres is the great accomplishment of Western Civilation in the past several hundred years. Without it, the social and scientific progress we have seen would not have been possible.

Yes, the educational atmosphere in America today is oppressive and hostile to Christians.

No, it just isn’t dominated exclusively by your viewpoint. I’m sad you don’t see the difference.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 10, 2005 3:13 PM
Comment #79629

Just to confirm, Jo, you’re saying that it’s unscientific to focus on Science in Science classes?

Huh.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 10, 2005 3:19 PM
Comment #79742

Rocky,

You personally see no proof or plausible evidence of God; a sizeable portion of our citizens would appear to disagree with you. Should your views supercede all others? Without anecdotes, what evidence do you have of homosexual oppression?

LawnBoy,

… Science is the practice of observing the world as it is, measuring that which can be measured, and coming to the most logical conclusions. Religion is the practice of believing that which cannot be proved or measured.

Science taught my generation that ‘outerspace’ was a vast vacuum and that the electron was the absolute smallest form of matter possible. Is it your assertion all particle theory and study should be stopped as we are unable to directly measure particles? Is Particle Theory to be relegated to the sphere of churches now? Orthogonal is not parallel, there is intersection.
Just to confirm, Jo, you’re saying that it’s unscientific to focus on Science in Science classes?
i am saying bias and prejudice have no place in scientific education or study.
It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life. (Yockey, 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p. 336, Cambridge University Press, UK, ISBN 0-521-80293-8). -from Wikipedia
Abiogenesis is no more proven than spontaneous generation in Aristotle’s day— neither the existence or non-existence of God today. Scientists involved in the SETI project face nowhere near the ridicule and blacklisting of scientists who dare involve themselves in intelligent design studies. This is religious, ideological and unscientific prejudice. Humanist ironical pedagogy insists a great panda’s life cycle begins with the zygote (conception) yet denies this in human beings. Humanist values criminalize with penalty of fine and imprisonment any harm to egg or environment of a spotted owl while concurrently protecting by law the right of any woman to both completely destroy the in utero environment and to obliterate the very substance of a human fetus prior to the descent of the fairy godmother of evolution’s mystical bestowal of Life at the dawning of the sacrosanct second trimester.

A LOT of evolutionary theory has been proven and many academic, theoretic and applied advances have been made through these studies. Study of evoltion theory and principle is a vital part of science education today. Scienctists should preserve science and not allow evolution theory to be perverted by either secualr humanist nor denominational christian doctrines.

Is it any wonder a society cultivated in the irrational inconstant humanist paradigm finds itself governed by militant manipulation grounded solely on personal opinion and individual interpretation of ethics per fluid situations? A thin over-wash of an outgrown Christian History and Tradition neither covers nor disguises the humanist root of contemporary American civilization. Do not let yourselves be weighed down with ancient rituals. Do not restrain the progress of human society by labels like ‘marriage’ which allow poignant reminiscing of an inferior repressive standard. Free yourself of this weak glaze and wipe away the traces of Faith which sully the purity of humanist morality. Cast off from the neck of government the burdensome remnants of a Christian yoke. Relegate Christianity again to its historical catacomb churches and away from civilized human society. SEPARATE the CHURCH from the STATE!

Posted by: jo at September 11, 2005 2:34 PM
Comment #79745
Is it your assertion all particle theory and study should be stopped as we are unable to directly measure particles?

No, because they can be indirectly observed. I said nothing about a requirement for direct observation.

Scientists involved in the SETI project face nowhere near the ridicule and blacklisting of scientists who dare involve themselves in intelligent design studies.

Well, there is scientific validity to trying to find out what is out there. There is no scientific validity to “Intelligent Design.”

Humanist ironical pedagogy insists a great panda�s life cycle begins with the zygote (conception) yet denies this in human beings.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you mixing abortion politics with science? I’m sorry that you’re so upset about abortion rights, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

As for your last paragraph, I read it twice, and I still don’t know what you’re talking about.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 11, 2005 2:47 PM
Comment #79747

jo,

“You personally see no proof or plausible evidence of God; a sizeable portion of our citizens would appear to disagree with you.”

And that is based on what? Faith?

“Should your views supercede all others?”

Everyone is entitled to their own belief system. I don’t think that ANY one should supercede any other.

“Without anecdotes, what evidence do you have of homosexual oppression?”

Gee, the murder of the gentlman in Wyoming comes to mind. Also, the don’t ask don’t tell policy in the military. Let’s not forget that bozo preacher in Kansas.

Posted by: Rocky at September 11, 2005 2:57 PM
Comment #79751
Without anecdotes, what evidence do you have of homosexual oppression?

What is this supposed to mean? Maybe these sites have some experiences that you would accept (I don’t know what your prohibition of anecdotes means):

Varieties of Hate Crime Victimization

Hate Incident List (not all about homosexuality)

Canadian Hate Crimes List

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 11, 2005 3:23 PM
Comment #79879

So, if a statistician spent a few years following the supernatural healings accross the world and was able to quantify the number of healings that followed or coincided with the invocation of the name Jesus Christ, and found high level of statisitcal significance (and not side effects!), would this be considered science? Would it be treated the same other medical remedies with similar success rates?

What I have seen is when science is faced with God, they ignore it. There was a lady that came to my church who, because of a car accident, had a metal plate in her head. It was giving her horrible headaches for years. She came across the healing rooms in Seattle, went there to be prayed for. Her headaches stopped. The next time she went to the doctor, the metal plate could not be found. It was gone! Now, do you think that made it in the scientific journals? If a medicine is tested and it works, the results are documented scientifically, but if it seems supernatural, it is ignored or dismissed. Is that objective science?

A close friend of mine contracted AIDS while in prison. He gave his life to Christ after he found out. A few years later, he no longer carried AIDS and was cleared to have children. His son is now 5 years old. But did the doctor include the name Jesus in his medical report? Nope.

Just some thoughts.

Posted by: jacktruth at September 12, 2005 1:07 PM
Comment #79885
would this be considered science?

If the studies were well-construction and independently-validated, then yes. I would expect further research to investigate whether the effect was limited to Christian prayer or intercessory prayer of all types.

Miracles have been reported due to Christian prayer. They have also been reported due to Muslim prayer, Jewish prayer, etc. The reason that Science cannot work with them is that Science is built upon repeatable, validatable effects. Many people have searched for such repeatable effects, but the results have always been too imprecise to allow for concrete conclusions.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 12, 2005 1:24 PM
Comment #79945

I saw this and had to reply:

I will address each comment seperately, then wrap it up in a conluding statement.

since the supremes gave people the right to sodomize others, and the primary cause of AIDS is sodomy, why would giving special rights to sodomizers be anything but wrong? The institution of marriage is an established institution. Those who want to change the establised institution of marriage are treading on dangerous cultural, spiritual and legal ground.

Already NAMBLA is suing to have all rape laws abolished.

Homosexual groups are not as interested in rights as they are in destroying foundations involving the family.

Lawsuits are in motion to remove ?father? from birth certificates.

Marriage is not a right.

Beastiality is not far behind.

Have we become so smart, wise and knowledgeagle that we cast all mores aside for the purpose of satisfying a small minority?

The majority (60-80%) have voted for the establishment of constitutional amendments that define marriage as between one man and one woman.

There are many more effective arguments against changing the institution of marriage.

Posted by tom at September 8, 2005 08:30 PM:

Tom.
TSK tsk tsk. Your intolerance is showing.

“Since the supremes gave people the right to sodomize others, and the primary cause of AIDS is sodomy, why would giving special rights to sodomizers be anything but wrong?”

First off what constitutes Sodomy? Well, let’s take a look at that, Anal Copulation? well I’d agree with that. Oral Copulation? I can’t disagree with that one either. So the next time you engage in the either one with your spouse be sure to get tested, for you might just be a carrier then. Please, no qualifying your answers.
Then you’d have to admit to the entire world that you and your spouse were engaging in activities guilty of violating the anti-sodomy laws.


“The institution of marriage is an established institution. Those who want to change the establised institution of marriage are treading on dangerous cultural, spiritual and legal ground.”

HOW??? Just what kind of Debauchery, Delinquencies, and Damage could Gays bring to the Institution of Marriage that The Straights haven’t done Already, Many, Many Times Over. What Legal Ramifications Could be had, by allowing two People who love each other to marry? What Cultural Dangers? Showing the world that we are actually capable of being human.

“Already NAMBLA is suing to have all rape laws abolished.”

Do you honestly think that an organization promoting Child Abuse has a “Snowballs chance in Hell” of getting laws changed? I don’t think so, and I suspect that you do not either.

“Homosexual groups are not as interested in rights as they are in destroying foundations involving the family.”

Nothing could be further from fact. In fact while heterosexuals spend time in court divorcing(59% of all marriages in the United States wind up in Divorce Court with in the first 5 years). The average Gay/Lesbian Couple on average is the model of stability, staying together on average 12-15 years.

“Lawsuits are in motion to remove ?father? from birth certificates.”

Won’t all those Joe Brown’s be relieved to know that they are off the Hook.

“Marriage is not a right.”

No it’s not, It is a Privilege, a priviledge denied to those not like us. Hmmm, Sounds a lot like racism now don’t it? “I don’t mind them living in my town, just not next to me”

“Beastiality is not far behind.”

What ever EWE do behind closed doors, is between Ewe and Ewerine. None of my business whatsoever.

“Have we become so smart, wise and knowledgeagle that we cast all mores aside for the purpose of satisfying a small minority?”

So, Are the we in the wrong in Iraq, where we have done just that?

“The majority (60-80%) have voted for the establishment of constitutional amendments that define marriage as between one man and one woman.”

Where?? I vote in every election, and HAVE NEVER SEEN THE BALLOT PROPOSAL IN WHICH YOU SPEAK. I guess I read the headlines wrong last week when the Governator of CA-ly-for-n-i-a, said he won’t sign any legislation brought before his desk on the matter.

“There are many more effective arguments against changing the institution of marriage.”

Don’t we have better things to ask of our Elected Leaders. Like teaching our children to be good citizens and respect others beliefs, not shout them down, and debate honestly, and openly.

Things to ponder:
a) We went to war at the end of 1941 and By this time in 1945, having deposed 3 of the most detested men of their day, along the way. Most soldiers were already back home, having been discharged along the way.
What are we doing wrong now, that we did right 60 years ago?

I just retired June 2005 after 20 years on active duty in the Army and if my first duty assignment in the Army was in Iraq I am sure I would never have served 20 years on Active duty.

Of Course, These are just my humble ramblings, thoughts, and opinions.

As Always,Wayne

Posted by: wayne at September 12, 2005 5:16 PM
Comment #80037

Rocky,

Your words: “You take what seems anecdotal evidence and make an empirical conclusion …”

If it is unreasonable for me, and not for you, what conclusion might be logically drawn?

Posted by: jo at September 12, 2005 9:25 PM
Comment #80042

jo,

“If it is unreasonable for me, and not for you, what conclusion might be logically drawn?”

You asked for non anecdotal evidence and I supplied it to you.
If that which has actually been on the news and is verifiable, isn’t good enough……..

Posted by: Rocky at September 12, 2005 9:49 PM
Comment #80072

Rocky,

My asking you to provide non anecdotal evidence was rhetorical.

You dismissed what i said because it was anecdotal. My contention is that anecdotes are regularly used to “make an empirical conclusion”.

Posted by: jo at September 12, 2005 11:27 PM
Comment #80077

jo and Rocky:
What if there actually is a god, but it’s not the god you have prayed to all these years. The god in question doesn’t have a written text, you are judged completely, by what value you earned while living. That value is not a monetary one. so there is no way of trying to keep up with the Jones’. All religions ever practiced on earth are represented there. Everything is just as you pictured it except for one tiny difference you find your god is also Buddah, Allah(Mohammed), And even the great pumpkin, the god is the culmination of all things good and bad. The god has only one request for you to enter the gates of heaven, nirvana, whatever you call the place your spirit travels to when you die, the only question(is different for each) you are asked is this what are your views on homosexuals. You go on a tirade against gays/lesbians that would make Anita Bryant proud. Imagine the Shocked Expression on your face when god whispers this to you “Your not welcome here, for eternity and then some. Now your life is a constant parade of drag queens teaching you all the in’s and out’s of show tunes from Caberet to Oklahoma. You get to sit and think about that tirade you gave when asked how you felt about homosexuals. I can think of nothing more befitting. Problem is I’d probably be asked what I thought about the GOP. That would make your tirade seem like an apology.
These Are just My HUMBLE Opinions.

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at September 12, 2005 11:48 PM
Comment #80084

Wayne,

Nice post. Unfortunatley your preferred scenario would make it a whole lot worse on the poor drag queens than me. i would love to learn show tunes. i love singing… and i am clinically diagnosed as tone deaf. ; )

Seriously, i am no better and hopefully not too much worse than gays. i mess up. i fall down. i make mistakes and .. oh! i SIN!

i love my dad. i have always loved him even when he was younger and would embarass me with his gluttony. He is thinner these days since heart surgery and doesn’t eat like he did. i love him the same. i seldom mentioned his eating.

Neither do i mention to homosexuals i come across my thoughts on their lifestyle.. unless they ask. None have done so in real life but, yes two have asked and believe it or not we have remained on friendly terms. They ask my advice and guidance, i give it. Other than that i expect all to be respected and given the honor due one crated in the likeness and image of God.

My problem is not with homosexuals but with the political machinations of the ‘gay movement’. Gays have their issues, i have mine. To some, religion may be a hobby or convenient networking tool. For me, my Faith is my life. i would like others who also value their faith to be able to continue practing freely in this country without secular government defining what we can or cannot believe.

Posted by: jo at September 13, 2005 12:20 AM
Comment #80088

jo,

“You dismissed what i said because it was anecdotal. My contention is that anecdotes are regularly used to “make an empirical conclusion”.”

I doubt that the experience you cite is the modus operendi for the entire country’s educational systems.

“My problem is not with homosexuals but with the political machinations of the “gay movement”. Gays have their issues, i have mine.”

Gays have only recently become openly politicly active. The vast majority are just plain folks, happily living their lives in obscurity. The most politicly active you will see them is at a gay pride parade.

“To some, religion may be a hobby or convenient networking tool. For me, my Faith is my life. i would like others who also value their faith to be able to continue practing freely in this country without secular government defining what we can or cannot believe.”

Look, you are entitled to your faith just as you are entitled to your opinion.
That said, what you belive in makes 2nd class citizens out of a sizable minority of people in this country, and I suppose that in order that your beliefs not be trampled, they will just have to be satisfied with that.

Posted by: Rocky at September 13, 2005 1:01 AM
Comment #80109

Rocky,

How do my beliefs make anyone a second class citizen?

Posted by: jo at September 13, 2005 2:57 AM
Comment #80169

Jo:

How do your beliefs make anyone a second class citizen? You believe that your religion’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman should be the dominant legal definition, correct? That makes all those who do not believe in your religion’s definition of marriage, including other religions who have embraced same-sex marriage (Quakers, pagans, buddhists, unitarian universalists, and others) second class citizens because it gives your religious definition of marriage the full weight of the law while denying their religious definitions of marriage equal say. To say nothing of nonreligious definitions of marriage, which can and do exist. Our laws need to encompass all of these groups as equals.

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 13, 2005 12:18 PM
Comment #80180

Jarandhel,

you said:

How do your beliefs make anyone a second class citizen? You believe that your religions definition of marriage as between one man and one woman should be the dominant legal definition, correct?

NO! And i emphatically repeat: NO! i do NOT think that my religions definition of marriage should be the dominant legal definition in a country which constitutionally states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

For the government to legally define marriage IS etsablishing religion (one form over others) and prohibiting the free exercise thereof to many citizens whichever way they might choose to define it.

The only amendment or definition i would support is one that defines marriage as a matter of personal faith (or opinion) thereby rendering it outside the realm of civil legislation.

Posted by: jo at September 13, 2005 1:05 PM
Comment #80185

Jo:

Sorry, but that’s not the impression that I get from your words here about how you will not “support the gay movements subjugation of American citizens of faith.” It seems like you’re quite happy to have marriage defined under the law, *as long as its definition is one man and one woman*, and only speak up about wanting government kept out of it when government might define it to include groups you want excluded. You refuse to recognize that marriage is *already* defined under the law, and that the current legal definition favors some faiths over others. You ignore the fact that broadening the governmental definition of marriage to include gay marriage would not be discriminatory against faiths or establishing one over the other, any more than legally recognizing Muslim or pagan weddings diminishes Christian ones under the law. You also set forth the idea that it is the gay community vs religion, rather than acknowledging that there are religions on the side of the gay community as well, who are being discriminated against by current marriage law. None of this sounds like someone who is really concerned with taking marriage in general out of the realm of secular authority, it all sounds like one who is solely concerned with keeping gays out of it, and is using whatever arguments they can to try to promote that goal. Or am I wrong, and had you been arguing for the use of government approved civil unions rather than civil marriages since before Gay Marriage was ever on the table as a possibility in this country?

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 13, 2005 1:19 PM
Comment #80188

Morning All:

I still have not heard an answer to what I consider to be a very Relevent Issue:

What Possible harm could gays/lesbians do to marriage That straights haven’t done, What NEW Debauchery, Defilement or Delinquencies Would be brought to bear? Well….That’s right, there is NOTHING that gays/lesbians can do to the Institution called marriage That Straights haven’t already done or will do!
Just My Opinion,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at September 13, 2005 1:23 PM
Comment #80201

Jo:
I didn’t see your post until after I posted the above.
I don’t know how old you are, so I can only ask general questions of you?
When LBJ signed the “Civil Rights Act of 1964”, Did it specificaly say anywhere within the Document, That the Document only applied to HETEROSEXUALS, That’s Right it did not.

CIVIL RIGHTS ARE FOR EVERYONE.

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at September 13, 2005 1:44 PM
Comment #80203

Wayne,

in your response to one of Tom’s posts you
attempted to make sense out of nonsense.
Unfortunately, for you, Tom’s points still
make sense and your points were the ones
making no sense.

Tom’s point was that if we blanketly and with an (un)healthy dose of political correctness, legalize homosexual marriages, then how far behind will be the requests of groups like NAMBLA be in getting their agendas legally passed?
Your response Wayne was, “Do you honestly think
that an organization promoting ‘PEDOPHILIA’ has a
snowballs chance in hell of getting laws changed?”

Let me take your response/question Wayne and
change one word and then ask the reading audience
to go back in time just 50 or even 25 years.
“Do you honestly think that an organization
promoting ‘HOMOSEXUALITY’ has a snowballs chance in hell of getting laws changed?” My,my,my. Things
sure have changed in just a few short decades
haven’t they? What was once thought of as a devient,unnatural,sexually perverted chosen behavior is now a trendy, politically correct thing you’re “born with” and are therefore afforded the rights of “other” minorities.

This is a result of slick marketing, the BIG LIE,
and INCREMENTALISM. Promote anything long enough in a nice, “gay” package & then bombard a well intentioned, but emotionally (not intellectually) gullible public often enough and you get people straying from common sense and even their moral upbringing.

There was a post around the middle of this thread
by “Bill”, a “well adjusted, out ‘gay’ man deep in
the heart of Dixie”, that NONE of you pro-“gay”
rights posters replied to. He said that many PC heterosexual liberals like to promote a MYTH that “the average gay/lesbian couple is the
model of stability”. Apparently you didn’t read
Bill’s post Wayne. It’s NOT true!

Wayne also used a much over used and abused
argument that equates opposition to the homosexual
agenda ( and yes, THERE IS ONE ), to “racism”.
Wayne, do you know any African-Americans? On this
subject I have seen plenty of Blacks interviewed
on tv & I know plenty of Blacks who ALL hate the
COMPARISON of a CHOSEN sexual perversion to a race that one is BORN into. Many blacks feel like the politically correct and trendy “gay” rights movement has taken the place/spotlight from the
equal rights movement of African-Americans.
Of coarse those Blacks are all religious right,
conservatives. Right?

Lastly, when Wayne in his post debated with Tom
about bestiality (not beAstiality), Wayne apparently has no problem with people having sex with animals as long as it’s “behind closed” (barn) “doors. None of my business whatsoever.”
My,my Wayne. How open-minded of you. Along with
the ASPCA and PETA, I’m sure many other people
would disagree with your apparent lack of
sensitivity towards an animals rights not to be
molested by some horny rancher. I guess as long as
they’re consenting adults, human or otherwise, it
is okay for EWE to have sex with animals.

It’s this kind of mentality that makes this debate
over whether or not homosexuals should have special rights based on a chosen sexual perversion
so critcal to thoughtful, thinking, caring people.
As I’ve said before, if those of you who are so
blindfully willing to support the “gay” rights
issue would do your homework and research what
causes homosexuality, maybe you’d take off your
rose colored glasses long enough to wake up and
see what the incremental acceptance of a sexually
deviant lifestyle will do to harm humanity.

Diligent & Humble Dale

Posted by: Dale Garland at September 13, 2005 1:45 PM
Comment #80205

Wayne:

As near as I’ve been able to determine, the basis of the religious argument against secular gay marriage seems to lie with their concept of morality. To them, morality is something that is given from on high, not something that can be devised or reasoned by man. To their way of thinking, then, giving “acceptance” (ie, legal recognition) to “sodomy” (gay marriage) would open the floodgates for other sins. This, I think, is the basis of their continued slippery slope arguments involving incest and bestiality. They really don’t see that each of these things can be reasoned against separately, and that the arguments against them are little related to homosexuality, because in their minds all are simply commandments and fall or stand together. Why this is the case with these, and not with others such as the commandments against eating shellfish (called abomination, same as homosexuality), I cannot say. But it does seem to be the case, and is particularly apparent in some of their continued assertions that there can be no morality without faith, which they often refer to as situational ethics.

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 13, 2005 1:47 PM
Comment #80206
But it does seem to be the case, and is particularly apparent in some of their continued assertions that there can be no morality without faith, which they often refer to as situational ethics.

Or “incrementalism”. I had forgotten that one. Thank you, Dale, for that timely reminder.

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 13, 2005 1:51 PM
Comment #80208
the homosexual agenda ( and yes, THERE IS ONE )

You know, I wasn’t sure about that, but since you used ALL CAPS, I guess you know what you’re talking about.

CHOSEN sexual perversion

Oh yeah. Using ALL CAPS overrides the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You win.

research what causes homosexuality

Well, I was going to go with the best understanding from science that it’s a mixture of genes and environment. And, since you didn’t use ALL CAPS, I think I still might be right. However, what are your thoughts on the matter?

see what the incremental acceptance of a sexually deviant lifestyle will do to harm humanity.

I’m curious about your thoughts on this, too.

This should be interesting.

sexually deviant…devient,unnatural,sexually perverted…sexual perversion

I’m glad to see you’re keeping an open mind about this.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 13, 2005 1:54 PM
Comment #80213

Lawnboy:

the homosexual agenda ( and yes, THERE IS ONE )
You know, I wasnt sure about that, but since you used ALL CAPS, I guess you know what youre talking about.

I wonder if he could tell me where to sign up for a copy? My boyfriend and I haven’t received ours in the mail yet. ;-)

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 13, 2005 2:06 PM
Comment #80259
It’s a result of the two concepts being orthogonal.

Orthogonal is not parallel, there is intersection.

It’s been a while since this interchange, but I missed Jo’s response here.

I want to clarifying the meaning of the word orthogonal as

[from mathematics] Mutually independent; well separated; sometimes, irrelevant to. Used in a generalization of its mathematical meaning to describe sets of primitives or capabilities that, like a vector basis in geometry, span the entire ‘capability space’ of the system and are in some sense non-overlapping or mutually independent. For example, in architectures such as the PDP-11 or VAX where all or nearly all registers can be used interchangeably in any role with respect to any instruction, the register set is said to be orthogonal. Or, in logic, the set of operators not and or is orthogonal, but the set nand, or, and not is not (because any one of these can be expressed in terms of the others). Also used in comments on human discourse: “This may be orthogonal to the discussion, but….”

In context, I meant that they were independent. The intersection is not relevant.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 13, 2005 4:17 PM
Comment #80298

Jarandhel,

i have tried to be as clear as i can be. i previously stated:

NO! And i emphatically repeat: NO! i do NOT think that my religions definition of marriage should be the dominant legal definition in a country which constitutionally states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

i think you are more in control at this point of what impressions you are willing to acknowledge than me. As per my acknowledgement of ‘marriage’ in the law, i have shared in another thread:

Marriage world wide has historically been based in RELIGION, not necessarily Christianity. In America, that historical religious foundation was western Christianity. Ancient secular pairing was neither exclusively life-long, nor monogamous. Such conditions up to modern times have only been applied via religion. Modern secular society is attempting to adapt a heretofore religiously based institution to secular civil regulation.

The record is already clear on the state’s inability to adequately maintain obligations of such an intimate nature as affection, respect, fidelity etc. The state has no legitimate role in the governance of these personal aspects of our lives except imo in the case of abuse. The parading of our private lives through the courts as seen especially in both politics and celebrity debases our whole society. Civil government oversight and regulation of property rights are just that, civil. The administration of these is more appropriately covered under contract law with requirments that each party actually be are of and comprehend terms and conditions. Health and saftey covered under civil law applicable to all be they in partnerships or single.

How each person or couple chooses to relate to another is best governed by those individuals involved with or without benefit of faith or religion, and without hinderance or interference of government. Our constitution provides for the separation of church and state, not the defining of church by the state.

i further have not maintained any idea that it is the gay community but rather the gay movement vs religion. i do not think the gay movement accurately represents the gay community anymore than i think Pat Robertson accurately represents the Christian community.

you suggest, “ it all sounds like one who is solely concerned with keeping gays out of it, and is using whatever arguments they can to try to promote that goal..” i contend it is the gay movement using any means possible, legal or otherwise, to attain their goal; and that indeed their goal of legally defining marriage to include same sex couples is discriminatory to many faiths. Our constitution explicitly grants freedom of religious expression; it does not explicitly grant freedom of sexual expression.

Or am I wrong, and had you been arguing for the use of government approved civil unions rather than civil marriages since before Gay Marriage was ever on the table as a possibility in this country?
i have not argued for civil unions gay or otherwise rather than civil marriages as that goes against my faith. Further, i have argued for the Church Sacrament of Marriage rather than civil union for heterosexual family and friends.

Nevertheless, not only does my faith demand i respect every human being as created in the image and likeness of God and have freewill; my country demands similarly that all men are created equal so i fully support, and have, the equal access to civilbenefits and obligations to every citizen.

Our nation’s constitution provided i think it was that blacks consituted 2/3 of a person for the census. This contradicted the language of equality and was rightly overturned. Today the state has intruded into personal lives using language based in the historical western christian faith in contradiction of the establishment of religion language. This wrong should be righted, not confounded.

On an additional note, our constitution contains the bill rights with the language that we are endowed “by our Creator”; not that we are granted by our constitution these rights. If that be the case, are all human beings outside the United States of America lackng these basic human rights?

i realize your worldview differs from my own and it makes not one bit of difference to me as an American citizen if you consider your “Creator” to be yourself, the mulch pile in a neighbor’s backyard or the pencil on your desk.. this amendment clarifies that these rights are not given by the constitution or government but only that a task of government is to safeguard these rights.

Posted by: jo at September 13, 2005 5:48 PM
Comment #80325

jo:

Is it any great wonder I don’t believe what you say when you openly and blatantly contradict yourself?

i have not argued for civil unions gay or otherwise rather than civil marriages as that goes against my faith.
Take Marriage back to the Church where it belongs and the registering of partnerships for civil benefits to the state gay or straight, religiously sanctioned or not.

The “registering of partnerships for civil benefits”, if not called civil marriage, IS “civil unions”. So yes, you have argued for them rather than civil marriage, in this very thread.

By the way, while we’re talking about your stance on civil marriage vs civil unions/”registered partnerships”, and whether or not it predates the idea that gays might get married in this country, I have to ask… are you married yourself? And if so, are you married just in the church, or in the eyes of the law as well?

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 13, 2005 6:30 PM
Comment #80329

Jo

i contend it is the gay movement using any means possible, legal or otherwise, to attain their goal; and that indeed their goal of legally defining marriage to include same sex couples is discriminatory to many faiths.

Broadening the legal definition of marriage is discriminatory?You clearly don’t know the meaning of the word. Discriminatory means to be selective, to favor one group over another. Broadening the definition does not do this, it makes all groups equal. Right now, the law as it stands prevents some marriages from being recognized. Broadening the law would not prevent any marriages from being recognized that currently are, so by nature it cannot be discriminatory. It removes discrimination.

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 13, 2005 6:34 PM
Comment #80332

Jo:

By the way, you do realize that by your logic, broadening the definition of marriage to include mixed race marriages over the objections of some religious groups was also discriminatory?

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 13, 2005 6:35 PM
Comment #80336
that indeed their goal of legally defining marriage to include same sex couples is discriminatory to many faiths.

You’ve stated this or something like it many times. We’ve pointed out many times that the statement doesn’t make sense, either in logic or in the law.

Could you please either explain this claim better or at least address the disagreements?

i have not argued for civil unions gay or otherwise rather than civil marriages as that goes against my faith.

Once again, I’m confused by your semantics. What do you find acceptable and what do you consider against your faith?

Today the state has intruded into personal lives using language based in the historical western christian faith in contradiction of the establishment of religion language.

This is false. The language of marriage is not the unique domain of western christian faith, and it never has been. This is another claim you have made repeatedly in the face of repeated rebuttals.

In fact, “because (m)ost ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species, a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines” was needed, meaning that Marriage was created to satisfy legal and financial purposes.

Here are links that discuss a lot more about the history of Marriage, including pre-Christian marriage (for example, there’s this link that talks about the civil institution of Marriage in Ancient Rome).

Marriage is not the province of western christian faith (or Orthodox, as I just learned may be more appropriate to discuss). Marriage has a history in both the secular and the religious world. Claiming that redefining the legal definition of marriage intrudes on your religious belief has no basis, historically or legally.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 13, 2005 6:41 PM
Comment #80338

Lawnboy & Jarandhel,

it doesn’t take long to find evidence of the
homosexual agenda, written by homosexual activists
dating back for decades, on the internet/Google.
There are volumes of articles & even whole books
on the subject. ALL groups have “agendas”. White
racist groups, Black civil liberty groups, nearly
all minority groups, Republicans, Democrats,
conservative, liberal, religious and atheist
(should I go on?) groups alike, ALL have agendas.
The fact that you would deny that parts of the
homosexual activist community do NOT have an
agenda either makes you intellectually dishonest,
incredibly ignorant of the facts or you have an
agenda of your own.

The agenda can easily be found in the monthly
pages of “gay” magazines like The Advocate, which
apparently Jarandhel doesn’t subcsribe to,
otherwise he’d admit the truth. Unless of course
that truth, were it more well known among the
general populace, caused a further backlash against the whole “gay” rights issue and cause a
retreat into the proverbial closet.

As for the research into homosexual origins. While
there is some research that theorizes that
homosexuality may be a combination between genetics and environmental/psychological factors,
that doesn’t mean that one has to ACT on those
inclinations or behaviors. There are also studies
that show a biological/behavioral link to criminal
behavior, alcoholism,etc.. Not all of those people
who have these “conditions” act on their desires
to get drunk, commit crimes, etc.. Do human beings
no longer have the capacity to fight the urge to
do things that are either illegal, harmful to others or themselves, or things considered by most
people, immoral?

I know to many liberals or those who don’t believe in a GOD, morality is a foreign concept.
But hopefully the concept of truth isn’t so lost
on you that you’ll blindly follow any PC, feel good crap that comes down the pike. There are
plenty of examples in the animal kingdom of
creatures who doom themselves to complaisantcy
or even death because they won’t pull their heads
out of the sand. Or they follow the trend, no
matter where it leads, like lemmings or sheep.

If you were truly as “open-minded” as you appear
to be, you would look at websites by groups like
NARTH or Exodus International and intellectually
examine their claims, arguments and yes, their
agenda.

Diligent Dale

Posted by: Dale Garland at September 13, 2005 6:44 PM
Comment #80345

Dale:

Already have. Their science is flawed, their theology questionable, and their agenda outright hateful. There’s good reason that they and other proponents of conversion therapies have been condemned by the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 13, 2005 6:58 PM
Comment #80351
it doesn’t take long to find evidence of thehomosexual agenda, written by homosexual activists dating back for decades, on the internet/Google.

Then it should be very easy for you to tell us what you think it is.

I, for one, propose this: “The right to live in peace and love with legally-recognized rights and the ability to live free of fear of getting beaten up by people who hate and fear us.”

The fact that you would deny that parts of the homosexual activist community do NOT have an agenda either makes you intellectually dishonest, incredibly ignorant of the facts or you have an agenda of your own.

Of course activists have an agenda. Activism doesn’t mean much without a purpose. I think it’s something like the agenda that I listed above. I just happen to think that it’s a positive agenda, and that you would rather spend two long paragraphs trying to scare us about what you think the agenda is instead of simply telling us what you think it is.

Do human beings no longer have the capacity to fight the urge to do things that are either illegal, harmful to others or themselves, or things considered by most people, immoral?

We typically have such capacity, but what does this have to do with homosexuality? It’s not illegal, you haven’t established harm (despite your insults), and the percentage that considers it immoral is shrinking.

I know to many liberals or those who don’t believe in a GOD, morality is a foreign concept.

That’s absolutely incorrect. Athiests (whether liberal, conservative, or other) believe in morality; just not one with the same philosphical underpinnings.

Liberals in general have strong senses of morality, but our moral scales are different.

How would you like it if I said that conservatives have no sense of morality because they support the death penalty (I know, not all, etc.)? Isn’t that a ridiculous statement? It’s no more ridiculous than what you said.

But hopefully the concept of truth isn’t so lost on you that you’ll blindly follow any PC, feel good crap that comes down the pike.

What truth? You repeatedly assert that homosexuality is deviant, immoral, perverse, etc., but you haven’t given any reasons that support your beliefs.

And why do you presume to know the source of my support of gay rights, no less that it’s blind and dumb support?

Or they follow the trend, no matter where it leads, like lemmings or sheep.

Can you really say that you’re not the lemming for following those who say homosexuality is filthy?

If you were truly as “open-minded” as you appear to be, you would look at websites by groups like NARTH or Exodus International and intellectually examine their claims, arguments and yes, their agenda.

NARTH:

On May 17, 1997 NARTH published the results of a two year study involving 860 clients and 200 psychologists and therapists. Mainstream psychological associations called the study “heavily biased”, because each of the therapists supplied data only on their “success stories”. The organization did not report their success rate at converting patients with a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. They did not make distinction between homosexuals and bisexuals in the program. And did not differentiate between homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals among those leaving. This study has not been accepted to be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

In general, the efficacy of reparative therapy has not been established, and most professionals warn that such attempts may be psychologically harmful.

Many various professional medical and psychological bodies condemn conversion therapies. Such bodies include:

American Psychiatric Association (APA)
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Psychological Association
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Education Association
Royal College of Nursing.

Open-mindedness doesn’t mean being unable to see through quackery.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 13, 2005 7:12 PM
Comment #80356
it doesn’t take long to find evidence of thehomosexual agenda, written by homosexual activists dating back for decades, on the internet/Google.

Then it should be very easy for you to tell us what you think it is.

I, for one, propose this: “The right to live in peace and love with legally-recognized rights and the ability to live free of fear of getting beaten up by people who hate and fear us.”

The fact that you would deny that parts of the homosexual activist community do NOT have an agenda either makes you intellectually dishonest, incredibly ignorant of the facts or you have an agenda of your own.

Of course activists have an agenda. Activism doesn’t mean much without a purpose. I think it’s something like the agenda that I listed above. I just happen to think that it’s a positive agenda, and that you would rather spend two long paragraphs trying to scare us about what you think the agenda is instead of simply telling us what you think it is.

Do human beings no longer have the capacity to fight the urge to do things that are either illegal, harmful to others or themselves, or things considered by most people, immoral?

We typically have such capacity, but what does this have to do with homosexuality? It’s not illegal, you haven’t established harm (despite your insults), and the percentage that considers it immoral is shrinking.

I know to many liberals or those who don’t believe in a GOD, morality is a foreign concept.

That’s absolutely incorrect. Athiests (whether liberal, conservative, or other) believe in morality; just not one with the same philosphical underpinnings.

Liberals in general have strong senses of morality, but our moral scales are different.

How would you like it if I said that conservatives have no sense of morality because they support the death penalty (I know, not all, etc.)? Isn’t that a ridiculous statement? It’s no more ridiculous than what you said.

But hopefully the concept of truth isn’t so lost on you that you’ll blindly follow any PC, feel good crap that comes down the pike.

What truth? You repeatedly assert that homosexuality is deviant, immoral, perverse, etc., but you haven’t given any reasons that support your beliefs.

And why do you presume to know the source of my support of gay rights, no less that it’s blind and dumb support?

Or they follow the trend, no matter where it leads, like lemmings or sheep.

Can you really say that you’re not the lemming for following those who say homosexuality is filthy?

If you were truly as “open-minded” as you appear to be, you would look at websites by groups like NARTH or Exodus International and intellectually examine their claims, arguments and yes, their agenda.

NARTH:

On May 17, 1997 NARTH published the results of a two year study involving 860 clients and 200 psychologists and therapists. Mainstream psychological associations called the study “heavily biased”, because each of the therapists supplied data only on their “success stories”. The organization did not report their success rate at converting patients with a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. They did not make distinction between homosexuals and bisexuals in the program. And did not differentiate between homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals among those leaving. This study has not been accepted to be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

In general, the efficacy of reparative therapy has not been established, and most professionals warn that such attempts may be psychologically harmful.

Many various professional medical and psychological bodies condemn conversion therapies. Such bodies include:

American Psychiatric Association (APA)
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Psychological Association
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Education Association
Royal College of Nursing.

Open-mindedness doesn’t mean being unable to see through quackery.

(source for both NARTH and reparative therapy was Wikipedia)

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 13, 2005 7:20 PM
Comment #80364
hate the COMPARISON of a CHOSEN sexual perversion to a race that one is BORN into
Posted by: Dale Garland at September 13, 2005 01:45 PM
While there is some research that theorizes that homosexuality may be a combination between genetics and environmental/psychological factors
Posted by: Dale Garland at September 13, 2005 06:44 PM


Changing tunes rather quickly, aren’t we?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 13, 2005 7:32 PM
Comment #80388

Lawnboy,

what part of “theorizes” and “may be” do you not
understand. The science on homosexual origins is
still not conclusive, otherwise (as I’ve said
before) the legal and social acceptance of
homosexuality would be far more widespread. But
it’s not now is it? That must mean something. Why
you can’t figure it out is beyond me. We can map the human genetic code, but we can’t conclusively
prove a genetic cause for homosexuality. Hmmmm???

While conversion therapy has been condemned by
the spokespeople of most liberal psychological
associations, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work
for those (like my older brother) who really
WANT TO CHANGE. OOoops, I did it again. Not all
psychologists who are members of the A.P.A.(etc.)
agree with their governing bodies. Just like not
all union members or entertainers agree with their
leaders/peers on all things political/social.

There’s a Dr. Nicalosci, who was one of the shrinks back in 1973 who voted along with the rest of the politically pressured A.P.A. to take homosexuality off of the sexual deviants list, who NOW believes that conversion therapy works for those who really WANT TO CHANGE. OOopps, I did it again.

As for Jarandhel. Your hand is already too far
inside the cookie jar for me to believe that you
could ever look at another side of the argument
rationally. Ignorant racists like Kanye West is so
self loathing of his own race (when he should be
proud) that he believes there is a white racist
or an anti-Black racist conspiracy under every
rock. Many homosexuals are the same way, self- loathing, but at the same time so convinced by PC
popular cultural acceptance, that they can’t see
the forest for the trees.

Matthew Henry said it best. “None” are “so blind,
as those that will not” or can not “see.”

Diligent Dale

Posted by: Dale Garland at September 13, 2005 9:32 PM
Comment #80404

Dale,

“Many homosexuals are the same way, self- loathing, but at the same time so convinced by PC
popular cultural acceptance, that they can’t see
the forest for the trees.”

I don’t know who you hang out with, but I have been around literally thousands of gays, both through work and as personal friends since the ’60s. I have never met any of the self loathing types that you speak of.

I have to repeat that I can’t see that anyone would choose a lifestyle that subjects them to scorn and ridicule on a daily basis from the neanderthals that reside in this country.

Posted by: Rocky at September 13, 2005 11:31 PM
Comment #80414

Rocky,

people choose all the time to work in professions
that are scorned and ridiculed by most in this
apparently pre-historic country. Lawyers, cops,
used car salesmen, telemarketers, bill collectors
and so on are not only hated, some are threatened
with their lives. But some choose to make their
living that way whether people like them or not.

While pedophiles and zoophiliacs ( people who
practice bestiality ) aren’t anywhere near as out
of the closet as homosexuals, they still practice
a sexual lifestyle that a vast majority of people
detest. And yet they CHOOSE to continue their
sexually perverse behavior despite the risk of
exposure and punishment. Gee, I guess that means
they must be “born that way” too.

The self loathing “gays” are out there. Just ask
my older brother who met them all the time while
he was in that lifestyle. That’s why there is a
higher percentage of “gays” who are alcoholics
and drug addicts. And by the way. Domestic violence is also higher, percentage wise, in the
so-called “gay” community. Maybe all those “gays”
you hang out with are too chemically high on life
to show their inner distain for their lifestyles.

As for this country being full of “neanderthals”,
I can’t totally disagree. Luckily most of the posters on this web-blog are intelligent and
articulate ( although many if not most of the
more liberal posters are woefully mis-informed
and base most of their beliefs on feelings ).
But if we Americans, one of the most advanced
cultures on the planet, aren’t up to your enlightened stature, I’m sure they’d be glad to
have you in Europe or… Canada.

Diligent Dale

Posted by: Dale Garland at September 14, 2005 1:05 AM
Comment #80416
what part of “theorizes” and “may be” do you not understand.

I understand those words. However, you switched from an unequivocal statement that it’s a choice to being unsure if it’s genetic in five hours.

The science on homosexual origins is still not conclusive, otherwise (as I’ve said before) the legal and social acceptance of homosexuality would be far more widespread.

That’s wishful thinking. If that were true, there wouldn’t be political debates on Global Warming or Evolution, since the science is conclusive for both. However, the debates still happen.

But it’s not now is it? That must mean something. Why you can’t figure it out is beyond me.

You’re right that the proof of a genetic source of homosexuality is not yet iron-clad, but it’s the best explanation we have so far. And even if it were iron-clad, people would still deny it. Why you can’t figure it out is beyond me.

We can map the human genetic code, but we can’t conclusively prove a genetic cause for homosexuality.

Mapping the genome and understanding the purpose and implications of each gene are different things. The former is a precondition for the latter.

Hmmmm???

What do you suppose this conveys? Since both times you’ve used it have been after saying something logically invalid, I think it means that we should discount the paragraph that preceded it. Is that right?

Or is it misplaced smugness?

While conversion therapy has been condemned by the spokespeople of most liberal psychological associations, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for those (like my older brother) who really WANT TO CHANGE.

There’s the rub. Do you know that it actually “worked” for your brother? Besides the conclusion that conversion therapy would work for everyone if given a chance (which seems to be your conclusion), there are other possibilites.

1) Your brother has always been a natural heterosexual, as you claimed earlier. For whatever reason, he lived as a homosexual for a while, but then decided to return to his natural orientation (but needed some therapy to help make the change in his life). This explanation would say nothing for the people who are natural homosexuals.
2) Your brother has always been a natural homosexual. However, due to religious motivation or other pressure, he decided to try to give up his life. With training, he has learned how to live as a heterosexual, but internally he’s still conflicted. This would be similar to the situation of Michael Bussee, a co-founder of Exodus International who returned to homosexuality, and it’s not a hopeful scenario.
3) Your brother is bi-sexual. His affinity for men was stronger for a while, and then his affinity for women grew (either naturally or through self pressure). His conversion is not necessarily final. This explanation would say nothing for the people who are natural homosexuals.

So, you see, your anecdotal evidence is week. There are at least three plausible explanations for your anecdote besides yours. Of course, I have no idea which one is correct, but then again, neither do you.

Even if you are right about this one case of your brother, a single anecdote is still not evidence that the “therapy” works in general and is not harmful. That would require well-designed, peer-reviewed studies, of which NARTH seems incapable.

There’s a Dr. Nicalosci

Wow. One person as changed his mind. I guess that’s unstoppable proof. Hmmmm???

The self loathing “gays” are out there. That’s why there is a higher percentage of “gays” who are alcoholics and drug addicts.

Or, perhaps, it’s a result of the pressure of living a life in which homophobes call them perverts and deviants and occasionally beat them up.

Ahhh, but that explanation isn’t the most negative possible explanation, is it? I guess we should discard it, then.

although many if not most of the more liberal posters are woefully mis-informed and base most of their beliefs on feelings

Interested. You finally have something in common with us.

BTW, what is the homosexual agenda? Was I right in my guess yesterday?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 14, 2005 2:32 AM
Comment #80448

Dale,


Maybe all those “gays” you hang out with are too chemically high on life to show their inner distain for their lifestyles.”

Is that the best you can do?

It seems that when the right doesn’t understand something their best is always an insult.

No, my gay friends are quite comfortable with themselves and live happy fulfilled lives.

BTW, I have been happily married for 25 years, so any inference otherwise, by you, will gather no water.

Answer me this.
Why is it that any time that a gay lifestyle is brought up, the right’s first thought is of beastiallity, or pedophillia?

Hetrosexuals are more likely to engage in pedophillia and beastiality.

As to the invitation to move. Where’s the fun in that?

Posted by: Rocky at September 14, 2005 10:45 AM
Comment #80458

Jarandhel:

If you get a Signed Notarized copy, Be sure to Post it here on Watchblog.com for all to see.

Lawnboy:

the homosexual agenda ( and yes, THERE IS ONE )
You know, I wasnt sure about that, but since you used ALL CAPS, I guess you know what youre talking about.
I wonder if he could tell me where to sign up for a copy? My boyfriend and I haven?t received ours in the mail yet. ;-)

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 13, 2005 02:06 PM

Rocky:
I am with you. Your kids are more likely to be molested by their Male Clergy or Female HS Teacher, then by an openly practicing homosexual. Who in their right mind denies, that there are no gay/lesbian Clergy? My Final Gripe..Where were these, HOT Female Educators, When I Was in High School. Damn, The kids today have EVERYTHING!

Answer me this. Why is it that any time that a gay lifestyle is brought up, the right?s first thought is of beastiallity, or pedophillia?

Hetrosexuals are more likely to engage in pedophillia and beastiality.

As to the invitation to move. Where?s the fun in that?

Posted by: Rocky at September 14, 2005 10:45 AM

AS Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at September 14, 2005 11:41 AM
Comment #80683
As for Jarandhel. Your hand is already too far inside the cookie jar for me to believe that you could ever look at another side of the argument rationally

Yes, because CLEARLY someone who’s been in a stable homosexual relationship for over six years wouldn’t know anything about the issue of homosexuality or gay marriage. VERY rational.

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 15, 2005 2:42 PM
Comment #80857

Wayne,

what was your point?

Jarandhel & Lawnboy,

while you two are good at arguing your points
(especially Lawnboy), we’re just going to have
to agree to disagree. I firmly believe in what
I believe based on not only my religious beliefs,
which it appears you despise, but also on years
of study. I’ve looked at both sides of the issue
as objectively as possible and concluded that
what Lawnboy calls “natural homosexuality” doesn’t
exist. It doesn’t appear in nature. No animal,
especially our fellow mammals, practice a
homosexual lifestyle. To do so would be contrary
to the theories and facts of evolution. And don’t try to convince me of lesbian penguins or other
“gay” animals either. I’m a lifelong animal lover and have seen thousands more animal shows on PBS,
etc. and read far more animal books than most people.

Homosexuality is psychological. Pure and simple.
But your obvious biases have swayed you so far
to the left of the issue that you will probably
never believe what I belive to be true or look at
the other arguments in what I believe is a totally rational way. I don’t know if any of you
believe in an afterlife. But even if you don’t, I
hope GOD will be good enough to put us all in the
same place where at some point in the distant
future the truth will be known and we can end this
difficult but enjoyable debate as this will be my
last post on this thread.

By for now.
Diligent Dale

Posted by: Dale Garland at September 16, 2005 1:34 AM
Comment #80858
my religious beliefs, which it appears you despise

Not at all. Don’t try to make excuses for us by pretending we’re motivated by hate. We’ve said nothing about your religion at all.

It doesn’t appear in nature. No animal, especially our fellow mammals, practice a homosexual lifestyle.

Absolutely untrue.

The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not ‘officially’ observed on a large scale until recent times, possibly due to observer bias caused by social attitudes to same-sex sexual behavior. It appears to be widespread amongst birds and mammals, particularly the apes. [1] Many male penguins that mate for life have been observed in homosexual pairs and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.
One report on sheep cited below states:
“Approximately eight percent of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes…”
Homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 species.
[Wikipedia]

There’s a lot of evidence of homosexuality in animals, particularly those closer to us.

To do so would be contrary to the theories and facts of evolution.

You’re right that homosexuality is not a trait that leads to itself being passed on, but there’s nothing in evolution that says that evolutionarily disadvantageous alternatives cannot form.

And don’t try to convince me of lesbian penguins or other “gay” animals either. I’m a lifelong animal lover and have seen thousands more animal shows on PBS, etc. and read far more animal books than most people.

Translation: don’t bother me with facts; I have my strongly held opinions!

You claim to based your stance on homosexuality on years of objective research. However, when you tell me that you refuse to accept evidence you don’t like, you tell me that your research was anything but objective.

Just because you’ve watched animal shows on PBS doesn’t mean you have all the available data.

Homosexuality is psychological. Pure and simple.

That’s your opinion, which is not supported by facts, evidence, logic, or science.

But your obvious biases have swayed you so far to the left of the issue that you will probably never believe what I belive to be true or look at the other arguments in what I believe is a totally rational way.

Given the example of the approach you consider “rational”, you’re probably right.

BTW, what do you suppose my bias is? I’ve come to a conclusion based on the information I have at hand. How is that bias?

Also, what is the homosexual agenda?

I don’t know if any of you believe in an afterlife. But even if you don’t, I hope GOD will be good enough to put us all in the same place where at some point in the distant future the truth will be known and we can end this difficult but enjoyable debate as this will be my last post on this thread.

It’s a shame that you’ve decided you’d rather die before finishing this debate. I didn’t think you were losing that badly.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 16, 2005 2:18 AM
Comment #80863

Lawnboy:

It doesnt appear in nature. No animal, especially our fellow mammals, practice a homosexual lifestyle.
Absolutely untrue.

You’re right, it is untrue. But even more importantly, it’s a red herring. Most human lifestyles and institutions are not found in nature, being practiced by animals, even our fellow mammals. This does not make these actions unnatural for man, any more than the lack of talking animals makes ordered speech unnatural.

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 16, 2005 3:24 AM
Comment #80864

Jarin,

Great point.

Why are you still up?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 16, 2005 3:26 AM
Comment #80865

Lawnboy:

I only got home from work this evening at 1 am or so, and was sitting up to have a bit of dinner and unwind a bit. About to head off to bed, though, I stayed up longer than I had meant to.

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 16, 2005 3:33 AM
Comment #82518

Homosexuality is no big deal.
If it was mentioned in Leviticus, it was probably because the wisdom then was as now: gay sex can breed disease. Just like the admonition against pork products was due to the wisdom of the time: pork can breed disease.
The Roman Catholic church (I am catholic) is VERY hypocritical about gays and gay behavior. Witness their tolerance of abusive gay behavior in their own ranks. Since I personally witnessed my pastor jumping hand-in-hand with his “boyfriend” into what he thought was an empty elevator, I have a hard time listening to hypocritical sermons on sexuality in any form. Also, I personally have some questions about Gospel references to “the Apostle that Jesus loved” or questions as to why Jesus sent 72 disciples out “by twos”. All in all, Jesus said nothing about sex AT ALL.
Lastly, the big push for gay marriage had more to do with Bush’s elimination of the “marriage penalty” tax, than to “civil liberties”. With gay marriage, any two people could get married and claim marriage tax benefits simply on their say-so. You cannot prove you are gay or not gay. My contention is why provide tax breaks to unions who do not and never will produce little taxpayers, as traditional families do?
Fundamentalists stuck in the Old Testament should remember that Jesus brought “…a new and everlasting covenant…”, reducing much of the Old Testament to Ancient Literature.
Gays have existed throughout history. Get over it.
That means gays too.

Posted by: eddie filek at September 28, 2005 8:02 PM
Post a comment