Intellectual Dishonesty and the Gay Marriage Issue

Those who are for gay marriage say that we should just accept it and that it does not hurt anyone. They say it is not a big deal. Many right here on these forums have stated those same things. I put forth that that is intellectually dishonest. That it is a big deal and that it is actually one of the biggest deals in history. There are at least three points to be made for intellectual dishonest:

• There are no major societies in history that have allowed gay marriage. It is one of the most radical changes ever made in the social structure of any society.

• Why do so many of those who argue for gay marriage argue against making a civil union possible. This is intellectually dishonest because a civil union would give the same legal status just not the societal status.

• Marriage has been a religious institution for over 10,000 years. Now suddenly people are expected to sit by and let the changes to a treasured religious institution be changed. If any one opposes it they are called names such as homophobic or prejudice. There are no options left open for discussion. This is the definition for intellectual dishonesty.

I personally stand against gay marriage. I do not like the idea of civil unions either but I would not fight those in the same manner. Marriage has been a religious institution for thousands of years and has always been between a man and a woman. There are no major religions that allow for gay marriage so why force the change to a major religious institution.

Everyone that is of age has the right to marry but they currently have to marry someone of the opposite sex. I could think of many sociological reasons for this through human history. The main one is of course propagation of the human race. If you are married to someone of the same sex you are not able to have children together.

Why would someone disagreeing for religious reasons be automatically shut out of the argument? Where is the open discussion that should be happening here? Why would those on the left not feel exciting about the opportunity to discuss this civilly? (most have not been)

In most of the states that voted for a ban on gay marriage it was overwhelming in favor of banning it. Why is that bad? You hear many Democrats say let the states decide this would be nice. Letting the states decide is my first choice the problem we have is that judges will not allow this. The current way our judicial system is set up there are too many activist judges and the will of the people is being undermined for the will of the special interest.

Many arguments state that those who are gay should be able to help with medical decisions incase of an emergency or be allowed visits. This is easily remedied get a medical power of attorney. This would allow them those legal privileges.

Many argue about making decisions about burial and all that goes along with that. Properly written legal documents will take care of all this as well.

I guess it really seems to come down to money. They want that tax break and money protections from estates that married couples get. So why fight against civil unions which would allow the money protection and the tax breaks. I could only think of one thing. Those who are for this special interest want to force our culture to accept them and treat them with special privileges.

Show me that I am wrong. Show me where my logic is in error or have a discussion with out the venom.

Posted by Randall Jeremiah at June 12, 2006 4:21 PM | TrackBack (1)
Comments
Comment #156841

Randall

There is overwhelming evidence that homosexual marriages are more harmful to children. There should be a father and a mother in every family. There is a reason for this. Mothers are needed for the nurturing of children and fathers are needed for leadership and guidance. This cannot be done where same sex parents are involved. When a female child reaches about 12 years old, she will start to separate herself from her father and grow closer to her mother. If there were two males as parents, where does the girl go for that strength from a mother? The same thing applies to a boy. When a boy reaches about 12 years old he starts to bond more strongly with his father. If the boy had two femailes as parents, where does he go for the manliness he needs at that age? This could go on and on. The only position that is morally correct is one man and one woman in the institution of marraige.

Posted by: tomh at June 12, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #156842

“Intellectual dishonesty” is claiming that gay marriage is a threat.

“Intellectual dishonesty” is claiming that recognizing gay marriage will somehow grant “special privileges” to gay people instead of equal rights.

“Intellectual dishonesty” is claiming that something is constitutional just because a large number of people vote for it. If 90% of Americans voted to confiscate all handguns, it wouldn’t make it constitutional.

“Intellectual dishonest” is claiming that marriage is solely for the propagation of the species. My wife and I don’t have children. Are we an abomination?

“Intellectual dishonesty” is claiming that gay marriage will somehow force religions to change.

“Intellectual dishonesty” is claiming that because something hasn’t existed before, it shouldn’t be allowed to exist now. If that were the case, we’d all be grunting unintelligibly and still trying to invent fire.

“Intellectual dishonesty” is claiming that gay marriage is “intellectually dishonest”.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 12, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #156843

Just some thoughts/questions on your post…

• There are no major societies in history that have allowed gay marriage. It is one of the most radical changes ever made in the social structure of any society.

The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa all recognize gay marriage, and Andorra, Argentina, Brazil, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the Australian states of New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory all have some form of civil union for gay people. But even if none of these countries fall into the category of “major society,” what’s wrong with being first? Also, these countries seem to have survived the radical changes you spoke of, I think America is more than well-equipped to survive as well.

• Why do so many of those who argue for gay marriage argue against making a civil union possible. This is intellectually dishonest because a civil union would give the same legal status just not the societal status.

I think the point the people are trying to make when they argue against civil unions is that why should they have to call what they do in the privacy of their homes anything different from what you do in the privacy of yours? Why do one group of Americans get marriage and another get something less, or nothing at all, as the case may be? Either we all drink from the same water fountain in this country or we don’t.

• Marriage has been a religious institution for over 10,000 years. Now suddenly people are expected to sit by and let the changes to a treasured religious institution be changed. If any one opposes it they are called names such as homophobic or prejudice. There are no options left open for discussion. This is the definition for intellectual dishonesty.

So long as the gay marriage isn’t happening inside a church I just don’t see the problem. I mean who cares what two guys in Massachusetts call their relationship? How does that affect me? I doubt the walls of the church will come down of Ellen and her life partner are allowed to marry. I’m sorry if this sounds a little sarcastic, but I honestly don’t see the issue. In a real, observable way, how does one person’s marriage affect anyone but the two people getting married? If you can explain that, then I’ll start to buy this gay marriage issue as anything but a way of getting votes from the conservative base.

Posted by: Christian at June 12, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #156844

Randall-

There is a pretty good thread on the Blue side on this right now. I can address a few of your points, though i don’t expect you will agree.

First, Marriage as a religious institution is not under attack. No one is requiring anyone’s church to recognize a gay marriage, or perform any gay marriages, just as no one can legally require a church to marry someone who has been divorced or baptise a child born out of wedlock. Sacraments are sacred, religious events that have nothing to do with the law. Also, there are religions, however minor, that recognize and perform gay marriages. Under freedom of religion, the governemnt should be bound to recognize those marriages with the same respect as a Catholic or Protestant or Jewish marriage.

Second, in the eyes of the law, marriage is a contract entered into by two consenting adults. It is blatantly unconstitutional to restrict what type of adults can enter into a contract on the basis of sex.

Third, states also overwhelmingly stood behind school segregation. There are instances where the majority are wrong and will trample the rights of the minority. That is why our country is a representative democracy with a constitution, not a simple, majority rules democracy.

Fourth, the entire argument of Civil Unions is the same “separate but equal” that was trotted out during the civil rights movement. As far as Living Wills are concerned, they are very easily challenged in court by family members. Legal Marriage removes the possibility of this challenge.

A lot of the arguments for how marriage has been historically through society are fairly meaningless, because how far back would you go? Arranged marriages? What about marriages only within your social class, or within you race?

My final point is that the only time the government should stick its nose into private affairs is to protect someone from a threat, be it physical, emotional or financial. Banning gay marriage accomlplishes none of the above and is therefore, in my opinion, government getting too big.

Posted by: David S at June 12, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #156848

“Marriage has been a religious institution for thousands of years and has always been between a man and a woman. There are no major religions that allow for gay marriage so why force the change to a major religious institution.”

It’s because we govern by our constitution and NOT religion. Also, no one is saying that religions would have to change - theory do not HAVE to marry now, even if the couple is a man and a woman. The concept that this will change religion “intellectual dishonesty.”

“The main one is of course propagation of the human race. If you are married to someone of the same sex you are not able to have children together.”

So you are saying that people who get married now must have kids??? What’s you point? In my family (3 sisters) I am the only one who will have children. Does that mean that my sisters should not be married or that they should have kids? Or is the argument of propagation simply clouding the issue with BS?

“there are too many activist judges”

This is simple talking point BS. There are no “activist judges.” They do not write the legislation, they interpret it. And they have valid arguments for doing so. If the state feels like they do not want gay marriage, let them write it into their constitutions. This isn’t activism, it simply the way our country works. Or do you feel that judges that uphold bans on gay marriage are also “activist judges.” Stop clouding the issue by name-calling and simply look at the issue at hand.

“Many arguments state that those who are gay should be able to help with medical decisions incase of an emergency or be allowed visits. This is easily remedied get a medical power of attorney. This would allow them those legal privileges.”

Most hospitals only allow for immediate family to visit certain areas of the hospital… hence the problem. Civil Unions would solve this…

“They want that tax break and money protections from estates that married couples get. “

Yes, this is the very reason I got married… who cares about love, it’s all about the money - right? (Sorry to be rude - but this is BS as well.)

” So why fight against civil unions which would allow the money protection and the tax breaks. I could only think of one thing. Those who are for this special interest want to force our culture to accept them and treat them with special privileges.”

No one must accept anyone in our country - and there are no special privileges being discussed that I am aware of. Right now, there is a cultural bias against homosexuals based on religion. No one is suggesting that religions change or that people accept the practices they do not like… people are simply asking to be treated equally based on the rule of law - the Constitution. No one has yet to bring up a single actual harm done by gay marriage, and people who want to “protect marriage” have not offered up a single process to help foster successful marriages… simply put, they want to prevent marriage. Or civil union… this is an argument of semantics and bigotry.

I’d love to see someone prove me wrong on this… (and understand, none of this is laced with venom… just stating my opinions.)

Posted by: tony at June 12, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #156852

“There is overwhelming evidence that homosexual marriages are more harmful to children.”

Say what?!? Gay marriage is bad for kids? Really…

You do realize that most gay couples can not have kids…? Also, those who do raise kids addopt, and so any loving family is far and above a better option that the child being raised with no family.

Friends of mine - lesbian couple, is raising a “medically fragile” child, one of their sisters is a drug addict and her child’s issues are a direct result of the drugs. The sister could not afford, let alone manage to raise the little girl with any success. My friends have taken on this child, and all are doing exceptionally well.

They get no thanks, and many people question whether they should raise this girl… anyone have a better solution? Can anyone condemn them for such devotion and sacrifice? Or are they somehow risking everyone’s marriage my being together?

Posted by: tony at June 12, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #156859

Randall,

In many ways, your arguments are similar to mine. I am not against civil unions for gays, which would grant them the same rights as someone that went before a judge to be wed rather than to a minister.

The word “marriage” is what I and most of my conservative peers object to. Marriage is a christian sacrement, not the actual name of the civil union. Out of respect for christian beliefs (and not being a christian myself) I respect that they want to keep that term “sacred” within their belief system.

Because most of the founding fathers and legislators of this country were of the christian faith, that word has crept into the legal system, with the State issuing “Marriage Certificates” which liberals should probably attack next as a violation of church and state, as it will be the ony way that the points brought up by DavidS will be addressed with equality.

As far as the statement by TomS - whether or not gays can “raise children properly” because there is no father and mother - that’s pure bullshit. That would be like saying that rednecks shouldn’t be parents because they’re stupid, ignorant and beat their wives and kids and that will be perpetuated with each generation (which we obviously know is not true).

What is “healthy” for kids is to be brought up in a family environment that shows/teaches love, affection, tolerance, imparts a desire to succeed, encourages children to take advantage of the gift of education and teaches personal responsiblity and caring (eliminating about 80% of baptist and pentacostal households from what I’ve seen).

I’ve grown up with, lived next door to and otherwise witnessed children growing up in gay households and haven’t noticed ANY difference between them and my own kids. And just like any other segement of society, there are conservative gay families, middle of the road families, apolitical families as well as liberal ones.

I’m finding it irritating that the Republican Party seems to have been hijacked by the uber-christian right just like the Democratic pary has been taken over by the communists and athiests.

TOMH, I found your comments to be offensive, ignorant, intolerant and unfounded as you have obviously never been outside your own little world. Your “Jesus” surrounded himself with sinners and loved them without question. Your brand of christianity is seemingly filled with hate for anyone different from you - which is why I left that particular fair-weather faith.

Posted by: PyroJack at June 12, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #156861

The govenment already places restrictions on religious institutions. If the “gay agenda” folks get their way, what is to stop them from forcing churches and pastors to marry gays? What constitutional right has not been changed by the courts these past few years?

Posted by: Don at June 12, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #156862

Also, that is a misconception to say that “marriage has been around for 10,000 years” when it is a christian construct.

Group marriages and polygamous marriages have been around in societies for just as long if not longer! It’s only within the last 1100 years that christianity persecuted these practices to the point where it was able to impose their own belief system on others - in a very undemocratic manner, I may add (I think the term they used was “believe or die” - hmmmm… sounds similar to a certain religion we are currently at war with, doesn’t it?).

Posted by: PyroJack at June 12, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #156864

I believe that it was in the mid-1800’s that the government became involved in licensing and advocating marriage as a stabilizing influence in society (Please correct me if I am wrong). Prior to that most marriges were “common law” or in the purview of the churches. Today our government is the ultimate sanctioning authority on marriage, attempt to get one without a license to prove this, and there is a portion of the population denied this.
Over the “Thousands of” years you argue, religion was the administrator of the marriage contract it was also the form of government in play. You had no rights exept as granted by the church or “divine” king. In that time frame our form of governance was unthinkable,so arguing for “gay rights” was just as unthinkable.
I do understand the reasons to be against gay marriage (I have a religious objection myself), however as a governmentally overseen “Right” in this country there has been no due process to deny this group from partaking.
Also, what other groups would you have denied what other rights as time goes on?

Posted by: Ted at June 12, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #156867

PyroJack
I have friendly relationships with homosexual individuals. I do not hate anybody, period. It is truly strange that people who do not know me can say I am hateful. If you knew me it would be impossible for you to be hnoest and say I am hateful. I work with people of all walks of live. They are a sad bunch. They have problems. Some of them are homosexual. Some are asexual. Some are so full of lust that they cannot see their problem.
As far as my brand of christianity, I don’t know what you are talking about. There is no such things as different brands of christianity. Either you are a christian or you are not. See how simple that is.

Tony
The people have spoken in a number of states concerning a marriage definition of one man and one woman. Several states have had the electorate vote by 70 and 80 percent to add an amendment to their state constitution to assure it. Activist judges have overridden the desires of the people and ruled those amendments unconstitutional. How arrogant!

Posted by: tomh at June 12, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #156869

“The govenment already places restrictions on religious institutions. If the “gay agenda” folks get their way, what is to stop them from forcing churches and pastors to marry gays? What constitutional right has not been changed by the courts these past few years?”

Yea - BOO! You sound extremely afraid of this… Name a single insatnce of any judge trying to force religion to change?

Posted by: tony at June 12, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #156870

Actually - I like the idea of taking the first born male from each family and forcing them to become gay. (Actually, if people knew how many gay people they had living next door to them… )

Daddy, I see gay people.

Posted by: tony at June 12, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #156871

I think that there are two entities that are being conflated by both sides in this discussion, and that has made it difficult to resolve. On the one hand, there is the religious sacrament of marriage that most religions recognize. This makes the marriage valid in the eyes of the respective religion. On the other hand is the civil institution of marriage, with which go legal rights and obligations, affecting the areas of paternity, property rights, taxes, powers of attorney, and survivorship rights. That these are distinct is made obvious by observing that some religions don’t recognize marriages performed in another religion, yet all are valid legally as long as the proper license was obtained and the ceremony duly conducted, witnessed and attested (if I understand the law correctly).

Since the same word applies to both, yet as I noted they are recognized as distinct (e.g., the Catholic church does not publicly object to Methodists being wed in their own church and calling it marriage), we have to cope with the misunderstanding that the civil institution of marriage must conform to some religious definition of marriage. This is the rub.

I believe that the right thing to do is to separate the two liguistically. For example, religious marriage could be called “wedlock”, and civil marriage, “union”. Alternatively, we could call both marriage, but with a modifier: religious (or spiritual) marriage and civil (or legal) marriage. This would at least address the concerns about the interplay between what civil society permits and their own religion’s viewpoint regarding homosexuality (at least at this point in time; I predict most will change over the next fifty years to accept homosexual unions). Those religions would not be forced to sanction any religious marriages between those of the same sex, but society would be able to confer basic rights of partnership on such couples. For the wing-nuts for whom this is too subtle a distinction, I fear no compromise is possible, but they are such a small minority, they can be safely ignored.

This has the added benefit of further decoupling government institutions from any specific religion, thereby assuring that no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof is made.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 12, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #156873

” Activist judges have overridden the desires of the people and ruled those amendments unconstitutional. How arrogant!”

You can’t rule an amendment Unconstitutional… ???? They’ve ruled against laws that are unconstitutional… and maybe against amendmants that go against federal law - but if you actually ratify an amendmant, it is law.

Can you please list some examples?

Posted by: tony at June 12, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #156876

Why not do as many European countries do…marriage is both a contract recognized by the government (so people have a civil ceremony in the town hall) and it can be a religious promise (so those who want go thru the civil ceremony at the town hall and then hold the religious service)…

How much more simple could it be…

Posted by: Lynne at June 12, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #156877

“There is overwhelming evidence that homosexual marriages are more harmful to children.”

Proof?

And if you want to use the “A family needs a father” issue, then please tell these people…

(BTW, this list comes from “David S from the Blue Blog” )

Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.

Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced

Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced

Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced

Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced

George Will - divorced

Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.

Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the “Defense of Marriage Act.” The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is “Bob Barr…WHICH marriage are you defending?!?

Sen. Alfonse D’Amato of New York - divorced

Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)

Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorced

Henry Kissinger - divorced


Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced

Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced


Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 12, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #156878

So, apparently, tomh, if 80% of the state voted that you should be put in prison and held there indefinitely, any judge issuing a habeas corpus would be arrogant? Do I understand you correctly?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 12, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #156879

Vincent

Is your point that either democrats or leftist are homosexual while republicans are not?
Velly interesting.

Tony
Please tell the judge in AL and NE what you think. They did what you said could not be done.

Posted by: tomh at June 12, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #156880

Randall

If you personally stand against gay marriage, then, by all means, do not marry a gay man.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 12, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #156882

Elliotbay

Your hyperbole is quit exquisite. You really pulled a lot out of what I said that I did not even know I said. I would suggest you go back and read what I wrote then make another post actually commenting on what I said not what you believe me to have said.

I will say this your point about 90% voting and so on is valid that is why it should be made a constitutional amendment.

tomh I would agree that there is ample evidence out there that support that it is better for any child to have a parent from each sex. One of the problems in this current society is that we are trying to say that there is no difference between men and women. That is a lie there are vast differences and children need both.

Christian

I am sorry I should have been clearer I realize that there are modern societies that recognize those but that is relativly a new phenomenon.

Prior to this modern age it was not allowed. When someone forces someone else to accept the concept of marriage as between two people of the same sex then they are changing what marriage is. Marriage has always been between people of opposite sexes. Why as a society should we be forced to accept this change? I for one have not heard any compelling arguments that moves me anywhere in that direction. I think where the intellectual dishonesty part comes in is most people are arguing that this is not happening when it is this is dishonest. We are not able, nor will we ever be able, to have an honest and open discussion on this.

David S

good post you are correct I do not agree with it.

No one is that a gay person is not able to marry. They have the same legal right as I do to marry someone of the opposite sex. Now what is being asked is for special rights to marry someone of the same sex.

I would agree that sometimes the will of the majority will trample the minority. That is why I support a constitutional amendment. This will clear it up real quick. If it does not make it then I am sure judges somewhere will eventually make every state accept it even if their state constitions dont.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 12, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #156883

tomh

Where is this evidence that gay parents are harmful for children? Is this published in peer-reviewed literature, based on scientific methods? Or is it just some wingnuts that happen to agree with you who spout their pseudo-science? What do you propose to do with the children of gay unions? Take them away and give them to a deserving hetero couple?

In spite of the fact that “some of your best friends are homosexual” you are quite hateful, in that you ignore a solid body of evidence that gay and lesbian couples raise children just as healthy as hetero couples do and that you want to deny gays and lesbians rights. Try to imagine a world where gay and lesbian unions were the norm and heterosexual unions were treated the way you want to treat gay and lesbian ones. How would you feel about that? Would you feel discriminated against and rail against those that denied you your heterosexual marriage? If you’re honest, you would admit that it would make you angry.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 12, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #156884
Marriage has always been between people of opposite sexes. Why as a society should we be forced to accept this change?

For the same reason that we as a society were forced to accept the change that people of different races should be allowed to marry; because it’s the right thing.

A while ago, one could have said “Marriage has always been between one man and many women. Why as a society should we be forced to accept this change?” We changed then, and we’re changing now.

No one is that a gay person is not able to marry. They have the same legal right as I do to marry someone of the opposite sex. Now what is being asked is for special rights to marry someone of the same sex.

How about this analogy: What if our laws required you to believe in Allah? Then everyone would have equal rights - everyone would have the right to worship Allah. Why are you demanding special rights to worship who you want to worship and not who we tell you it’s ok to worship?

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 12, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #156885

“WASHINGTON - In the first time that a federal judge has struck down a state constitutional provision limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon on Thursday declared void a provision of the Nebraska constitution that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman and that banned same-sex civil unions, domestic partnerships and other similar relationships.

Bataillon declared in his ruling that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Nebraska cannot ban same-sex marriages and civil unions.”

So, the question remains… how do you write a state constitutional amendment that does not violate federal law/US Constitution…???

Posted by: tony at June 12, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #156888

>There is overwhelming evidence that homosexual marriages are more harmful to children. There should be a father and a mother in every family. There is a reason for this. Mothers are needed for the nurturing of children and fathers are needed for leadership and guidance.

I Would not call myself a liberal being as I am one of those folks that thinks both parties suck.In the past I leaned republican and sad to say voted for bush in 2000.
In answer to your statement

About three in ten children live in a single parent home. It would seem to me that it would be more inportant to have 2 loving parents —what ever the sex, than one overworked, over-stressed parent to a latchkey child.
Are you a member of the big brother org.? If not your worring about kids being raised by gays not getting duel gender guidance — but ignoring the kid that lives down the block from you.
More than 100000 children in the United States are in foster care, do you think thoses kids are better off being moved from one home to the next ,or mabe just mabe might be better off with a loving couple taking control of their lives?
All this so-call issue is, is the right pandering to fear and hatred —fear of people that are differant and the same hatred that a pack of black dogs would show to the one white dog in the pack
respectfully W.E. Savage

I must not fear.Fear is the mind killer.Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.And when its gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

Posted by: The Savage at June 12, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #156892

Randall-

Your logic is faulty. No one is asking for special treatment, simply equal treatment.

No one has addressed the fact that the government cannot consider sex when determining rights.

Someone said that marriage is a Christian concept, but marriage pre-dates Christianity by thousands of years.

The religious angle for banning gay marriage carries no water seeing as how no one makes a peep about re-marrying after divorce, which Jesus directly addresses as adulterous. Why is no one trying to strengthen marriage by maintaining that a lifetime contract actually be enforced as “lifetime”? Divorce is definitely a bigger social problem than gay marriage, if simply by numbers alone, let alone actual impact. Why are we not proposing constitutional ammendments against divorce? Because too many conservatives like to get divorced (see the list I posted on the Blue side and someone re-posted here).

Posted by: David S at June 12, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #156899

David S.

Exellent arguments (on both threads)
If the consevatives really wish to make a marriage related pitch, please address divorce, you would have my undivided attention.

Posted by: Ted at June 12, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #156902

There are a large number of what its cited above. The homosexual groups have labeled those that oppose them in a hateful manner using words like religious right and homophobia and of course other words and phrases. The homosexual groups have a long term agenda to destroy marriage as we know it today.
Activists use other nations to parrot what should be done in this country. Canada has made it unlawful to be against homosexuality. Preachers cannot preach against it.
Children are being forced to get indoctrinated on the “righteousness” of homosexuality, even in preschool. Parents are not allowed to have their children opt out of many of those classes.
It appears that homosexuality trumps God. Homosexuality trumps children. Homosexuality trumps personal choices. Homosexuality trumps religious liberty. Homosexuality trumps the Constitution.
Already the ACLU is working on making polygamy legal. After that who knows what. I am guessing animals will be next.
Religious liberty is already threatened. Catholic Charities of Boston has found that out the hard way. The extreme minority will push to penalize church leadership if they do not kowtow to their agenda.

Gotta go to school board meeting. Will continue later.

Posted by: tomh at June 12, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #156906

Now is this whole imbroligio, about gay couples fighting to be married in a church… ( Ya know, before God and etc…) Or just maybe, it is about (like everything else in this country and life) money! Benefits and legal rights! Does a civil union confer the same legal and financial rights upon a couple as does a marriage? And as to the whole treasured religious institution part, how easily the moral upright forgets. God did not grant divorce in the bible, Moses did so on his own, without any divine providence from God. There are no “what if” mitigating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances are man’s way of finding a fifth corner out of a box that is inconvenient. If they want to fight on religious values, don’t misrepresent or utilise creative licence with respect to the Bible. C’mon, please!! These arguments are always laced with the moral upright intimating that God is on their side. But as Lincoln asked, “are we on God’s side”??

Posted by: Eisai at June 12, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #156912

Randall

Your arguments are based on personal morals, judgemental, emotional, conjecture and based on precedent but lacking in facts.

Unless you can produce facts, not opinion on how gay marriage will harm society, Then there is no reason to ban it. You must show that society has a compelling reason to ban gay marriage based on facts. Otherwise because you personally do not like gay marriage is not reason enough to stop it.

A fact of life is; change is inevitable and people who are stuck in tradition and belief are always slow to change. They feel threatened. But it is inevitable. The younger a person is the more favorable they feel towards gay marriage. It is only a matter of time.

If you have facts that gay marriage will hurt children I would like to see it. But you need to remember, the only way a gay couple can have a child is through adoption. If you are so concerned about gay parents, then focus your energy on unwanted pregnancies and broken homes that generate abanded children.

What our American Principals of inalenable rights and the pursuit of happiness. Isn’t gay marriage the pursuit of happiness?

Posted by: jerseyguy at June 12, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #156915

tomh,

My point ( like you ) is very simple.

Divorce is what has been ripping our society apart. Along with deadbeat dads.

Just because people like you still want to live in caves and believe burning bushes talk to people, doesn’t mean I have to stand by and watch my government create a non-issue. Why not get an Amendment that doesn’t allow divorce? Would you be willing to sponsor that one?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 12, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #156918

Not being a practicing Christian, tell me, what was it again that Jesus said about homosexual marriage? Something like, “Blessed are the non-gays, for they shall inherit the kingdom?” Was that it? I know He was against it, because that’s why true Christians are, but I’m having a problem putting my finger on where he let us all know that.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 12, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #156919

jerseyguy

I’m on your side, but lesbian couples can have children with a sperm donor.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 12, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #156920

You folks are going to fast for me I am at work so if my responses are slow please forgive me. I will try to address issues but not individuals at this point.

Many states have added it to their state constitutions now there are judges who are in the process of overturning the laws that were ratified in state constitutions.

Where does the harm come in link
This study shows links between gay marriages and the decline of marriages in Scandanavian countries as a whole.

A few quotes from pro gay marriages gay folk and there periodicals. This will show you that it is destructive to marriage.

Here is a Gay Activist
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

—Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.

Mayors task force for San Francisco
“[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new….Extending the right to marry to gay people — that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage — can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past.”

—Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, “Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco’s Families,” The Final Report of the Mayor’s Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1

Another activist
“It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”

— Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.

More

“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”

—Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.

“Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals onto the ark. But it doesn’t have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’ Would polygamy invite abuse of child brides, as feminists in Muslim countries and prosecutors in Mormon Utah charge? No. Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.”

— Judith Levine, “Stop the Wedding!: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough,” The Village Voice, July 23-29, 2003

Levine declines to mention that the 1972 Gay Rights Platform also called for abolishing age of consent laws. This is a curious omission since Levine herself has written in favor of lowering the age of consent to 12 for sex between children and adults in her book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (p. 88). http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0330/levine.php

These are just a sampling of what is out there. Yes much harm will be done to our society. The problem is they do not see this as harm. I do. They are intellectually honest though. They admit that they are making a radical change to society and they are doing it on purpose.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 12, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #156922

some of you are asking for me to show you how it is going to harm. I am asking you in what way will it benefit society as a whole to make gay marriage legal?

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 12, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #156927

Although it’s not necessary to show that gay marriage would be beneficial to make it legal, only that it would not infringe the rights of others, there is a benefit.

Gay and lesbian couples could care for each other the way we and our wives care for each other, with full legal rights.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 12, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #156928
some of you are asking for me to show you how it is going to harm. I am asking you in what way will it benefit society as a whole to make gay marriage legal?

It will greatly benefit many individuals while being benign to those not benefitted.

In total, it’s a net positive.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 12, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #156933

How come christians tend to spew bullshit unsupported by evidence? Is that practice just too ingrained in the collective christian practice?

America oppresses christians? Get serious. “Religious liberty” does not mean the liberty to force others to bend to my religious will.

Canadian preachers can’t preach against homosexuality? As best I can tell, Canada’s hate crimes law specifically protects speech where a person expresses an opinion on a religious subject in good faith. Prove me wrong.

Kids subjected to forced anti-christian indoctrination? None. Well, actually, I guess “science class” should count there. My bad. But I can live with that. Just like I can live with forced indoctrination into mathematics. What tomh is implying is forced acceptance of moral judgments, and that rarely happens. When it does happen, it is usually the christian who is doing the “forcing,” not the other way around.

Posted by: Homer at June 12, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #156934

Randall,

This study shows links between gay marriages and the decline of marriages in Scandanavian countries as a whole.
And this link shows that the data does not support the conclusions made in that study.
Both demographic data and common sense show that the dire predictions of Dobson and Kurtz are just cultural prenuptial jitters.

Posted by: Introspective at June 12, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #156937

Divorce has come up over and over again. I will address it. I was raised in a single parent home. My mom and dad divorced when I was 2. At that time there were very few divorces. In fact growing up I knew only about 4 or 5 kids whose parents were divorced and those were the ones I saw at daycare.

I was raised in church where people use to watch me closely since my parents were divorced something had to be wrong with me. I was never invited to birthdays or parties from my church. I was from school they did not know I was divorced. Then it was unusual it is much better for the kids now.

I will say this. It is wrong. Let me debunk some of the myths of divorce. The divorce rate for first marriages is only 30% not 50% like so many say. When you factor in multiple marriages then the divorce rate goes up infact the divorce rate for 3r marriages is over 80%.

The Christian Bible does not say you can not divorce it just limits why you can have a divorce. The divorce and remarriage thing is another issue. Which I can get into here but it is in depth theology. I will make a quick statement though. Remarriage is seemingly forbidden with one exception. That would be if someone becomes a Christian after they are married and the person who did not convert wants a divorce the Bible teaches to let them go that you are free from that marriage. when it says you are free it means totally free no strings attached.

Yes divorce is a spot on our society. Why cant we be more committed to those we say we love? Why dont the children matter? These and many more are questions that would make a good article in and of itself but I am not going to get into it here and now.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 12, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #156938

Randall,
Thank you for taking some time to adress that.
I do believe that that is an issue that the left and the right can accidentally find some agreement.

Posted by: Ted at June 12, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #156939

There are no homosexuals. They are sexual perverts and deviants.
We are being duped and intimidated into accepting a hurtful and sick practice.
First, we tolerated it. Second, we allowed it. Third, we accepted it. Forth, we embraced it. Now we are told we must hold it up as a fine example of the all American familly. Sorry, can’t do it.
They aren’t gay, they are abnormal.
I’m not straight, I’m normal.
Don’t be fooled anymore. Don’t be pushed around anymore. We MUST speak up.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 12, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #156943

coonyjay

The only reason I am even addressing what you said is to make it abundantly clear that I think you are not a conservative nor a Christian. I think you made up that post in order to create more hyperbole. for that I want to expose your message as false.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 12, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #156947

As with so many issues in society it comes back to the issue of whether there is an objective source of knowledge of right vs wrong or whether it is all just subjective. If subjective than the opinions of a Hitler or a Stalin might be repulsive to some of us but in absence of an objective source of truth their actions were no more right or wrong than those actions of those who opposed them. By the same reasoning I understand why some defend same sex marriage. Who are you to tell me what I want is wrong?
I happen to feel there is an objective source of truth concerning right and wrong and it says that same sex marriage is wrong. It has always said same sex marriage was wrong and will say that 1000 years from now. And so for me as a Christian I am against same sex marriage and believe that our society will be better off without it.

Posted by: Carnak at June 12, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #156951

“Gay marriage” should not and would not be a matter of discourse if in recent history their disscusting practices were not legitimized by liberal courts. Not so long ago they would have been jailed for sodomy ect. The conservatives are to blame as much as the liberals for not condemming the practice of this abombination. I say if your going to let them be effeminate you might as well let them raise kids. mabey we will luck out and they will eventually die out on their own therby cleaning up the gene pool.

Posted by: jc at June 12, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #156952

well spoken Carnak

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 12, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #156963

Some of the posts on this subject make me very afraid.

I thought that these kinds of things were up to God to judge. As a Christian, one of the things I have the biggest problem with is the supposed necessity of passing judgement.

What we can do as a society is to be INCLUSIVE and not condemning. God gave us the instruction to love thy neighbor.

Let people have the same LEGAL rights, and let God sort out the morality.

I can’t even begin to describe how it makes me feel when I see Christians spouting rhetoric and Gospel in an attempt to pass judgement on other human beings. Being able to quote the Bible and passing judgment does not a Christian make.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 12, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #156966

RandyJ:
I am both Christian and conservative. I strive to follow the Bibles teachings and not be luke warm. You know what that is Randall? It’s not living out your faith in words or deeds. Shame on you.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 12, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #156968

Carnak,

I happen to feel there is an objective source of truth concerning right and wrong and it says that same sex marriage is wrong.
The thing about objective sources of truth—if there are such truths at all—is that “feeling” them would not be needed to believe they are true. Instead, their truth could be demonstrated.
It has always said same sex marriage was wrong and will say that 1000 years from now.
I assume you’re referring to the bible. There are enough inaccuracies and different and contradicting interpretations of the bible to make it obvious it is far from an objective truth, or that it even says that same sex marriage is wrong. Furthermore, even if that were the case our laws are not dictated by what the bible says—you actually have to demonstrate how same sex marriage is harmful for the argument to have weight in a legal sense, and that has never been done.

Posted by: Introspective at June 12, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #156969

The Bible states over and over again to judge ALL things. What we should not do is judge by OUR standards. They will fail us every time. We judge by the only real standard of truth that NEVER changes. When God repents , then I will also.
I will appologize for hurting feelings, but never for standing up for the Word. It has the power to salvation. Check it out sometime.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 12, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #156971

coonyjay,

I strive to follow the Bibles teachings and not be luke warm. You know what that is Randall? It’s not living out your faith in words or deeds. Shame on you.
Shame on you, coonyjay, for following a creed of hate and judgement rather than the creed of love and acceptance that Jesus taught.

Posted by: bigot-hater at June 12, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #156972

Womanmarine:
Never trust your feelings, they change with every wind of doctrine. Find the Truth and hang on tight. It’s not your fault that you are more woman than marine, praise God for both.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 12, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #156975

Tony

I was out for a while, so didn’t get to respond to your ignorant response more quickly. Judges have overruled churches many times in the recent years. Just check out the times that certain churches have said medical care was not an acceptable solution for someone’s health and judges overruled. (I don’t advocate for those religious kooks, but I also don’t advocate for the government and particularly the judicial branch) If judges can restrict those religious beliefs, what is to stop them from resticting the church’s belief in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman? That’s the question! What is to stop the judges? You didn’t answer that question. So, let’s hear your intelligent response.

Posted by: Don at June 12, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #156979

What is love, bigot-hater? Is it refusing to tell someone the truth that will save their lives for eternity so as not to hurt their feelings?
Jesus said “Go and sin no more”. Was he a hater or is that REAL love. You need to read the Bible for yourself and stop pretending to know the truth.
You don’t let someone you LOVE walk off a cliff without at least trying to stop them. Implore them, shout at them if you have to, but try to get them to stop before it’s too late. If they still jump, you have done what you can. Jesus told the truth, even when it hurt. He said things that hurt people so badly, that they hung him on a cross. Brother, that’s love.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 12, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #156980

coonyjay,

To keep men in the sinning business is Satan’s aim. To do it he perverts, withstands, distorts, corrupts, and misrepresents the truth of God. Men who so handle God’s Word are Satan’s agents (II Corinthians 11:3)

You should be more careful in your handling of God’s Word, lest you find yourself on the wrong side of Peter’s gate!

Posted by: bigot-hater at June 12, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #156982

‘Cause everybody’s gotta have somebody to look down on
Who they can feel better than at any time they please,
Someone doing something dirty decent folks can frown on.
If you can’t find somebody else, then help yourself to me.

With apologies to Kris Kristofferson.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 12, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #156985

Bigothater:
Thanks for the verse. I know this is judgemental again, but that Bible version is very bad. Here is one for you.

Joh 7:24 Do not judge according to sight, but judge righteous judgment.

I don’t fear being held accountable by people, if they use God’s Word to admonish and judge me. I am thankful for that. That is actually one of it’s purposes.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 12, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #156986

Don,

Judges don’t tell you what to believe or not believe. The law only intervenes when your implementation of your belief threatens another. Thus, adults can believe in faith-healing over medicine, and judges won’t stop them. However, when adults impose their belief and prevent kids from getting medical treatment, there’s a conflict between the principle of religious liberty and the principle of protecting innocent parties. I think the examples you’ve raised all fall into that category. (Ritual sacrifice is outlawed for the same reason — not to prevent the belief, but to protect third parties who might be injured by the exercise of that belief.) Anyway, I am unaware of anybody suggesting how this rationale might lead judges to somehow compel a church to marry “unqualified” couples. That hardly makes sense.

Posted by: Homer at June 12, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #156987

Womanmarine:
The best chick-flick ever is “A Star is Born” with Kris and Babs. Hate to admit it, but I really liked the movie. But Kris is no Savior. And I don’t look down on folks. I strive to lift them up. This world has taught us that talking openly about stuff is hate or put down. It ain’t, it is what it is. My opinion.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 12, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #156992

Coon

I understand what you are saying in your first post. that when we change the language it makes things easier to accept. That there has been a concerted effort to change language and societal norms to bring about acceptance of things that when I was born were not acceptable. This has taken place in my life time. It is a slow but effective form of brain washing. If we teach that certain words are okay then we relabel ideas and ways with those words it makes them okay. When we cleanse language from what may be seen as derogatory we will end up with a society that accepts anything. We are heading there. Our society is almost cleansed and soon we will accept anything as ok. Not just ok but right or good.

As a Christian I believe strongly that we are fighting a losing battle. some have said it clearly (whether they know it or not) that in the end judgement will come and then what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. In the end that is where this will come to a close but I do not see it sooner.

Remember the full Bible. “As in the days of Noah” that time is soon. As a follower of Jesus I will vote and make my thoughts clear (if possible) but more then that I will leave in the hands of Jesus.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 12, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #156997

Now back to my post.

the part that few have even addressed is the intellectual dishonesty.

I will reiterate it in different words. I find it intellectually dishonest when statements are made that dont allow dialogue. They say I am correct and if you disagree with me too bad subject is closed. It is intellectually dishonest when someone says that changing a 10,000 year societal norm (be it religious or not) is not radical. It is intellectually dishonest when folks result in name calling because of someones assertations.

I want to thank those who have stuck on topic. There have been some who addressed issues with out too much rhetoric :)

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 12, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #156998

coonyjay,

The New Revised Standard Version:

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

The New American Standard Bible:

But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

Contemporary English Version:

But now I fear that you will be tricked, just as Eve was tricked by that lying snake. I am afraid that you might stop thinking about Christ in an honest and sincere way.

The message is the same, regardless of whether or not it is in a version that you judge to be good.

Posted by: bigot-hater at June 12, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #156999

Randall, rather than admit your empty arguments leave you no leg to stand on, you show your homophobia. Moreover you attempted to say you weren’t talking about modern societies. I am reminded of the shock that some fellow students found when our Literature class began reading works like Lysistrata and were amazed that homosexuality existed and was accepted in Greek and Roman societies and at the dawn of civilization. Your biases are based in your ignorance. I’m sad to say many of the “christian right” are just like you. Further evidence of the myth that the Christian right has any business involved in education of our youth. They promote this intentional ignorance.

Posted by: gergle at June 12, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #157002

gergle:
Tell me something. Where are these great, enlightened societies? You know, Greece and Rome. They have done really well, huh?

Posted by: coonyjay at June 12, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #157005

Homer

You have made my point. Religious beliefs do run counter to and “harm” homosexuals according to some. What is to stop an activist judge from deciding that churches must marry gays based upon this alleged “harm”?

Posted by: Don at June 12, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #157006

gergle

Always love watching your name calling and so forth. I must be homophobic since I disagree agree with you on grounds that you do not like. I fully realize that many ancient cultures accepted the act of homosexuality. I never said they did not. I said they did not marry.

In fact it has only been since about 80’s that gay marriage has been accepted any where if I remember correctly. Try hard to stay to what I write not what you wish to interpret from it.

Oh ya I in no way fear anyone who is homosexual. What I do fear is those who in the name of intellectualism throw out mandates that if you disagree with you are ignorant and probably at a 3 grade reading level. Those who are faux intellectual only want to limit free discussion of ideas. They want to take those they do not like out of market place and label them with big words like homophobic, ignorant or racist, sexist, prejudice. These labels that the faux intellectual use are strictly used to stop conversation. I fear them controling our childrens education.

why would a the president of an ivy league school make a statement about math and men and women and the faux intellectual chastise him by saying we cant discuss this. Well here we go again.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 12, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #157008

the later it gets the worse my typing seems to get :) ignore the many many errors in my last post please

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 12, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #157010

Brother Randall:
Thanks for you civility. Your heart seems to me to be in the right place.
Marriage by any but 1 man and 1 woman is absolutely a radical change. Before you finished your post, others were already typing “homophobia”. They are so duped.
The amount and ferocity of marketing of these so called “gay rights” has abased a whole generation of folks. Even some of the very elect.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 12, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #157011

Without a national constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman… there is NOTHING to stop an activist judge from forcing churches to marry gays. Nothing! I predict it will happen within 5 years.

Posted by: Don at June 12, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #157012

Randall,

I fully realize that many ancient cultures accepted the act of homosexuality. I never said they did not. I said they did not marry.
You are, however, incorrect:
One of the recurring cliches of the same-sex marriage debate is that the very notion of such a thing is a radical departure from anything entertained before in human history. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth…. In most, it has never taken the form of the modern institution of marriage, but in some, surprisingly, it has. In seventeenth-century China and nineteenth-century Africa, for example, the institution seems identical to opposite-sex marriage.
From Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con by Andrew Sullivan.

Posted by: Introspective at June 12, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #157013

Randall

Thanks for standing tall.

This is not addressed to you, but to the group.

Why is it after thousands of years of homosexuality being wrong, we have come to a point where we can handle it and call it right?

Why do those of us who are not homosexual are in the vast majority called intolerant for not allowing perverted and deviant behavior by 2 or 3 percent of the population?

Why is sodomy equated with love?

Why do the homosexuals want to lower the age of consent to, in most cases, 12 years of age and in some cases they want to remove it all together?

Why are they trying to ram their beliefs down our throats?

Why are they trying to change school studies to include all aspects of homosexual behavior and tolerance of same?

Oh there are so many questions that the homosexual community cannot answer honestly or intellectually with integrity>

Posted by: tomh at June 12, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #157016
Why is it after thousands of years of homosexuality being wrong, we have come to a point where we can handle it and call it right?

Why do you accept progress that gives you a computer and legalizes marriage between races but hate this progress?

Why do those of us who are not homosexual are in the vast majority called intolerant for not allowing perverted and deviant behavior by 2 or 3 percent of the population?

Why do you call it deviant and perverted just because it’s not what you do? Can I call you deviant just because you’re different from me?

Why is sodomy equated with love?

Why do you consider vaginal intercourse equal to love but not other forms of heterosexual love (since oral sex is also sodomy by law in many states)?

Why do the homosexuals want to lower the age of consent to, in most cases, 12 years of age and in some cases they want to remove it all together?

Why do many more heterosexuals want it?

Why are they trying to ram their beliefs down our throats?

Why are you doing the same?

Why are they trying to change school studies to include all aspects of homosexual behavior and tolerance of same?

Why are fundamentalists trying to change the definition of science in school?

Oh there are so many questions that the homosexual community cannot answer honestly or intellectually with integrity>

Oh there are so many questions that the you and the religious right cannot answer honestly or intellectually with integrity

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 12, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #157017

Don,

Without a national constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman… there is NOTHING to stop an activist judge from forcing churches to marry gays. Nothing!
Pray tell, exactly how would an activist judge pull off this amazing feat? Exactly what law would they interpret wrongly to bring this about? You have fallen for this activist judge myth hook, line, and sinker…you are being used!

Posted by: Introspective at June 12, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #157019

Introspective:

have you read the whole article. I did. The person writing it even states that it is far from being conclusive. It is one person interpretation of something for which there is no supporting documentation. I wont say it did not happen but from what was stated in that article you cant say that it did. I would need to study it further. I will look for a copy of the actual greek manuscript being refered to there and see what it says.

That being said thanks for the challenge.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 12, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #157021

Ok, Lawnboy you asked for it.
Are you gonna tell me that that his thing belongs inside his thing, just like his thing was created to be placed into her thing?
Forget religion for a minute man, open your eyes. Open your brain. It’s insane to compare them.
Listen, folks can do it. You know put his thing in his thing. Go for it.
Just never, NEVER expect me to accept it as normal. It’s not. As a matter of fact it’s destructive to all who contact it.
I really didn’t mean, go for it. Don’t do it boys and girls. Flee from it as fast as you can run.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 12, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #157024

Thanks LawnBoy. Such introspect. Now answer the questions.

Posted by: tomh at June 12, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #157027

coonyjay,

Just never, NEVER expect me to accept it as normal. It’s not.
What you consider to be normal is irrelevant, and I don’t think anyone cares whether you accept it or not. However, whether or not something is “normal” does not determine whether it is right or wrong.
As a matter of fact it’s destructive to all who contact it.
If you can actually demonstrate this you may have the start of an argument—however, I don’t believe you can.

Posted by: Introspective at June 12, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #157029

Introspect

Pray tell, exactly how would an activist judge pull off this amazing feat? Exactly what law would they interpret wrongly to bring this about?

The same way they did Roe VS Wade. There is no law that supports the decision. Even liberal law professors admit to that. They say it is a horrible legal decision that was needed to be made. They intend and work towards courts doing just that. If someone can’t get what they want through legislation then go to the court.

this is not meant to get into a discussion of Roe vs Wade. I just used that as an example of judicial activist.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 12, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #157033

Intro:
My cousin has AIDS.
My brother will never speak to me again because I love Jesus. He lives with his “friend”.
My daughter is living that life and our family is held together by the grace of God only.
Don’t try to pee down MY neck and tell me it’s raining.
I live this in this dark world, but I am not of this dark world.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 12, 2006 11:45 PM
Comment #157034

Randall,

have you read the whole article.
Yes.
It is one person interpretation of something for which there is no supporting documentation.
The following link corroborates everything in Andrew Sullivan’s book:
Same sex marriage in the non-European world

The article also includes a list of sources at the bottom, if you want to research it further.

Posted by: Introspective at June 12, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #157035

One last thing prior to me finally going home after a very long day of work.

sorry for the graphic language I mean no disrespect I will use language that I was taught as proper names for different areas of the body. If i am wrong please let it slide.

Yes there are many many physical ailments directly related to anal sex. The muscle that is used for pushing out in the anus is regularly torn and eventually looses much (if not all) of its ability to function properly. This is physically harmful.

While the vagina is design to recieve in the manner of intercourse and causes no damage in a normal situation. That is the difference. One is not physically damaging while another is.

This is a physical argument against the act of homosexuality because if the body was designed for it then why does it damage the body physically.

well see you all tomorrow.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 12, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #157039

coonyjay,

My cousin has AIDS.
I’m sorry that your cousin has AIDS, but it is no more evidence of homosexuality being destructive than the common cold.
My brother will never speak to me again because I love Jesus. He lives with his “friend”.
I’m sorry your brother will never speak to you again. However, it is not evidence of homosexuality being destructive, but evidence of your intolerance being destructive.
My daughter is living that life and our family is held together by the grace of God only.
Again, it sounds like your intolerance is the problem rather than your daughter’s lifestyle.
Don’t try to pee down MY neck and tell me it’s raining.
Don’t worry, I’m not into that—not that I see anything wrong with it if it happens between two consenting adults.

Posted by: Introspective at June 12, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #157041

One mans stand on what is right is another mans intolerance.
Funny though, the word intolerance used to work on me and shut me up. Now I wear it as a badge of honor.
I can’t argue you that. Intolerant I am.
I won’t tolerate that which God won’t tolerate.
1. rape
2. murder
3. child abuse
4. perversion of any kind
5. attacks on the family(God ordained family)
6. theft
7. lies
8. blasphemy
9. adultery
10. absolute tolerance( won’t even tolerate tolerance)

Posted by: coonyjay at June 13, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #157042

Randall is right. The anus is not designed to except objects going into it. It is only designed to to push items out. By inserting items in damage is done to the muscles as well as the walls. A look at the opening of the anus will tell anyone that it’s not designed to except objects going in.

Gayle Brown RN.

Posted by: Gayle Brown at June 13, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #157043

Randall,

Yes there are many many physical ailments directly related to anal sex. This is a physical argument against the act of homosexuality because if the body was designed for it then why does it damage the body physically.
It is true that there are additional health risks when engaging in anal sex, but what does this have to do with gay marriage, or whether homosexuality is right or wrong? Many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex. Lesbian couples generally do not. Some gay couples do not engage in anal sex either. Some heterosexual couples engage in other sexual practices that are as potentially as damaging to the body as anal sex. Finally, there are physical ailments that are associated with vaginal intercourse as well (an increased risk of bladder infections, for example), not to mention the risks inherent with pregnancy and other “natural” functions of the body.

Are you saying you’re okay with gay marriage as long as the couple avoids anal sex?

Posted by: Introspective at June 13, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #157044

maybe

Posted by: coonyjay at June 13, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #157046

It’s called friendship.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 13, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #157047

That’s why I say there are no homosexuals, only people who are doing perverted sex.
Take away the mano a mano sex and no prob. You got a poker game(no pun intended)

Posted by: coonyjay at June 13, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #157059

coonyjay,

That’s why I say there are no homosexuals, only people who are doing perverted sex.
Just curious. What do you consider perverted sex?
It’s called friendship.
No, it’s called a legal contract between two people who love each other, whether or not they have sex. If you believe friendship is the same thing then I suggest we eliminate all the civil rights that come with straight marriage—then gays can’t complain that they don’t have equal rights. You seem to think that gay people’s desire to marry is about sex, but that makes no sense. Gay people—like straight people—are having sex whether or not they are married. They want all the rights of marriage because of love and family—it has nothing to do with sex.

Posted by: Introspective at June 13, 2006 1:29 AM
Comment #157063

There is no straight or gay.
It’s normal / abnormal.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 13, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #157064

coonyjay,

What do you consider perverted sex? Be specific.

Posted by: Introspective at June 13, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #157068

When you use the actual words that describe the situation or action, the whole house starts to crumble. The lie begins to get light shone on it and it’s kinda embarrassing that you defended it for so long. Use the real words….
pervert
fornication
abnormal
adultery

Posted by: coonyjay at June 13, 2006 1:55 AM
Comment #157069

Acts that go against nature. Acts that go against God. Acts that are unnatural. To take something made for beauty and distorting it. To twist a natural act into something wrong.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 13, 2006 1:57 AM
Comment #157071

Funny thing is marriage is a man and woman and Biblically the marriage bed is not defiled. That scripture means a man and woman consecrated by God in marriage are good to go. What happpens in a marriage bed, stays in a marriage bed. Cool……….

Posted by: coonyjay at June 13, 2006 2:01 AM
Comment #157073

per·vert·ed , per·vert·ing , per·verts
To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.

To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.

To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 13, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #157075

Intro:
Ask yourself why they are “Gay” - whoohoo, happy, party, good, fun, better, superior
and you are just “straight”—————————
Doesn’t seem fair, huh?
You gotta see their game. They have you defending them while they oppress YOU. To them YOU are a second class citizen. Ever heard the term “breeder”?
Not too flattering. It is a war and you are a pawn of the enemy. Study it my man.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 13, 2006 2:12 AM
Comment #157077

The bible also condones rape and slavery, while condemning the consumption of shellfish or pork. Somehow I find it odd that when using the bible as an example of morality, only certain passages are selectively used.

Posted by: Cube at June 13, 2006 2:16 AM
Comment #157078

coonyjay,

Acts that go against nature. Acts that go against God. Acts that are unnatural.
These are general. I asked you to be specific. What sexual acts do you think are perverted? Describe the actual sexual acts, and where it says they are against God. Describe why they are unnatural, and where it says that God opposes unnatural acts.

You’re not making much sense to me, and I’m not sure you even know yourself where you stand. I’m trying to pinpoint your position, but the target keeps moving…

Posted by: Introspective at June 13, 2006 2:18 AM
Comment #157080

I have often marveled at the hypocrisy of both sides of the issue of homosexuality and its place in American society. I am personally agaist gay marriage for the following reasons. First, it is against my faith as a Catholic. Two, I do feel that the acceptance of homosexual marriage by the state is yet another example of government disregarding the will of the people. The foundation of our government’s legitimacy is the consent of the governed, and when judges impose their beliefs against the will of huge majorities, it erodes the legitimacy of government. Third, the acceptance of gay marriage will inevitably have further consequences. A good example is the Texas sodomy case. How long will it be before someone with multiple wives uses this case as precedent to get the courts to reject the prohibition on polygamy?

Further, while other societies have accepted polygamy and other marriage arrangements, we are a western nation based on Christian beliefs and mores. No matter how it is sliced, redefining marriage fundamentally alters our society. We have the duty to explore what effects this will have before just walking blindly into it.

In addition, any comparison of gay rights to racial minorities is fundamentally flawed. Whether or not a person is born gay or chooses that lifestyle is irrelevent. What makes someone gay, as opposed to feeling an attraction for someone of the same sex, is an ACT. A virgin who feels attraction for someone of the same sex is not gay as they have not performed a sexual act. This is totally different from a racial minority, whose status as a minority has nothing to do with any acts they do.

That being said, we should be more worried about the state of our own house before attacking gays for wanting to be married. I have a cousin who is gay, and he and his partner are far better examples of what I would expect of a loving and committed couple than many heterosexuals I see. We need to take back the sanctity of marriage for ourselves before casting stones at others. Far too few people want to actually work for thier marriages to make them work. Far too many couples simply don’t bother with marriage and just move in together. Far too many fathers are good at fathering children but not being there at all for their children. Far too many couples do terrible harm to their children through mental and physical abuse. Until we sort these problems out, it is hypocritical of those who oppose gay marriage to think we have any moral high ground.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 13, 2006 2:31 AM
Comment #157084
The foundation of our government’s legitimacy is the consent of the governed, and when judges impose their beliefs against the will of huge majorities, it erodes the legitimacy of government.

1LTB

Nearly a direct quote from Thomas Jefferson, so why not also use this one:

The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.

Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Cube at June 13, 2006 3:22 AM
Comment #157092
Marriage has been a religious institution for over 10,000 years.

10,000 years!? Woa, I guess marriage history just cancel Intelligent Design theory, then?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 13, 2006 4:47 AM
Comment #157095
Everyone that is of age has the right to marry but they currently have to marry someone of the opposite sex. I could think of many sociological reasons for this through human history. The main one is of course propagation of the human race.

Human biology is enough for that. They’re having children everywhere since forever and, guess what, the first ones were NOT even married! Worst, they were polygamic.

If you are married to someone of the same sex you are not able to have children together.

Some people are not able to have children, married or not, heterosexual or not. They have to deal with it and - surprise - heterosexual ones are actually helped by every modern societies to find a way to finally have a kid (adoption, in vitro, alternative mother, sperm donator, whatever…).
But not homosexual ones.

Why? Both in such case are not able to have children alone. This discrimination is clearly not based on marriage but on sexual orientation.

Doesn’t sexual discrimination against your laws in US?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 13, 2006 5:05 AM
Comment #157097

Coonyjay,

To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse.

Ooops, you just label all these married people that have oral sex or just playing with their nipples as being perverts.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 13, 2006 5:17 AM
Comment #157100

Lynne,

Why not do as many European countries do…marriage is both a contract recognized by the government (so people have a civil ceremony in the town hall) and it can be a religious promise (so those who want go thru the civil ceremony at the town hall and then hold the religious service)…

Because it’s too european way, and it’s well known that europeans are all perverted leftists communists.
;-)

Anyway, please note that in many european countries only heterosexuals can still have a civil ceremony in the town hall, while homosexuals can only sign an union contract in town hall offices. Still quite discrimination.

In France, this union contract don’t give the same legal rights than marriage give to heterosexuals (only). So even here we’ve yet to fix this issue completely…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 13, 2006 5:33 AM
Comment #157116

Randall Randall Randal….
For 10,000 years SLAVERY was the societal norm too AND it was sanctioned by the Bible - are you telling me getting rid of that was a big mistake too?
Take a moment and really read about the “normal stuff” in the Bible things like killing your children (take that you pro-lifers out there), having multiple wives etc. and try to make that argument again. Unless you want to live in a tribe in the middle east between 2 and 5 thousand years ago - it’s not going to work in modern society.
If you wanted to be Christian … to be like Jesus… you would love everybody and let God be the judge ‘cause it’s NOT YOUR JOB.

Posted by: kp at June 13, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #157121

coonjay,

Are you gonna tell me that that his thing belongs inside his thing, just like his thing was created to be placed into her thing?

It frightens me that you’re not mature enough to use real terms here. The operative words are “penis”, “anus”, “penis”, and “vagina”. This is just one of many ways you’ve shown your inability to discuss this issue as an adult.

Anyway, I’m not going to claim that the penis and anus evolved together for a purpose of evolutionary advantage. That doesn’t mean, though, that there’s anything moreally wrong with using them that way.

As an analogy, the human nose did not evolve so that it would be a good place to rest eyewear - it just worked out that way. There’s nothing wrong with reusing my nose for a purpose other than the primary evolutionary goal.

Forget religion for a minute man, open your eyes. Open your brain. It’s insane to compare them.

I’ll try to ignore your implied insults here, but what comparison do you reject?

Listen, folks can do it. You know put his thing in his thing. Go for it.

Thanks for the permission!

Just never, NEVER expect me to accept it as normal. It’s not.

If by normal you mean the most common behavior, you’re right. I don’t think that’s what you mean, though.

As a matter of fact it’s destructive to all who contact it.

What is “it” here? I can’t think of a single thing relevant to the conversation that would fit here and be accurate.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 13, 2006 8:34 AM
Comment #157124

tomh,

Thanks LawnBoy. Such introspect. Now answer the questions.

I think I did, but I’ll try again. Will you try to answer the questions I raised?

Why is it after thousands of years of homosexuality being wrong, we have come to a point where we can handle it and call it right?

It’s called social progress. It’s the same phenomena that we saw when we banned slavery and later allowed inter-racial marriage, or when women gained the right to vote. All of those things were shocking developments opposed by some who used the Bible for their arguments.

Why do those of us who are not homosexual are in the vast majority called intolerant for not allowing perverted and deviant behavior by 2 or 3 percent of the population?

Well, heterosexuals in the vast majority are not called intolerant. It’s only those that chose to believe that the way they were born is somehow superior to the way others are born.

Why is sodomy equated with love?

Well, this is a strawman of your own making, so I can’t really answer it. Are you asking why sex overall is equated with love? Because I don’t think many people gay or straight believe it. What is commonly believed is that sexuality is a means of showing love (and many other emotions), sodomy being one of the ways of doing it.

Why do the homosexuals want to lower the age of consent to, in most cases, 12 years of age and in some cases they want to remove it all together?

This is really another strawman. Apparently there’s a small subset of homosexuals that want this, but I’d never heard of it until a comment earlier on the thread. In contrast, this is also something that many, many heterosexuals want. I don’t see the point of the question.

Why are they trying to ram their beliefs down our throats?

They’re not. They just want the laws not to restrict them unfairly. Unfortunately, you want the law to do so. The only reason it’s a problem is that you chose to stand in the way of their having equal rights.

Why are they trying to change school studies to include all aspects of homosexual behavior and tolerance of same?

“all aspects”? I don’t think that’s true. Anyway, I think it’s quite reasonable for a group not to want schools to teach that their group is deserving of hate. Don’t you?

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 13, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #157127

Using the bible to convey some fact or truth is the biggest assualt on “intellectual honesty” I can think of.

Its like using a Tom Clancy book to support an argument on terrorism.

Was the Bible written by God? Even “If” it was man is fallible, corruptable, and throughout most of our history evil. Is there some holy angel flying around preventing man from using this text for personal or dishonest gains? To not consider the fact that the bible has been misinterpreted and used to control people is “intellectual dishonesty”.

I think there is alot that can be learned from the bible. But quoting it as fact?? Thats nuts. It just has no place in this argument. Same as marriage as a cov·e·nant n.
A binding agreement; a compact. Law.
A formal sealed agreement or contract.
A suit to recover damages for violation of such a contract.
In the Bible, God’s promise to the human race.
The dictionary lists its relation to religion LAST. In china people get married. Are they christian? Not a significant number of them. To think that christianity has a monopoly on Marriage!?!
No one is asking you to accept gay marriage, they are simply asking you to shut your mouth and let others enjoy “life Libery and the pursuit of happiness”

Posted by: stopculture at June 13, 2006 8:51 AM
Comment #157140

1LT B,

What makes someone gay, as opposed to feeling an attraction for someone of the same sex, is an ACT. A virgin who feels attraction for someone of the same sex is not gay as they have not performed a sexual act.

That is just untrue. Sexual acts are just the outward manifestations of the true nature of sexuality, which is internal. Homosexuals may be made identifiable by their actions, but they are defined by their internal orientation.

Similarly, I knew I was heterosexual and defined myself as heterosexual long before I had intercourse. I wasn’t gay or amorphously undefined before I had sex - I was straight.

I would guess the same is/was true for you, and the analogous statements are true for homoesexuals.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 13, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #157141

Randall states this is one of the biggest deals in history and supports that with three bullet points about nothing. This may be the weakest article ever put on Watchblog.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 13, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #157144

Homosexuality and all the baggage that is with it, is not main stream in society. It is a very small minority. It is also perversion. Those that practice it are radical and extremists. Those in the main stream are being asked and sometimes forces to follow the homosexuality agenda. Even people in MA do not support what their legislature and courts are doing. They are preparing an amendment on marriage definition being one man and one woman.
When people want to change the law, they should go to their legislature to change it and not the courts. Far too often the courts have legislated instead of adjudicated.
Some of you have quoted the Bible.
One “quote” was that the bible condones rape. What an insult that the Holy Scriptures condones rape. That is not worth commenting on any further.
There are two periods of bible history.
The first is under the law.
The second is under grace.
If you are going to quote the Bible, then study the difference between those two historical periods of time. I can assure you that if you really study, you will come away from your study with a different outlook on life.
Now all those who cannot understand the straight forwardness of these words, go ahead and read into it what you want, but understand what I have said fist.
Anything you add to the above is at your own peril.

Posted by: tomh at June 13, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #157145

But remember, tomh hates no one.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 13, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #157146

That should have been:

(Homosexuality) is also perversion. Those that practice it are radical and extremists.

But remember, tomh hates no one.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 13, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #157164

I see here statements from the Bible and some against what the Bible has to say about HOMOSEXUALITY.

I agree that the Bible states it to be a sin…and not only a sin but a sin of the worst kind.

In the book of Romans, Paul in discussing homosexuality, teaches that it is a part of the WRATH OF GOD upon a people or nation who has rejecected the God of the Bible.

In other words homosexuality is God’s punishment upon those who refuse to acknowledge God as God. It is God saying if you reject me I will also reject you, and the result of that rejection is God letting mankind go the way of his sinful evil nature, and in the case of some, it leads to homosexality, to others it may be something else.

What ever else it is… it is a warning from God that we need to repent and forsake our rejection of God and God’s standards for out life.

IF WE DO NOT, GOD WILL CONTINUE TO REJECT US AND GIVE US OVER TO OUR SINFUL NATURE WHICH WILL LEAD TO A FINAL REJECTION OF US BY GOD AND A FINAL MANIFESTION OF HIS WRATH.

This could be the beggining of the end of the United Satate Of America. This could be a warning form God, giving us one last chance to repent, and if we do not…………………..

Posted by: ROGER at June 13, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #157167

I just got an email from God, and she said that she prefers gay marriage because its far more fabulous.

She also sent me a funny forward about Pat Robertson, she created him for comic relief, and didn’t think anyone would take him seriously.

I also have fifteen voicemails from Jesus (he calls way too much) emploring me to post on watchblog his message (yay): after watching an episode of Queer Eye, he has shaved, gotten a hair cut, did some crunches and gotten his right ear peirced.

Times are changing, and they are only going to be ssssssssssssuper.

Posted by: tree hugger at June 13, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #157174

LawnBoy,

Good point, I didn’t word that correctly. More properly speaking, if someone has two black parents, they are black irregardless of any choice they make. If someone is born a female, she is a female, and only the tinkering of scientists who fly in the face of what God intends can change that. However, being gay does involve specific acts, so in that case, choosing to engage in homosexual acts should not be a case for special protection, though I do find it hard to make a case against civil unions for gay couples when the religious aspect is disregarded.

However, I wonder if the newfound acceptance of gays will be good for them in the long run. Bear with me on this one. The sole BIOLOGICAL function of sex is procreation. A person who is exclusively homosexual cannot naturally concieve a child. Even societies that tolerated homosexuality did so as a sort of lustful distraction to marriage. Therefore, one might assume that many homosexuals ended up in heterosexual relationships if for no other reason than to avoid persecution. However, if homosexuality is completely tolerated and any motivation to engage in heterosexual acts, which no matter how loveless can always bear children is gone, homosexuals could concievably die out in a few generations. This is especially true if one believes that homosexuality is strictly a function of genetics.

I feel a bit stupid for challenging my own hypothesis, but I doubt this will happen. Genetics only influence, they don’t decide. For example, a person may be genetically disposed to be obese, but can maintain a healthy weight through healthy lifestyle choices. I’ve seen contradictory evidence on this subject where homosexuality is concerned, so I guess I don’t really know what to believe in this case.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 13, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #157179

tree hugger: LOL!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 13, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #157184
However, I wonder if the newfound acceptance of gays will be good for them in the long run…

Interesting hypothesis, but I don’t think that the genetics of sexuality work that way. While there seems to be some genetic basis to homosexuality, but not strong enough for this mechanism to work (twins studies suggest that homosexuality has a genetic component, but it’s not absolute). From the link, “Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single “gay gene” that determines something as complex as sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of a number of biological factors.” Additionally, I don’t believe there’s any evidence that the parents of homosexuals are largely self-closeted homosexuals themselves.

So, I don’t think this argument will carry weight in the scientific of homosexual communities.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 13, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #157188

Randall,

The accusation of intellectual dishonesty is not only false I don’t think you know what it means. Let’s look at your three points.

“There are no major societies in history that have allowed gay marriage.”

No argument there. There is nothing dishonest about arguing whether at this point in time it relevant though unless you believe in tradition for traditions sake alone but that is not the argument you made. I’m not sure you actually made an argument.

“Why do so many of those who argue for gay marriage argue against making a civil union possible. This is intellectually dishonest because a civil union would give the same legal status just not the societal status.”

Is this bait? Many on the left are arguing for civil unions. Many would argue also that is not enough and discriminatory. Many on the right argue that promotoing civil unions is the intellectually dishonest position because a civil union bestows all the rights of marriage without calling it marriage. Are you confused?

“Now suddenly people are expected to sit by and let the changes to a treasured religious institution be changed. If any one opposes it they are called names such as homophobic or prejudice. There are no options left open for discussion. This is the definition for intellectual dishonesty.”

Of course not. However, again you do not understand intellectual dishonesty. No one is asking any religion to marry homosexuals. It is the state that is being asked to consider fair and equal protection for couples who want to commit to each other and receive the benefits the state awards marriage. When marriage is religious (and you don’t currently have to belong to any religion to get married) that is the perview of that church or religion. Why can’t you feel the strength of your faith and the sanctioning of marriage by your church to be the real definition of marriage? Again, where is the dishonesty implied in your statement?

Obviously, your claim of intellectual purity needs a lot of work but I’m not sure it will help.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 13, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #157199

Randall said,
“No one is that a gay person is not able to marry. They have the same legal right as I do to marry someone of the opposite sex. Now what is being asked is for special rights to marry someone of the same sex.”

You don’t understand logic because the above statement does not follow its premise. If everyone can marry a man or woman what is special about that right? Now if the government says Randall and ONLY Randall can marry men then that would be special.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 13, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #157198

LawnBoy,

I tend to think you’re right. I was struck by that idea from reading an article in Foriegn Policy. It suggested that since most liberals have less children than conservatives, the liberal voice of America would die out through a lack of breeding (as opposed to sex). Based on that, I figured it might make an interesting discussion point where homosexuality is concerned.

On an unrelated point, I think that another point might bear discussion. The proper term for someone who is an extreme conservative is a reactionary. In this case, it is interesting that all of the hubub about homosexual marriage came about as a result of reaction to some homosexual activists attempting to redefine marriage. Somewhat like the phrase “under God” being questioned in the Pledge of Alliegence, I think this issue wasn’t a concern to most people until the activists made it so.

I believe that both sides might try the radical idea of minding their own damned business and keeping their sexuality private. The fact that I’m straight does become a condition of my employment, but there’s only about 1 million people in the military, so its not that big a segment of the population. What consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is their own business. Jesus tells us to hate the sin and love the sinner. A lot of people on the right could take a lesson from that. At the same time, homosexual activists might take into consideration the fact that alot of people disagree with the idea of homosexuality for reasons beyond being a closeted homosexual in fear of themselves. Rather than shouting, we might try a bit of mutual respect.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 13, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #157211

Don said,

“Without a national constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman… there is NOTHING to stop an activist judge from forcing churches to marry gays. Nothing! I predict it will happen within 5 years.”

Wanna bet. I could take a lot of money from the religious right on this one.

Don, there is so much fear in your slippery slope. The previous analogies to ritual sacrifice and denying children medical treatment are compelling and do not lead down the path of forcing a religion to believe or perform anything.

Try this one on for size,
The government announced today that religions must marry heterosexuals and they must have children.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 13, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #157212

Chris2x

thanks for your response. Let me clarify. You may not be this way but from what I have read and what I have heard there are a large contingency that say it is no big deal and we should just let it happen. this is dishonest. It is a big deal and why should we give up our right to argue against this.

If we argue against it many many people start the name calling. I am glad you did not but read some of the other post here. Many people assumed what I meant and brought it further then I did.

I need to be clear here. I do not support civic unions. I just find it interesting when so many of the activist say this is not acceptable it must be marriage. If you say there is no difference why do they. It must be sociological. They want society to accept this as ok or normal. I do not and currently neither does most of the US.

Of course history has a place in any intellectual discussion. I think it is dishonest to say it does not. This country was founded on certain principles and it is dishonest to disavow those with out everyone having a say. Our culture here in the US is one based on judeo christian values. I realize that many want this changed. That is okay they have that right to try but dont I also have the right to fight the change?

The reason that I claimed this as a definition for intellectual dishonesty is not because it is a treasured religious institution but because many people are trying to stop honest and open discussion about it. The stopping of discussion is what is intellectually dishonest especially since most of it is coming from those who are supposed to be tolerant and open to new ideas. I will submit here that they are neither tolerant nor open to ideas.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 13, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #157226

Randall,

I just can’t accept your argument. It really seems to be coming down to “It’s intellectually honest to disagree with me,” and that’s not honest, either.

You make your points. We make our points. When we make our points, you call them intellectually dishonest. But are we really doing anything differently than you are? Aren’t your claims about the Judeo-Christian history of our society intended to be convincing and final as much as we intend our arguments to be convincing and final? Aren’t references to religion intended to end the conversation?

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 13, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #157229

I am just waiting for the rapture so we can have our earth back…

Posted by: tree hugger at June 13, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #157244

Lawnboy

I have no problem with you or anyone who makes their point. the problem is with those who wont allow for someone to make a point other then theirs. I do not expect anyone to change their view based on what I have said here. My only purpose in this post was to see if what I was stating was true. I have found out it was.

On this blog there have been a few exceptions but not that many. Most people who disagree with me came on using slander or were very derogatory towards me just because of what I think. I expected that. They attempted to disempower my arguments by saying that they are invalid just because they do not like the premise. I was looking to see if anyone who stands for gay marriage was able to honestly talk about it with out resorting to hyperbole. Only a very few have.

References to religion have never ended the conversation for me. I would not expect they do so for anyone here or this post would be much shorter. The real question is why is it not a valid point to reference? Our current society is based on it.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 13, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #157249
I was looking to see if anyone who stands for gay marriage was able to honestly talk about it with out resorting to hyperbole. Only a very few have.

I would hope that you look at the rhetoric of those who agree with you on the issue. I think you’ll find that the pro-gay-marriage side is no worse in this regard than the anti-gay-marriage side.

Also, I was hoping for a response to my question from June 12, 2006 06:37 PM.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 13, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #157254

I have noticed and even stated so. I realize that there is much tension on this subject.

Let me explain what I see as different. I do not see to many from the right saying that this cant be discussed and that I have no right in doing so. I have had many post from the left stating that. read them you will see. I do not mind the discussion but I do not like the dishonesty from those who say we cant discuss this because we are not of the right type to discuss this.

Now as for your question about Allah. That is correct. I would still worship Jesus and most likely go to jail or be killed that is what happens over there. I have known Christians who have died in Muslim countries for their faith. They are a legitimate government and have the right to make laws that I dont like. If I choose to follow them or not is my perogative. I will suffer the consequences. I also think we have the right to make the laws as we see fit. If it becomes law through the legislative process not through the court process then I will stand up for their right to marry. If it is through the courts then I will look at it as illegitimate. Courts should not make law. Until this happens though I will stand up against it. If i fail I do if not good.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 13, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #157267

Posted by: tomh at June 12, 2006 11:09 PM

Why is it after thousands of years of homosexuality being wrong, we have come to a point where we can handle it and call it right?

- Reading these posts, I’m not sure that we’ve come to a point where we can handle it and call it right. That’s too bad, because in the balance, this issue is trivial considering the challenges facing us today. It it totally irrelevant whether one is gay by choice or by genetic influence, the fact remains that gays exist. They exist as sure as do folks who are left handed. There was a time, when superstitious people thought lefties were possessed by demons. Lefties weren’t normal. Some were persecuted. Others “trained” to be right handed. Obviously, this was a ridiculous notion based on fear of the different. Now we know, lefties are just as “normal” as righties.

We can’t “train” people out of being gay. We can’t round them all up and give them a pill, or kill them because they are deviants. So, what is the alternative? Acceptance. Toleration. Love towards our neighbor. At a minimum, “Live and Let Live”. People who love each other and are committed to taking care of each other for life should be embraced and celebrated. There is too much pain and sorrow in this world today. There are too many children without loving parents. Why shouldn’t I embrace a couple who want to take care of a child with no parents? If two people want to marry, why should I care? This does not injure me, it doesn’t take from my wealth or my life or my faith or my love. It does not ridicule nor degrade my marriage to my wife. It does not hurt my children. Please tell me again what the damage is? In my opinion Christ would embrace love and decry hate and bigotry.

Why do those of us who are not homosexual are in the vast majority called intolerant for not allowing perverted and deviant behavior by 2 or 3 percent of the population?

- I’ve not been called intolerant by gays friends I know and I’m not homosexual. By the way, deviant behavior has many shapes and sizes. Some would say that masturbation is deviant. Heterosexuals do this as much as homosexuals. Is this a perversion? Is anal sex a perversion? Is oral sex? If one believes so, then a large percentage of heterosexuals practice deviant and perverted behavior. I believe that deviant behavior is something that is in the eye of the beholder. After all, some “Christian denominations” renounced interracial marriage as “deviant and perverted” not too long ago. I think we have grown and matured to the point where we realize this belief was based on fear versus understanding.


Why is sodomy equated with love?

- Sodomy is a sexual act, and has varying definitions. In some states, sodomy includes oral sex. In no case have I ever heard (except from teenagers) that sexual acts are equated with love. That is a relatively juvenile point of view. Kissing alone cannot be equated with love. Sexual acts alone can not be equated with love. Sexual acts, kissing, and other signs of affection for one another are to be sure expressions of one’s love for another if Love exists between the two in the first place. I find it unreasonable to believe that porn stars are actually in love with their work colleagues yet they perform sexual acts together on a regular basis. I guess I don’t understand why you asked the question. Why do you equate sodomy with love?


Why do the homosexuals want to lower the age of consent to, in most cases, 12 years of age and in some cases they want to remove it all together?

- In my life, I’ve personally known more than 50 people that are gay. I’ve never, ever heard one of them (either male or female) advocate, suggest, concur with or agree with the notion of lowering the age of consent to 12. I think most mature and intelligent human beings regardless of sexual orientation find the idea of lowering the age of consent to 12 being repugnant. I’m the father of a son and two daughters, and I can tell you that in no way are children of this age intellectually or emotionally ready for sexual activity and any adult who thinks they are regardless of their sexual orientation is seriously deluded or ill.

Why are they trying to ram their beliefs down our throats?

- Again, based on my experience, I’ve never had any gay or lesbian ram their beliefs down my throat. I simply believe their request is to be treated equally. Not better, not worse, but equally. What is wrong with the notion of fairness? What is so bloody special about marriage that it must be exclusively heterosexual?

It is a point of certainty that we have men and women in the military, police and fire service who are gay. These are people willing to risk their lives for me and you. Are we to tell them that they have no standing with us? Are we to refuse to them the basic liberties that we enjoy? To say yes to this is to declare that all people are NOT created equal and that this country only respects people of like mind and like sexuality.

What is heartening however, is that the youth of our nation seem to have put this matter to bed. Polls of young people from the ages of 19 - 30 years old consistently support and advocate gay marriage, or at least civil unions. I’m optimistic that this matter, like interracial marriage before us will eventually wind up in the dust-bin of historical prejudice. Please consider that only a couple of hundred years ago some people thought anyone who was not white was sub-human. Our constitution expressly supported the notion that anyone “not free” was less than equal. Some thought anyone who was not Christian was sub-human. We have fortunately for us, changed our opinions about those things for the better.

Why are they trying to change school studies to include all aspects of homosexual behavior and tolerance of same?

- Please be more specific when you ask the question. Exactly how are “they” (Who is “they” by the way?) trying to change school studies? What are all the aspects of homosexual behavior?

Oh there are so many questions that the homosexual community cannot answer honestly or intellectually with integrity>

- I think if you have a sincere dialog with homosexuals you will find they will honestly and in many cases intellectually answer your questions with integrity. Sometimes it takes listening with a different perspective to see it.

As to religious points of view regarding homosexuality, it is true that the Bible does make statements indicating that homosexuality is an abomination. It also strongly advocates the death penalty for adultery, working on the Sabbath, disrespectful children and many other matters that we have decided are not worthy of such oppressive punishment. One wonders why?

The late reverend William Sloane Coffin, former chaplain at Yale and the pastor Riverside Church in New York City had this to say about our brothers and sisters who are gay:

“It is not Scripture that creates hostility to homosexuality, but rather hostility to homosexuals that prompt some Christians to recite a few sentences from Paul and retain passages from an otherwise discarded Old Testament law code. In abolishing slavery and in ordaining women we’ve gone beyond biblical literalism. It’s time we did the same with gays and lesbians. The problem is not how to reconcile homosexuality with scriptural passages that condemn it, but rather how to reconcile the rejection and punishment of homosexuals with the love of Christ. It can’t be done. So instead of harping on what’s “natural,” let’s talk about what’s “normal,” what operates according to the norm. For Christians, the norm is Christ’s love. If people can show the tenderness and constancy in caring that honor’s Christ’s love, what matters their sexual orientation? Shouldn’t a relationship be judged by its inner worth rather than by its outer appearance? When has a monopoly on durable life-warming love been held by legally wed heterosexuals?”

I think the good reverend explains this conundrum regarding homosexuality better than anyone I’ve heard or read. God’s love is not exclusionary. I think when we attempt to interpret God’s love to help shape a political argument, that my friends is deviant behavior.

Posted by: Dennis at June 13, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #157269

Randall,

Thanks for your response. I have read your posts and am impressed with the civil discourse and that you mean well. I also don’t call people names or label “conservatives” or “christians” or “homosexuals” in a derorgatory manner. That said I think we need to be a little more specific in what we mean. Calling someone names in order to shut down debate whether conservative or liberal is not dishonest although counterproductive. If I say I’m for reasoned debate and proceed to shout you down then I’m being dishonest.

I have to agree with Lawnboy. Your position essentially becomes because I disagree with you I am not being honest. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. Whether your opinion is constitutional or good for society is open for honest debate. Is there a lot of name calling going on both sides? Sure!

“intellectual honesty” means rational, logical argument based on sound premises. If I set up a strawman by giving your position false our exaggerated claims in order to easily knock it down that is dishonest. If I say that thousands of years of tradition does not mean much to me if I think it perpetuates an injustice (i.e. slavery or war) that is reasoned disagreement but not dishonest.

Again, if your religious views say you should not marry a man then don’t. No one is making you. If you believe in liberty then I would say use your free speech to speak about the evils of homosexuality. If you believe as you apparently do that homosexual marriage is bad for society then show the compelling public interest. If you oppose tax breaks for homosexual couples then perhaps you should oppose tax breaks for heterosexual couples. That would be honest.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 13, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #157299

RE: intellectual dishonesty.

It’s hard to have a conversation regarding logic over a bulletin board like this, but this one has been pretty good.

The main point of Randall’s original post was the “intellectual dishonesty” of those who oppose a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage, and he made three points, all of which may be statements of fact, but none of which hold water as logical arguments against gay marriage.

First, he claimed that no major society in history had allowed gay marriage. Up until 230 years ago, no society had allowed their citizens to run the government. Until less than 100 years ago, women were second-class citizens. The same argument could have been applied in opposition to either of those ground-breaking changes.

Second, he argued that those in favor of gay marriage should be more open to the idea of civil unions. This is the most compelling legal argument in the current debate, but he disproves his own point with his last sentence: “civil union would give the same legal status just not the societal status.” This is the “separate but equal” argument as presented during the civil rights movement, later determined unconstitutional.

Third, and most honest, is the fear that allowing gay marriage will somehow weaken the religious institution of marriage. I would argue that the religious institution of marriage is not being changed, only the legal institution of marriage. Just as someone who has been divorced may not be married before God but can be married legally, so should gay couples be allowed to marry. I haven’t seen any numbers to prove it, but I’d be willing to bet the house that there are more people in this country that are on a second or third marriage than there are gay couples hoping to marry. Which sin is worse, Homosexuality or Adultery?

Now, I have made logical, fact-based arguments against each of your points. Tell me, am I intellectually dishonest?

Posted by: David S at June 13, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #157330

I wonder about whether or not the state would end up getting involved with churches or not. Take into consideration the recent story in Massachusetts where a Catholic adoption agency was told that they had to consider gay couples for kids, against their beliefs, or get out of the adoption business. I would foresee a gay couple being told that they can’t get married in a church and then the lawsuits begin…

Posted by: SWMichiganBill at June 13, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #157331
The homosexual groups have a long term agenda to destroy marriage as we know it today.

tomh,

Did you find the lost “Official 2006 Gay Agenda”?

HRC spokesperson, Steven Fisher, broke the news yesterday at a press conference in New York. “We had this year’s final gay agenda drafted. We sent one of our interns to make copies, and he inadvertently left it on a crosstown bus on his way to Kinkos.”

If found contact The Human Rights Campaign.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 13, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #157342

SWMichiganBill-

Hadn’t heard that story. Any link?

Posted by: David S at June 13, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #157348

OK, so I found a good article covering the whole thing on boston.com. It’s from 3/11/06, just after Catholic Charities elected to stop doing adoptions.

The thing I found interesting here is that Catholic Cahrities of Boston had been doing gay adoptions for years, though very few. Out of about 720 total children placed, 13 were in gay households. The Globe ran a story exposing the gay adoptions, so the bishops in Boston’s archdiocese (yes, that archdiocese) launched an investigation. During the investigation, the board of directors for Cahtholic Charities voted unanimously to continue placing children in gay households. The bishops said no, and went to the state house to seek a resolution from Gov. Romney. The governor proposed a bill exempting religious adoption agencies from potential discrimination suits, but the bishops declined and instead chose to shut down the agency. The interesting thing about all of this is that the gay rights groups were never involved. There was no lawsuit filed, and the governor was actively pursuing legislation that would exempt religious institutions from discrimination suits.

Posted by: David S at June 13, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #157352
There are no major societies in history that have allowed gay marriage. It is one of the most radical changes ever made in the social structure of any society.

Randall,

History of same-sex unions

Why do so many of those who argue for gay marriage argue against making a civil union possible. This is intellectually dishonest because a civil union would give the same legal status just not the societal status.

I don’t. The government should not be sanctioning any religious institutions. Civil Unions should be the only government recognized union for legal purposes, for same or opposite sex partners. Marriage should be a religous ceramony recognized by the Church, completetly seperate from Civil Unions for legal purposes.

Marriage has been a religious institution for over 10,000 years. Now suddenly people are expected to sit by and let the changes to a treasured religious institution be changed. If any one opposes it they are called names such as homophobic or prejudice. There are no options left open for discussion. This is the definition for intellectual dishonesty.

See above. The government should follow the first amendment and stay out of the religous “marriage” business.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 13, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #157356

SWMichiganBill,

That is one of the smaller examples of what can/will happen when you erode seperation of Church and State that so many on the right want. It is a two way street, when the Church wants more say in the State, then the State will want more say in the Church.

BTW, if the Church wants more say in the State, then they need to open up the purse strings and start paying taxes for that representation. Right now they are getting representation without taxation. Gays are getting taxation without representation. I don’t want my tax dollars going to support such hateful institutions.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 13, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #157392

Randall, You are right, I apologize. I skim read your post and some responses before responding. I was at work on a break and didn’t have much time. I reread it and find it more reasoned than I previously thought.

The statement that this is one of the most radical changes to social society is not supported by fact, however. Slavery comes to mind for one, that supercedes this.

Your argument that marriage is a 10,000 year old religious tradition has no merit in a civil society, in my opinion. No one is suggesting changing any church or religion.

You make the arguments yourself against the civil union/marriage equality.

That’s the basic dispute, equality. You can continue to dislike homosexuals, just stop discriminating against them. Whether you call it marriage or convoluted dispepsi makes no real difference to me. Discrimination is discrimination.

Posted by: gergle at June 13, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #157396

Coonjay, Those societies are in our literature. No society has lasted the test of time, Coonjay. So what’s your point? The Heteros didn’t make it either. Many would argue we aren’t the same society as our founder’s society. There still is a Greece. There still is a Rome. There still is an America. None of them look like they did 200 years ago. Woah, profound, dude.

Posted by: gergle at June 13, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #157416

Gergle

Thanks for the re read. I realize what I am writing about highly volatile. Did you read the track back on it. Crazy is all i got to say.

I stand by my statement that it is one of the most radical social changes in history. I would agree that abolishing slavery is right up there with it when it comes to how radical it was for society.

I really think this comes down to a simple argument (at least I have been thinking of it since i posted this). Are homosexuals born this way or is it a choice?

If it is a choice should all of society change so that a very few can choose to be a certain way.

If they are born with it then I say give the marriage.

Now that being said i am sure it is clear that I think it is a choice. I know there will now be a great amount of venom from me saying this. I hope people will think it through.

We know that the scientific evidence for being born gay is not even close to being bullet proof. Not only that most gay activist would not say it is. The extra gene theory is not substantiable(sp?) at this point.

Not to long ago psychologist use to say that it is a choice (christian ones or not). i still agree with them. Now i would not use electric shock treatment or any other treatment to get them to stop. I think it is their decision and I cant interfer. when they force me to accept that lifestyle by cementing it in our society through marriage then I am obligated to stand and fight that.

I fought roe vs wade but i would not stop someone from having an abortion at this point because it is their legal right. i would if that right was taken away though. I will allow for laws that I dont like but if I can stop them prior to their being there then great.

As for discrimnation I would agree but I do not believe there to be any credible scientific evidence to show that gays are born that way. If there were then I would change my stance.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 13, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #157418

The original article did not necessarily attack gay marriage. It attacked the intellectual dishonesty of those who claim that there are no major consequences to “accepting” gay marriage. There are. Address those consequences directly. Like how the arguments for gay marriage directly support polygamy and polyamory. There is no way around that. Any equal rights argument for gay marriage has to apply to other forms of marriage and many activists clearly indicate they are aware of this and that it is one of their specific goals. I am not afraid of gay marriage per se. I am afraid of the destruction and “redefinition” of our society and culture. Maybe the new definition will be better but radically changing something that has evolved over many, many years is a dangerous thing to do.

Posted by: BlueDevil at June 13, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #157419

BlueDevil,

It attacked the intellectual dishonesty of those who claim that there are no major consequences to “accepting” gay marriage. There are. Address those consequences directly.
It is intellectually dishonest to claim that this has not been addressed. On every thread I’ve read these issues have always come up, and have always been addressed.
Like how the arguments for gay marriage directly support polygamy and polyamory. There is no way around that.
This “consequence” is a straw man, and it has been directly addressed many times. For example, as David S posted over in the Blue column:
Polygamy will never be legal because it violates the LEGAL structure of marriage, the basic tenet of the contract.
My goal with this post is not to convince you that polygamy is not harmful (it can and has been argued), or that it will never become legal. My intent is simply to demonstrate that you’re the one being intellectually dishonest by claiming that these “consequences” have never been addressed. The honest claim would be that these consequences have never been addressed to your satisfaction.

Posted by: Introspective at June 13, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #157424

Randall,

I really think this comes down to a simple argument (at least I have been thinking of it since i posted this). Are homosexuals born this way or is it a choice?
I don’t think that’s what it boils down to, but I wanted to point out an incorrect assumption that you’re making. Even if there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic (and there is evidence), it doesn’t automatically follow that it is a choice. Even if it is a choice, it could be argued that heterosexuality is just as much a choice or a learned behavior. If heterosexuality is learned—then why should heterosexual couples be given special rights of marriage as they have now?
If it is a choice should all of society change so that a very few can choose to be a certain way.
Yes, all of society probably should change, especially since the change involved will only affect homosexual couples and will not impact heterosexuals. Think of the interracial marriage example that was brought up—that is a choice, and was once forbidden, but all of society changed to accept it. Did anyone suffer by the legalization of interracial marriage?

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is an interesting question, but the legalization of gay marriage certainly does not hinge on the answer.

Posted by: Introspective at June 13, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #157429
If it is a choice should all of society change so that a very few can choose to be a certain way.

If they are born with it then I say give the marriage.

Randall Jeremiah,

I agree with you 100%.

Now that being said i am sure it is clear that I think it is a choice. I know there will now be a great amount of venom from me saying this. I hope people will think it through.

Now, this is where we part ways. This is something I have had to think through my entire life. Homosexuality is not by any means a choice. That fact is self-evident. I have struggled with my sexual orientation almost my entire life. I also struggled for many years trying to reconcile who I am with God. After asking God for guidance, he led me on a journey that eventually led me to reject Mainline Christianity in favor of Gnostic Christianity.

Of course, the ultimate question is, why would anyone choose to be gay? Homosexuality has existed throughout recorded human history. People have been persecuted because they were gay. Why would someone choose a lifestyle that relegates them to second class status or worse? Why are some men labeled “gay” even before they have come out? If it is a choice then why do some gays commit suicide? Why don’t they just choose to be “straight” instead of taking such drastic action? If it is a choice, why do so many gays remain in the “closet”?

Some of my favorite quotes on this subject:

  • “It seems to me that the real clue to your sex-orientation lies in your romantic feelings rather than in your sexual feelings. If you are really gay, you are able to fall in love with a man, not just enjoy having sex with him.” -Christopher Isherwood

  • “The opportunity to be threatened, humiliated and to live in fear of being beaten to death is the only ‘special right’ our culture bestows on homosexuals.” - Diane Carman, Denver Post

  • “Gay Liberation? I ain’t against it, it’s just that there’s nothing in it for me.” -Bette Davis

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

  • “Homosexuality, is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce.” -Plato

  • “Disapproval of homosexuality cannot justify invading the houses, hearts and minds of citizens who choose to live their lives differently.” -Harry A. Blackmun Supreme Court justice

  • “The right of an individual to conduct intimate relationships in the intimacy of his or her own home seems to me to be the heart of the Constitution’s protection of privacy.” -Harry A. Blackmun

  • “Every gay and lesbian person who has been lucky enough to survive the turmoil of growing up is a survivor. Survivors always have an obligation to those who will face the same challenges.” -Bob Paris

  • “The most important political step that any gay man or lesbian can take is to come out of the closet. It’s been proven that it is easier to hate us and to fear us if you can’t see us.” -Amanda Bearse
Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 13, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #157432
if it is a choice, it could be argued that heterosexuality is just as much a choice or a learned behavior. If heterosexuality is learned—then why should heterosexual couples be given special rights of marriage as they have now?

Introspective,

Excellent point. If Homosexuality is a choice then it follows the Heterosexuality is a choice as well.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 13, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #157440

My best friend growing up contacted me recently, we hadn’t talked much since I was 12 and not at all since I was 19. I’m now 49. I suspected he was gay. He acknowledged he was, or at least bi. So was his sister. His other sister and brother were not. He’s a decent person and did not choose this primal tendency in himself. I think there is strong evidence that this is genetic. It’s also found in the animal kingdom. It’s a natural extremity in the bell curve of sexual behavior. It is clearly traumatic for many individuals and not something they want in our Homophobic society. In history, many societies have dealt with this more reasonably. Native Americans had societal roles for these people for one.

I’m not sure what the trackback is …do you mean replies? I’ve read some of them.

My main problem with your post is the mixing of religious tradition with civil society. Christianity may have had a hand with creating
America, but it also was clearly the intent of our founders, and something i strongly value, to separate the two.

It took a civil war and years of acrimony to resolve slavery, though racism still exists. While there are some who will cling to the idea of discriminating against homosexuals, I think TV, and public discourse indicate that society is a lot more tolerant and this will pass more easily.

Posted by: gergle at June 13, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #157442
I’m not sure what the trackback is …do you mean replies? I’ve read some of them.

Gergle,

The trackback is another blog that has cited this post. Here is the trackback for this post: Next thing you know they’ll be letting black people vote!

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 13, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #157445

JayJay
God does not lead one to gnostic christianity, which is an oxymoron.

Man was created in the image of God and God was not homosexual. Therefore, heterosexuality is the way we were made. Homosexuality is a choice, period!

Posted by: tomh at June 13, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #157453

tomh,

Why is it an oxymoron?

Man was created in the image of God and God was not homosexual.

I wasn’t aware that your God had sex. Who does he have sex with? How do you know? You are right though, the God of the Old Testement did create man in his own image. We were created with his hate and affinity for destruction, his warmongering, his spite, his jealousy, his lies, his pride, and his need for constant attention.

Fortunatly, we were also given the spark of The Father, who sent his son to save us from old cranky.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 13, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #157460
Homosexuality is a choice, period!

I didn’t realize that rahdigly was posting under an assumed name.

Your statement does not follow any form of logic, historical, theological, or scientific. I suggest you try again.

You haven’t answered my set of questions, even though I did you the courtesy of two sets of answers to yours. I guess we know where you stand on the issue of intellectual honesty.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 13, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #157469

The religious people who pushing for a anti gay marriage amendment would for the first time endorse discrination in the constitution. Iam saying that the churchs donot have to reconize the marriage, make them civil unions. The federal gov. does not issue marriage license or driver license The religious right seem to pick and which laws out the old testemen they are going to enspose they should follow all the laws haned down in the book of Livitcus or keep there bigot mouth! Iam a folower of the teachings of Jesus and use the old testement as history book of the Jewish people.

Posted by: Rodbuster at June 13, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #157473

Biblically, slavery was God’s punishment to the Jews for forsaking the law.
Jesus admonished people to not berate public sinners, but he warned those sinners to stop what they were doing lest the punishment be returned upon them.
OK, that being said, I have had many gay friends over many years even though I have always been a resolute (gasp!) heterosexual. The nature of gays are as varied as the non-gays. I have had gay friends have relationships of both kinds. There have been the relentless ones who tried to “convert” me. And there was the one friend who stole my boyfriend. I have respect for any gay parent that takes in special needs children and raises them with love. But the whole issue of sex in general has been one of encroachment. Moral relativism is the product of “forcing” society’s acceptance of sex outside of marriage. We have a higher divorce rate, more children who never know their bio-dads, more sexual diseases, more crassness in dealing with each other since the 60’s when the world was “taught” that love was more important than the rules. Yes, heterosexuals need to be better at marriage, but accepting same-sex marriage will not accomplish that. There have been many prominent gay couples who get “married” then split up just as fast as anyone else (Ellen, Etheridge, etc.) and then there are kids who end up in bitter custody battles because only one woman is the bio-mother.
OK, that being said…
Let’s face it, it’s Christianity that is getting sued all the time to stop practicing in public, not Muslims, not Jews, not Buddists. It getting to be rather hounding. Why can’t people just go back to the good old days of disdaining marriage in general and just NOT GET MARRIED? Oh wait, that wouldn’t be progress, would it?

PS — AIDS/HIV declined in this country primarily because homosexuals either abstained or protected themselves better. The disease is on the rise again because people stopped avoiding risky behavior since the drugs keep them alive much longer now.
bethh

Posted by: BethH at June 13, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #157496
It is one of the most radical changes ever made in the social structure of any society.

We have a President and a Congress that are spending us into the poorhouse, a Congress that has sold it’s soul to Corporate America, we are in an unjustified war that has created, only God knows how many, new enemies of the U.S. We have a President who has declared himself the “Decider” and decided he is above over 750 laws and the U.S. Constitution, and you are worried about the effects of same-sex marriage on society?

Wake up folks. Same sex marriage is not a threat to society, the Neocons are.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 14, 2006 3:40 AM
Comment #157525
Man was created in the image of God and God was not homosexual. Therefore, heterosexuality is the way we were made. Homosexuality is a choice, period!

Let’s try out some logically equivalent statements and see if they make as much sense.

Man was created in the image of God and God did not have imperfect vision. Therefore, perfect vision is the way we were made. Imperfect vision is a choice, period!

Man was created in the image of God and God has straight dark hair. Therefore, having straight dark hair is the way we were made. Blondness, baldness, or having curly hair is a choice, period!

Man was created in the image of God and God was not left-handed. Therefore, right-handedness is the way we were made. left-handedness is a choice, period!

Man was created in the image of God and God was not female. Therefore, male is the way we were made. Femaleness is a choice, period!

Man was created in the image of God and God was white. Therefore, white is the way we were made. Being of any other race is a choice, period!

Hmmm… nope. Those are no more ridiculous than what tomh said.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 14, 2006 8:22 AM
Comment #157584

LawnBoy
Image is the operative word, not perfection.

Posted by: tomh at June 14, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #157588
Image is the operative word, not perfection.

What does that mean? Your assertion that God is heterosexual (and therefore homosexuality is a choice) makes many, many assumptions. Assuming that God has a sexuality at all has no more basis than the assumption that God has hair, or that God has vision in the way we do, or that God has a gender, or that God has a race. You are imposing arbitrary human traits on a deity as a means to imply that people who don’t share your preferred traits are somehow inferior.

Please, please try some intellectual honesty.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 14, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #157603
God does not lead one to gnostic christianity, which is an oxymoron.

tomh,

I will ask again, why is Gnostic Christianity an oxymoron?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 14, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #157685

I’ve been wanting to ask this on this topic for a week now, and haven’t been able to find one as chaotic and obnoxious on the blue side.

Is it okay in God’s eyes that Shelly Winters married her much younger male companion within hours of her death?

Is an 80+ year old man who basically marries a companion of less than 25, doing so in accordance with God’s plan?

Are drunk people that meet for the first time in Vegas and get married in a chapel fulfilling God’s will?

Or is it just that it is legal for those people, because they are opposite genders?

Posted by: DOC at June 14, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #157747

Gnostic Christianity is an oxymoron because gnostics believed since the flesh was flawed in the first place, you could use it to screw as many people and animals of both sexes as possible at the same time and still achieve the “sacred knowledge” to attain your own Christ-like divinity. Jesus said one can only be saved through him. Read up on the Book of Revelation regarding the “Nicolaitans”. Guess what, they were gnostics who believed you had to make “fertility” sacrifices with temple prostitutes. Also, check 1st John. The Gnostics believed that Jesus didn’t have a physical body, but appeared in many different ghost-like forms. In his Epistle, John condemns the gnostics. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, by try the spirits, whether they are of God. Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. Every spirit that claims Jesus Christ is not come in the flesh is not of God, but is of the spirit of ANTICHRIST.” Oxymoron, any way you slice it.

Posted by: Duano at June 14, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #157757

I believe that an issue this important should be taken to the polls instead of judges. It shall be similar to an election except that we are voting for a law. The officials count electoral votes and the opinion with 270 or more votes becomes law and the losers will accept it.

Posted by: Stubborn Conservative at June 14, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #157832

Amazingly, one would think this was a no-brainer. A conservative president appointed the majority of the Supreme Court Justices. Would not they uphold conservative values? Yet, even Robert Bork, that bastion of conservative values and originalism warns, that any law not allowing Gays to marry would be found unconstitutional. Which is why, a constitutional amendment is so important to the frenzy right wing.

It does seem funny, that right wing conservatives often accuse the Supreme Court of exceeding their judicial powers. When even before the most recent appointments, the majority of the Justices were appointed by so called conservative presidents. Could it be the court are not as liberal as often accused. Just interpreting the constitution as intended? Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has often avoided social issues, allowing a substantial amount of time and rhetoric to pass before addressing them.

It seems however, that this conversation is just moot at the moment. Even with a majority in the House and Senate; Republicans are unable to muster enough votes to attempt any constitutional changes. As time goes by, this period in time will be remembered much as other such times, when an injustice is finally laid to rest.

Posted by: Cube at June 14, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #157863

Cube - Very well put. Thanks.

Being that it is one of thier primary functions, I tend to forget and often find myself amazed at how concentrated on constitutional law the Supreme Court can be. I’ve rarely ever found fault with thier rulings, even when I disagree. True at times the waiting is excruciating, but if they spend time letting rhetoric pass, I ultimatly find that the wait was worthwhile.

In response to your final comments, I would be surprised if much time passes before this injustice is laid to rest. True it’s a moot point today, as it has been since the Senate last shot the idea down. Yet conversation continues unabated. I suspect that this conservative attempt to block the issue has provided the motive for many ordinary people to pick up the civil rights banner, and much like similar topics in history. I don’t forsee this as a collective voice that will ever be quieted.

However cliche, Victor Hugo said it best. “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come”

Posted by: DOC at June 14, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #157957

Duano,

How is it, exactly, that you think that the Nicolaitans were Gnostics, when early religious leaders didn’t even know who they were? All we know about the Nicolaitans is what Revelations says about them, which isn’t much. Early Religious leaders speculated about who the Nicolaitans were, but there was no consensus.

From early times they were said to be the followers of Nicolaos of Antiach (Acts 6:5).

The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John [when they are presented], as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.” -Irenaeus Against Heresies, Ch. XXVI

Some have speculated that they were a sect of the Balaamites.

Clement of Alexandria refused to grant the title of Gnostic to the Nicolaitans because he saw the title as one of honor concerning knowledge of the faith.

Such also are those who follow Nicolaus, quoting an adage of the man, which they pervert, “that the flesh must be abused.” But the worthy man showed that it was necessary to check pleasures and lusts, and by such training to waste away the impulses and propensities of the flesh. But they abandoning themselves to pleasure like goats, as if insulting the body, lead a life of self indulgence; not knowing that the body is wasted, being by nature subject to dissolution; while their soul is buried in the mire of vice; following as they do the teaching of pleasure itself, not of the apostolic man. -Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies at Book II, Ch. XIX
Gnostic Christianity is an oxymoron because Gnostics believed since the flesh was flawed in the first place, you could use it to screw as many people and animals of both sexes as possible at the same time and still achieve the “sacred knowledge” to attain your own Christ-like divinity. Jesus said one can only be saved through him.

This statement is just plain false. I have read many books on the history of the Gnostics, including many of the Gnostic Scriptures. I have never come across anything that says that Gnostics abused the body. Yes, Gnostics do believe that the physical body is part of a flawed design, but they reject the material world because it is defiled and impure. The Gnostics seek to reach a state of spiritual purity. It does not make sense to defile the flesh and expect the spirit to be pure.

You are correct though, that one can only be saved through Christ. Christ brought the divine knowledge and was the teacher of how to come by that knowledge. Because of his divine purity, The Father is unable to have direct contact with the dark and defiled realm that holds this world. Jesus was sent to be the conduit between this world and the realm of light. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me” (John 14:6)

1 John 4:1-3, is not without it’s controversy. Augustine claimed that 1 John 4 was altered to obscure the text. He holds that the epistle of John was written specifically to the Parthians.(Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. VII, p. 459)

Socrates claims that those who wished to separate the humanity of Jesus Christ from his divinity had corrupted the passage.

The text as copied by Ireneaus is this:

“Hereby know ye the spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ came in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God but is of Antichrist.”

There is also a version that appears in the Latin Vulgate and a copy of a 4th century manuscript which says “…and every spirit that looses Jesus is not from God…” In the marginal notes it records the names of church fathers who had this reading for this part of the text, including Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen. This shows that this reading was popular during the time that proto-orthodox Christians were debating with Gnostics over matters of Christology. This was a time, the second and third centuries, when variants of texts dealing with Christology disputes with Gnostics showed up.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 15, 2006 1:56 AM
Comment #158103

JJ,

Try googling “gnostic orgies”. Many sects of Gnostics believed engaging in such behavior was necessary to show their disdain for the flesh. Do your research. I did. I knew nothing about the gnostics 6 months ago, but since then I’ve done my homework. The Latin Vulgate is a forgery, and the KJV was translated from the original Greek in 1611, over a millenium after the gnostic controversy. Have you even read the Da Vinci Code? The orgy thing is explained in there as well.

Posted by: Duano at June 15, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #158109

Duano,

Try googling “gnostic orgies”.
I tried googling it. There are almost no results, which in and of itself speaks volumes. Half of the results are debunking the myths of the Templars in The Da Vinci Code, and the majority of the other results are debunking the myth of gnostic orgies specifically. None of the links are from any sites I recognize as being an authority on anything.

Thanks, but I think I’ll go with Jay Jay’s interpretation—at least he has done his research by reading the relevant texts directy, rather than relying on a failed Google search as his one and only source.

Posted by: Introspective at June 15, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #158113
Have you even read the Da Vinci Code? The orgy thing is explained in there as well.

After all, the Da Vinci Code is a well-respected source of fact-based knowledge and understanding about the church and it’s history.

Oh brother.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 15, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #158116

First off, there are more references to polygamous marriage than “One man, one woman” in the Bible so it is NOT part of the Christian tradition that marriage be between one man and one woman, that is ahistorical spin.

Second, in America the controlling authority is the US Constitution and the US Constitution states “All men are created equal” It does not state “all heterosexuals” “All Christians” or “all conservatives”. And since homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals there should not even be a debate in the American context over their status and ability to marry.

Third, contrary to what dishonest posters above have stated, there is no science based evidence that children raised in “traditional” families are better off than those raised in same sex couple families. True science demonstrates that children are better off with two adults who care for them over one regardless of gender. Referencing Paul CAMERON’s discredtied work does not constitute valid scientific studies.

Fourth, there is no reason at all that any church should have control over any individuals civil rights. Marriage should be completely separated from civil liberties. Preferencing married couples over non-married people is a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constiution. That way any church can marry anyone they see fit to marry, but it in no way can be used to disadvantage anyone else in society.

Fifth, Jesus Christ, never, even once, suggested that Church teaching should be imposed on societies via the force of government. Religion when done properly allows for believers to opt to follow the values of their faith, without imposing on others debatable theology. That is the secret of a successful America, at least until about 1980. The fact this is breaking down today is why America is so bitterly divided these days.

Sixth, Jesus Christ was so very unconcerned about homosexuality that he NEVER, even once, alluded to it during his ministry. Today’s Christian’s take on homosexualty is pure hate and modernist spin and has nothing to do with New Testament teachings.

And Last, God clearly made homosexuality part of his plan. It is so prevalent in the varied species on this planet. Here is a list of species with documented homosexual behavior. Clearly homosexuality is God driven, not a choice of the individual:

* African Buffalo
* African Elephant
* Agile Wallaby
* Amazon River Dolphin
* American Bison
* Aperea
* Asian Elephant
* Asiatic Mouflon
* Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
* Australian Sea Lion
* Barasingha
* Barbary Sheep
* Beluga
* Bharal
* Bighorn Sheep
* Black Bear
* Blackbuck
* Black-footed Rock Wallaby
* Black-tailed Deer
* Bonnet Macaque
* Bonobo
* Boto
* Bottlenose Dolphin
* Bowhead Whale
* Bridled Dolphin
* Brown Bear
* Brown Capuchin
* Brown Long-eared Bat
* Brown Rat
* Caribou
* Cat (domestic)
* Cattle (domestic)
* Cheetah
* Collared Peccary
* Commerson’s Dolphin
* Common Brushtail Possum
* Common Chimpanzee
* Common Dolphin
* Common Marmoset
* Common Pipistrelle
* Common Raccoon
* Common Tree Shrew
* Cotton-top Tamarin
* Crab-eating Macaque
* Crested Black Macaque
* Cui
* Dall’s Sheep
* Daubenton’s Bat
* Dog (domestic)
* Doria’s Tree Kangaroo
* Dugong
* Dwarf Cavy
* Dwarf Mongoose
* Eastern Cottontail Rabbit
* Eastern Gray Kangaroo
* Elk
* Euro
* European Bison
* Fallow Deer
* False Killer Whale
* Fat-tailed Dunnart
* Fin Whale
* Fox
* Gelada Baboon
* Giraffe
* Goat (Domestic)
* Golden Monkey
* Gorilla
* Grant’s Gazelle
* Gray-headed Flying Fox
* Gray Seal
* Gray Squirrel
* Gray Whale
* Gray Wolf
* Grizzly Bear
* Guinea Pig (Domestic)
* Hamadryas Baboon
* Hamster (Domestic)
* Hanuman Langur
* Harbor Porpoise
* Harbor Seal
* Himalayan Tahr
* Hoary Marmot
* Horse (domestic)
* Human
* Indian Fruit Bat
* Indian Muntjac
* Indian Rhinoceros
* Japanese Macaque
* Javelina
* Kangaroo Rat
* Killer Whale
* Koala
* Kob
* Larga Seal
* Least Chipmunk
* Lechwe
* Lesser Bushbaby
* Lion
* Lion-tailed Macaque
* Lion Tamarin
* Little Brown Bat
* Livingstone’s Fruit Bat
* Long-eared Hedgehog
* Long-footed Tree Shrew
* Markhor
* Marten
* Matschie’s Tree Kangaroo
* Mohol Galago
* Moor Macaque
* Moose
* Mountain Goat
* Mountain Tree Shrew
* Mountain Zebra
* Mouse (domestic)
* Moustached Tamarin
* Mule Deer
* Musk-ox
* Natterer’s Bat
* New Zealand Sea Lion
* Nilgiri Langur
* Noctule
* North American Porcupine
* Northern Elephant Seal
* Northern Fur Seal
* Northern Quoll
* Olympic Marmot
* Orangutan
* Orca
* Pacific Striped Dolphin
* Patas Monkey
* Pere David’s Deer
* Pig (Domestic)
* Pig-tailed Macaque
* Plains Zebra
* Polar Bear
* Pretty-faced Wallaby
* Proboscis Monkey
* Pronghorn
* Przewalski’s Horse
* Puku
* Quokka
* Rabbit
* Raccoon Dog
* Red Deer
* Red Fox
* Red Kangaroo
* Red-necked Wallaby
* Red Squirrel
* Reeves’s Muntjac
* Reindeer
* Rhesus Macaque
* Right Whale
* Rock Cavy
* Rodrigues Fruit Bat
* Roe Deer
* Rufous Bettong
* Rufous-naped Tamarin
* Rufous Rat Kangaroo
* Saddle-back Tamarin
* Savanna Baboon
* Sea Otter
* Serotine Bat
* Sheep (Domestic)
* Siamang
* Sika Deer
* Slender Tree Shrew
* Sooty Mangabey
* Sperm Whale
* Spinifex Hopping Mouse
* Spinner Dolphin
* Spotted Hyena
* Spotted Seal
* Squirrel Monkey
* Striped Dolphin
* Stuart’s Marsupial Mouse
* Stumptail Macaque
* Swamp Deer
* Swamp Wallaby
* Takhi
* Talapoin
* Tammar Wallaby
* Tasmanian Devil
* Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo
* Thinhorn Sheep
* Thomson’s Gazelle
* Tiger
* Tonkean Macaque
* Tucuxi
* Urial
* Vampire Bat
* Verreaux’s Sifaka
* Vervet
* Vicuna
* Walrus
* Wapiti
* Warthog
* Waterbuck
* Water Buffalo
* Weeper Capuchin
* Western Gray Kangaroo
* West Indian Manatee
* Whiptail Wallaby
* White-faced Capuchin
* White-fronted Capuchin
* White-handed Gibbon
* White-lipped Peccary
* White-tailed Deer
* Wild Cavy
* Wild Goat
* Wisent
* Wolf (All known breeds)
* Yello-footed Rock Wallaby
* Yellow-toothed Cavy

Birds

* Acorn Woodpecker
* Adelie Penguin
* Anna’s Hummingbird
* Australian Shelduck
* Aztec Parakeet
* Bangalese Finch (Domestic)
* Bank Swallow
* Barn Owl
* Bicolored Antbird
* Black-billed Magpie
* Black-crowned Night Heron
* Black-headed Gull
* Black-rumped Flameback
* Black Stilt
* Black Swan
* Black-winged Stilt
* Blue-backed Manakin
* Blue-bellied Roller
* Blue Tit
* Blue-winged Teal
* Brown-headed Cowbird
* Budgerigar (Domestic)
* Buff-breasted Sandpiper
* Calfbird
* California Gull
* Canada Goose
* Canary-winged Parakeet
* Caspian Tern
* Cattle Egret
* Chaffinch
* Chicken (Domestic)
* Chiloe Wigeon
* Cliff Swallow
* Common Gull
* Common Murre
* Common Shelduck
* Crane spp.
* Dusky Moorhen
* Eastern Bluebird
* Egyptian Goose
* Elegant Parrot
* Emu
* European Jay
* European Shag
* Flamingo
* Galah
* Gentoo Penguin
* Golden Bishop Bird
* Golden Plover
* Gray-breasted Jay
* Gray-capped Social Weaver
* Gray Heron
* Grayling
* Great Cormorant
* Greater Bird of Paradise
* Greater Rhea
* Green Sandpiper
* Greenshank
* Greylag Goose
* Griffon Vulture
* Guianan Cock-of-the-Rock
* Guillemot
* Herring Gull
* Hoary-headed Grebe
* Hooded Warbler
* House Sparrow
* Humboldt Penguin
* Ivory Gull
* Jackdaw
* Kestrel
* King Penguin
* Kittiwake
* Laughing Gull
* Laysan Albatross
* Least Darter
* Lesser Flamingo
* Lesser Scaup Duck
* Little Blue Heron
* Little Egret
* Long-tailed Hermit Hummingbird
* Mallard
* Masked Lovebird
* Mealy Amazon Parrot
* Mew Gull
* Mexican Jay
* Musk Duck
* Mute Swan
* Ocellated Antbird
* Ocher-bellied Flycatcher
* Orange Bishop Bird
* Orange-footed Parakeet
* Ornate Lorikeet
* Ostrich
* Oystercatcher
* Peach-faced Lovebird
* Pied Flycatcher
* Pied Kingfisher
* Pigeon (Domestic)
* Powerful Owl
* Purple Swamphen
* Raggiana’s Bird of Paradise
* Raven
* Razorbill
* Red-backed Shrike
* Red Bishop Bird
* Red-faced Lovebird
* Redshank
* Red-shouldered Widowbird
* Regent Bowerbird
* Ring-billed Gull
* Ring Dove
* Rock Dove
* Roseate Cockatoo
* Roseate Tern
* Rose-ringed Parakeet
* Ruff
* Ruffed Grouse
* Sage Grouse
* San Blas Jay
* Sand Martin
* Satin Bowerbird
* Scarlet Ibis
* Scottish Crossbill
* Senegal Parrot
* Sharp-tailed Sparrow
* Silver Gull
* Silvery Grebe
* Snow Goose
* Steller’s Sea Eagle
* Superb Lyrebird
* Swallow-tailed Manakin
* Tasmanian Native Hen
* Tree Swallow
* Trumpeter Swan
* Turkey (Domestic)
* Victoria’s Riflebird
* Wattled Starling
* Western Gull
* White-fronted Amazon Parrot
* White Stork
* Wood Duck
* Yellow-backed (Chattering) Lorikeet
* Yellow-rumped Cacique
* Zebra Finch (Domestic)

Fish

* Amazon Molly
* Blackstripe Topminnow
* Bluegill Sunfish
* Char
* Bitterling
* Green swordtail
* Guiana leaffish
* Hammerhead
* Houting Whitefish
* Jewel Fish
* Mouthbreeding Fish sp.
* Salmon spp.
* Southern platyfish
* Ten-spined stickleback
* Three-spined sticklebac

Other vertebrates

* Anole sp.
* Appalachian Woodland Salamander
* Australian Parasitic Wasp sp.
* Black-spotted Frog
* Broad-headed Skink
* Checkered Whiptail Lizard
* Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizard
* Common Ameiva
* Common Garter Snake
* Cuban Green Anole
* Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard
* Desert Tortoise
* Fence Lizard
* Five-lined Skink
* Gopher (Pine) Snake
* Green Anole
* Inagua Curlytail Lizard
* Jamaican Giant Anole
* Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizard
* Largehead Anole
* Mountain Dusky Salamander
* Mourning Gecko
* Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizard
* Red Diamond Rattlesnake
* Red-tailed Skink
* Side-blotched Lizard
* Speckled Rattlesnake
* Tengger Desert Toad
* Water Moccasin
* Western Rattlesnake
* Western Banded Gecko
* Whiptail Lizard spp.
* Wood Turtle

Insects and other invertebrates

* Acanthocephalan Worms
* Alfalfa Weevil
* Bean Weevil sp.
* Bedbug and other Bug spp.
* Blister Beetle spp.
* Blowfly
* Box Crab
* Broadwinged Damselfly sp.
* Cabbage (Small) White
* Checkerspot Butterfly
* Clubtail Dragonfly spp.
* Cockroach spp.
* Common Skimmer Dragonfly spp.
* Creeping Water Bug sp.
* Digger Bee
* Dragonfly spp.
* Eastern Giant Ichneumon
* Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer
* Field Cricket sp.
* Fruit Fly spp.
* Glasswing Butterfly
* Grape Berry Moth
* Grape Borer
* Green Lacewing
* Harvest Spider sp.
* Hawaiian Orb-Weaver
* Hen Flea
* House Fly
* Ichneumon Wasp sp.
* Incirrate Octopus spp.
* Japanese Scarab Beetle
* Jumping Spider sp.
* Larch Bud Moth
* Large Milkweed Bug
* Large White
* Long-legged Fly spp.
* Mazarine Blue
* Mediterranean Fruit Fly
* Mexican White
* Midge sp.
* Migratory Locust
* Mite sp.
* Monarch Butterfly
* Narrow-winged Damselfly spp.
* Parsnip Leaf Miner
* Pomace Fly
* Prea
* Queen Butterfly
* Red Ant sp.
* Red Flour Beetle
* Reindeer Warble Fly
* Rosechafer
* Rove Beetle spp.
* Scarab Beetle, Melolonthine
* Screwworm Fly
* Silkworm Moth
* Sociable Weaver
* Southeastern Blueberry Bee
* Southern Green Stink Bug
* Southern Masked Chafer
* Southern One-Year Canegrub
* Spreadwinged Damselfly spp.
* Spruce Budworm Moth
* Stable Fly sp.
* Stag Beetle spp.
* Tsetse Fly
* Water Boatman Bug
* Water Strider spp.

That is either a lot of mistakes made by God who would then be a very falliable deity, or hateful contemporary Christians are gulity of placing their personal agendas and hatreds into the mouth of God, and for that they will answer one day.

Facts are facts,

walja

Posted by: walja at June 15, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #158133

Introspective,

Try it again without the quotation marks. Even the modern day gnostic website admits the orgies took place, although they claim their prevalence has been exagerrated. Almost all scholars agree that the ritual orgies took place, and of course they’re not written about in the gnostic “gospels”, some of which I have read, thank you. Oh, and don’t bother with them, unless you want to read about Jesus spouting a bunch of rhetorical abstractions that just go around in circles, because that’s about the gist of it.

Posted by: Duano at June 15, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #158137

Gnostic Orgies

Gnostic Orgies

Gnostic orgies admitted to by www.gnostics.com

Posted by: Duano at June 15, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #158173

Duano,

The gnostics who practiced orgies, assuming they existed, are widely accepted to have been small fringe groups rather than the gnostic mainstream (accepted by anyone truly researching gnostic history that is, rather than the occasional Gnostic-bashing Christian site just repeating what they heard). The links you posted support this as well.

Christians—both Gnostic and non-Gnostic—have been accused historically of engaging in cannibalism and orgies, even by the Pagans:

On a more social, practical level, Christians were distrusted in part because of the secret and misunderstood nature of their worship. Words like “love feast” and talk of “eating Christ’s flesh” sounded understandably suspicious to the pagans, and Christians were suspected of cannibalism, incest, orgies, and all sorts of immorality.

For a modern comparison, if you Google “Christian swingers” (with quotation marks), you can see that orgies are also practiced by many (fringe?) Christians today.

How about that for an oxymoron?

Posted by: Introspective at June 15, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #158176

Duano,

I have done my homework, and not from “googling it” either. I have not personally read anything about “gnostic orgies”, although, I do know that there were many sects of Gnostics and that perhaps a certain division did practice such things. However, you are painting that conception over Gnostics as a whole. That is kinda like saying that all Christians pray to Mary because the Catholics do.

Additionally, the Catholic Church ran a huge propaganda campaign against the Gnostics to discredit them. Most of the information we had about he early Gnostics before the Nag Hammadi discovery, was only known through the works of those who wrote against the Gnostics. The Gnostic works were destroyed by the “heresy hunters.” Therefore the idea of “gnostic orgies” may have come from these biased sources.

No I have not read the Da Vinci Code nor have I seen the movie, nor would I call reading a fictional book “research.”

I have read almost all of the Gnostic scriptures and you are right they don’t say anything about such practices. Kinda odd if you think that these ritual orgies were such a big part of the Religion, don’t you think. I have read the Gnostic Gospels and they make sense to me. Maybe, the reason you think they go around in circles is because you are not spiritually ready to accept gnosis. No wine before it’s time.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 15, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #158188

walja
marriage is not a right. Jesus in his ministry never mentioned rape or pedophiles. But, homosexuality is part of God’s plan is over the top, moreso than that list you gave. Animals do not practice homosexual behavior. You are in the left field parking lot with this one good buddy.

Posted by: tomh at June 15, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #158193

tomh,

Animals do not practice homosexual behavior.
That is quite a denial, but one which is easily discredited by observation. I remember when I was little I would watch my two male guinea pigs hump each other all the live long day. I don’t have first-hand knowledge of the other animals on the list, but it’s not hard to do the research.

Posted by: Introspective at June 15, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #158201

Introspective,

I used to have a male dog that would hump our male cat. The funny part was that the cat didn’t seem to mind.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 15, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #158202

JJ,

You’re right, I will never be ready to accept “gnosis” or the mark of the beast for that matter. No poison before…well ever. BTW I reject both gnosticism and Catholicism and just because they disagree with one another means nothing to me. Catholicism takes a monotheistic, anti-idol religion and spins it into a religion of “holy” relics, saints one can pray to, and some really big hats. Gnostics try to rob Jesus of his divinity by saying everyone is capable of becoming “christs”. My belief is that “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” Jesus is God, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Only through Him can anyone be saved from eternal separation from God. Regardless of whether or not you believe in Him, YOU WILL BOW BEFORE HIM, and be made to give an account for why you chose to reject Him, or be accepted as a member of His eternal family. Sorry, but if I don’t warn you, He will ask me to account for YOUR life, as well as mine.

P.S. Just because the orgies weren’t written about in the gnostic texts doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. You might be surprised to find these words NOWHERE in the Bible (KJV, the Bible He intended for English speaking people)
Eucharist
Trinity
Excommunicate
Mother of God
Rapture
Demon
Crucifix
Vatican
Pope
Montsegnor
Cardinal
Habemus Papam

Posted by: Duano at June 15, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #158209

Duano,

You believe what you do based on your personal spiritual experiences. I believe what I do based on mine. I once believed as you do. Thank you for your concern and the warning. However, after the journey I have taken over the past 5 years, with God’s Guidance, I do not think I could return to those beliefs, esp. the role of Jehovah.

God Bless.

P.S. I am not really suprised that none of those things appear in the Bible. A lot of what Christianity is today has been created by the Church by way of dogmas and false doctrines. Sometimes the teachings of Christ have very little to do with Christianity today. I think Jesus would be appauled at what the Church has done to his teachings.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 15, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #158237
Animals do not practice homosexual behavior.

tomh,

It’s amazing how many times on a single page you can express beliefs that have no basis in reality of evidence, even when directly confronted with logic, facts, and evidence.

Good luck with your mindset and worldview. Good luck with asking questions but refusing to answer them. Good luck with telling people they are in “left field” when they have information and you just have your denial.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 15, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #158257

Even the canonical scriptures are full of references to Gnostic beliefs. In Matthew 13, Jesus describes the whole basis of Gnosticism:

Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 15, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #158271

Really now. This is just amazingly funny.

We’re talking Scripture here for our reasoning behind banning gay marriage in the United States. Oh, really? I’m going to ask you Bible-bashers a simple question:

In which document generally regarded as a basis for the formative legal and organizational standard of the laws of the United States does it mention the Bible as one of the guidelines?

I’ll make it really easy for you. There isn’t one. You can throw out every verse, line, psalm or letter from the Bible into this argument, and it means feck all as far as the law of this land is concerned. Every single argument against gay marriage has been backed up with Scriptural text. So what? We don’t care.

This land is not governed by the Bible. The laws we created in the Constitution have nothing at all to do with the Bible other than it, like countless other philosophical texts, were used in some manner as a guideline. Beyond that, go get the Rev. Billy Graham in here, and have him spout off every Bible verse that refers to homosexuality for all we care.

Once again, and we have to keep reminding Christian conservatives (and liberals) of this fact: this is not a Christian nation. The text you believe to be sacred is not the law. It’s not sacred as far as I am concerned. None of them are. It might be the basis of how you formulate your moral code and it might a guide for you as you go about your day. But it means nothing as far as the law is concerned. What gives you the right to trample on my rights? Because you put down “Christian” on the government forms? No, I don’t believe that’s permitted.

This shouldn’t even be an argument. Marriage is a religious rite; it has nothing to do with the State. The state created a kind of “marriage” for legal purposes. It has no sense of obligation to meet some standards of faith which some people find desirable. The State doesn’t care if your professed religion is Christianity, or Islam, or Hinduism, or Mithracism, Zoroastrianism, Druid or Pagan. The state says that if you enter into this union, you get these benefits, you have these responsibilites and if you want, change your names. Otherwise, it couldn’t care less.

Get out of the Bible when dealing with this issue. What does the Constitution say? Equal protection under the law. End of story. I wish you all could learn to read more and comprehend what is being said, I really do.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 16, 2006 12:36 AM
Comment #158409

Josh,
Drivel,drivel,drivel.

JJ,
So you actually believe that the God of the Jews is actually an evil demon? Whadd’ya think of Allah? Ya’know, the Muslims claim the God of Abraham as well. Jehovah(Yahweh) comes across to me as a loving and forgiving God who never forsakes His people for long, no matter how many times they betray Him. Since Jesus IS Yahweh, the parallels are self-evident.

Posted by: Duano at June 16, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #158424

BTW JJ,

You do realize that Jesus’ name actually has “yah” for Yahweh in it right? The original Hebrew for Jesus is Yahshua, which literally means “Yahweh is Saviour”.

Posted by: Duano at June 16, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #158436

Duano,

Drivel,drivel,drivel.
Just because you call it drivel doesn’t change the fact that joshuacrime is spot on—the bible has absolutely no place in our nation’s laws. You have every right to lobby for whatever law you want using whatever rationalization you want—but don’t go screaming “ACTIVIST!” if a judge decides that it’s not constitutional. Just because the bible serves as your constitution doesn’t mean our government should throw out its constitution.

Of course, if you get an amendment to the constitution passed—to cancel out some of those pesky “Bill of Rights” restrictions—you’ll have a lot more room to argue. Good luck with that one—the American public is against you.

Posted by: Introspective at June 16, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #158458

Tomh,

You are not accurately reflecting political reality in America. When over 1400 rights and privileges are attached to the institution of marriage, the ability to marry is indeed a right. If we were to separate legal rights from the institution of marriage, your point might have slight validity. But unfortunately, that is not the case.

And you many deny science all you desire, but clearly homosexuality would not be present in so many varied species on this planet if it were not a part of nature’s (God’s) plan. Unless you are arguing, for example, Digger Bees choose to be gay :)

It is interesting you bring up pedophiles as nearly all the Old Testament allusions to God disapproving of homosexuality were truly aimed at male pederasts in their original language, not homosexuals in general. Indeed, the very word homosexual was not created until sometime in or about 1850 in Germany by a psychologist. The Bible is entirely silent on the topic of same sex relations and lesbians. It is all directed at male pederasts, and then redefined by spinning modernists who continue to put their private hatred into the mouth of God.

walja

Posted by: walja at June 16, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #158471

Just because you claim there are gay animals is no justification for homosexuality. There are also animals that tackle other animals and choke off their windpipe with huge canine teeth. There are others that actually bite pieces of flesh off unsuspecting victims and eat it. Yet many other animals are cannibalistic, especially involving their own young. So, using your logic, since this is natural, shouldn’t murder be legalized? It’s human nature, right? Let’s hold ourselves to a little higher standard than our pooping in the corner, butt-sniffing friends, please.

Posted by: Duano at June 16, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #158472

walja,

Read the first chapter of Romans, it isn’t as silent about homosexuality as you might think.

Posted by: Duano at June 16, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #158475

Duano,

Let’s hold ourselves to a little higher standard than our (animal) friends.

Fine, but there’s no reason to consider being against homosexuality as the same as holding ourself to a higher standard.

The points about animals came about because people on your side claimed that homosexuality isn’t natural. Now that we’ve addressed that issue, you’re claiming that something being natural is no justification.

Please figure out what argument you’re making. Perhaps you’ll find a convincing, logical one at some point. I doubt it, though, because you haven’t found one yet.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 16, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #158477

Duano,

Just because you claim there are gay animals is no justification for homosexuality.
First of all, it’s not a claim—it’s documented and proven. With that said, I haven’t witnessed anyone using animals as a justification for homosexuality—it doesn’t need such justification. However, what I have witnessed many, many, times are people using the claim that homosexuality is not “natural” as an argument to condemn it. That, in fact, is how the topic came up here, when coonyjay said:
Acts that go against nature. Acts that go against God. Acts that are unnatural.
The comments we make in response to such statements are only to debunk the ridiculous myth that homosexuality is unnatural. Don’t blame us for debunking such a lame argument—blame those who posed it in the first place.

Posted by: Introspective at June 16, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #158504

Marriage isn’t specifically “a right”. It doesn’t say that anywhere in the Constitution. It doesn’t mention anything at all about it.

You can argue to a point that marriage is something that people do when they are in love, and it makes them happy to do so, for a host of reasons. Therefore, you could place marriage under a “pursuit of happiness” category, and I think most people would agree with that.

I don’t think that gays should be permitted by law to be married in the place of worship they wish to. We do have religious freedom in the US, and it goes both ways. The tenets of Christianity might be completely screwed up by most churches in the world, but they make the rules for their churches, and if a pastor says no to a gay couple that wants to get married, it’s their right.

Gays should be able to go to the city hall, file a petition to the clerk, fill out the forms, say the magic words, and voila! They are “married” in the State’s eyes, giving them all the benefits and responsibiities as prescribed by the laws we created. Fair enough, simple, and harms no place of worship with their “immoral behaviour”.

Only that’s not what the Christian conservatives say, is it? They say that no gays should be given the rights to express their love in a union because it’s contradictory to the laws of God. Well, when God pays taxes, runs a campaign and gets elected, he can help write the laws of my nation. Until then, God is an abstract idea that some people choose to believe.

Christian conservatives (and Hindu and Muslims) are quite within their rights to deny a religious sacrament to those it feels aren’t worshippers or followers of the faith. It’s crap, but hey, see Religious Freedom. However, they go too far when they try to prevent them from having a civil union.

Furthermore, a Constitutional Amendment? Are you joking? We’ve already established that it says nothing in the Constitution about marriage, other than it extends from the pursuit of happiness statement. The Constitution DOES say, however, that any power not given to the Federal Government specifically in the Constitution shall be up to the States OR THE PEOPLE. So, it’s legal and correct that the states choose to admit, ban, allow or prevent gays from marrying. It’s their legal right according to the States. They shouldn’t be preventing civil unions, but that’s something for the people to decide. In any event, the argument is bollocks. There are no scientific facts that say gays are harmful to anyone, and therefore any attempt to prevent them from doing something that makes them happy IS unconstitutional and those laws should be thrown out for the garbage it is.

It’s funny, though, how Republicans are famous for using the term “activist judges” when the decisions go against what they want, and “judges of disctinction and honor” when decisions go their way. Aren’t you all so cute? I wish I had a camera.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 16, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #158529
So you actually believe that the God of the Jews is actually an evil demon?

Duano,

The Bible speaks for itself. Bold= New Testement

  • Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. ~John 8:44

In the story of Adam & Eve and the tree of knowledge of good & evil who was the liar, Jehovah or the Serpent? Jehovah tells Adam & Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil or “in that day thou shalt surely die.” ~Genesis 2:17.

The Serpent, on the other hand, told Eve that if she ete the fruit, “Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” ~Genesis 3:4-5

Of course, we know that Adam & Eve did not die in that day. Adam lived to be 930 years old. In addition, Genesis 2:7 states that “Their eyes were opened,” just as the Serpant told them. In Genesis 3:22, Jehovah states “Behold, the humans have become as one of Us, they know good and evil,” confirming what the Serpent told Eve. Jehovah lied, not the Serpent.

The real reason that Adam & Eve were banished from the garden had nothing to do with their disobediance as we are told in Genesis 3:22-24. “And the Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever.”

This passage also demonstrates that Adam & Eve were already dying, for those who claim that A & E began dying the day they partook of the tree of knowledge.

So, who was the Serent?

  • Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. ~Matthew 10:16

  • And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. ~Numbers 21:8

  • And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. ~john 3:14-15

Here we see a correlation between the Serpent and Christ.

  • In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. ~2 Corinthians 4:4

Who is the god of this world? Apparently not the same God whom sent Christ.

  • Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. ~Hosea 13:16

Ouch! So much for God being anti-abortion!

  • And it came to pass, that at midnight Jehovah smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. ~Exodus 12:29-30

What did all those innocent babies do to deserve this?

  • Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. ~Isaiah 13: 15-16

  • Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. ~Psalms 137:9

Is this the God you want to worsphip, one whom orders children dashed to pieces and wives raped?

  • The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. ~Psalms 58:10

I think I’m going to puke.

Look what Jesus says to a group of Jews about their father:

  • Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

    Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. ~John 8:41-44

As we have seen Jehovah was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

Why does Jehovah have evil spirits at his command, that he sends to do his bidding? See Judges 9:23, 1 Samuel 16:14, 1 Samuel 16:15-16, 1 Samuel 18:10, 1 Samuel 19:9

  • Jehovah is a man of war: the LORD is his name. ~Exodus 15:3

  • Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. ~Matthew 5:9

So Jehovah is a man of war, but the children of God are the peacemakers.

  • For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. ~Exodus 34:14

  • He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. ~1 John 4:8

  • Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. ~1 Corinthians 13:4-8, NIV

  • There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. ~1 John 4:18

Does Jehovah live up to any of these definitions of God in the New Testement. Johovah is anything but patient, he is rarely ever kind, we are told he is jealous, he is constantly telling us how great and mighty he is, I don’t know how anyone can say he is not rude or self-seeking. Jehovah is easily angered, and keeps close tabs on all our sins, he speaks evil and sends lying spirits (2 Chronicles 18:18-22). He rarely protects unless you do his bidding, he doesn’t seem to trust many, he doesn’t hope that people will change but instead he smites them. He doesn’t preserve, but rather destroys. We are told, apparently with good reason, to fear Jehovah.

How can anyone possibly think that Jehovah is the same God of Love that sent Christ?

  • Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. ~Matthew 7:16-20

  • The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. ~Galatians 5: 19-22

As we see Jehovah bears little, if any, of the fruit of the Spirit, but bears much fruit of the sinful nature.

  • Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty with his fifty. And he went up to him: and, behold, he sat on the top of an hill. And he spake unto him, Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down.

    And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. ~2 Kings 1:9-10

Here we see Elijah call upon Jehovah to commit murder by sending down a fire from heaven.

  • And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. ~Luke 9:54-55

Wow. This speaks volumes. Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. Clearly Jehovah is of a different spirit than that of Christ.

  • This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. ~1 John 1:5
  • Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. ~James 1:17
  • To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. ~Acts 26:18

Here we are told that darkness is of Satan and light is of God.

  • Then spake Solomon, Jehovah said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. ~1 Kings 8:12, 2 Chronicles 6:1
  • Woe unto you that desire the day of Jehovah! to what end is it for you? the day of Jehovah is darkness, and not light. ~Amos 5:18
  • Shall not the day of Jehovah be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?
  • He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies. ~Psalm 18:11
  • And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.
  • Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]. ~Ephesians 6:11-12

Other passages describing Jehovah in darkness: 2 Samuel 22:12, Deuteronomy 5:22-23, Isaiah 45:3, Psalm 97:2, Jeremiah 13:16, Psalm 18:19, 2 Samuel 22:10, Ezekiel 32:8, Zophaniah 1:14-15

It is also perculiar that the name of God in the Old Testement, Jehovah, never appears in the New Testement, nor does Jesus ever refer to him by that name.


Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 16, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #158542
You do realize that Jesus’ name actually has “yah” for Yahweh in it right? The original Hebrew for Jesus is Yahshua, which literally means “Yahweh is Saviour”.

Duano,

Actually, it is Yeshuwa and it means “he will save.”

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 16, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #158694

JJ, “And immediately the Angel of the Lord SMOTE him, because he gave not God the glory, and he was eaten of worms, that he gave up the ghost, and died.”

Care to guess what book of the Bible this is from? Acts! That’s right, in the NEW TESTAMENT. Or how about this one.

“But Peter said unto him, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles is remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou concieved this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost:and great fear came upon all that heard these things.

But, since you probably think my brothers, the Apostles, were devil worshippers, let’s hear some of what Jesus(Yashua in Hebrew, from where we get the name Joshua, Yeshua is Aramaic for the LORD will save. You might want to check Stephen’s preaching right before he was stoned in the Book of Acts. He claims that the Israelites came over the Jordan river with Jesus[Joshua]. Everywhere you see LORD in capitals in the Old Testament, that’s Yahweh.(Jehova isn’t a good translation as there’s neither the sound for a “J” or a “V” in Hebrew) had to say:

“But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment and buy one.” Sounds like Jesus is a fan of the 2nd amendment.

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I am not come to send peace, but a sword.” Man of war?

“And when He saw a fig tree in the way, He came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee from henceforward forever. And presently the fig tree withered away.” Don’t tell Al Gore about that one.(Sorry tree hugger)

Jesus in anger management? “And when He had made a scourge of small cords, He drave them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and pored out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables. And said Take these things hence, Make not MY FATHER’S HOUSE an house of merchandise.(The same house where Yahweh dwelt in the “thick darkness”, I guess Yah sold it to Jesus’ old man and bought a place in Cancun)

The Jews worshipped an evil god, one that Jesus opposed right?

“Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews” Or how about “He answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s(Jews) bread and cast it to dogs(Gentiles)”

“It is written, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” Where is it written? In Deuteronomy, and it says “Thou shalt not tempt the LORD thy God.” With all capitals, meaning the original text had the name of Yahweh there. If Yahweh was such a bad guy, why did Jesus quote so many of His scriptures? “Hear oh Israel, the LORD thy God is one Lord, Thou shalt love the LORD(Yahweh) thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength. This is the first(greatest) commandment.” Again with the capitals. “It is written, Thou shalt worship the LORD(Yahweh) thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.”

Peter says:”But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you(early warning of gnostics), who privily shall bring damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them(gnosticism)”

Jude(the brother of Jesus)says “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.”

Please don’t try to use the New Testament against the Old, because the Old testament foretells the coming of Jesus and He fulfills the prophecies over and over. Jesus used the Old Testament(Yahweh’s Book) when arguing with Satan or with Pharisees and Sadducees. The reason you never see Jehova, or Yahweh, in the New Testament is because it’s a Hebrew name, not Greek, and by the time the New Testament was written, it had been a custom to never say the name of God(unless you were the High Priest) for so long that people forgot how to pronounce it, so they would just say “The Lord” when they came to it in the Scripture. My pronunciation of “Yahweh” may be wrong, as well, because it’s written YHVH, and nobody knows what vowels to use. Yahweh is the most accepted pronunciation. Jesus and Yahweh are one in the same person. Not warring factions, not different parts of some three headed alien called a “Trinitynian”, but one and the same. The god of this world is Satan, not Yahweh, the God of Heaven. Satan and his angels were cast to the earth and have been wreaking havoc ever since. Satan said in the garden “Thou shalt not surely die” That’s a lie, my friend. The most dangerous lies are the ones that are mostly truth poisoned with a little “white” lie, which have historically been Satan’s bread and butter. It is written that to God, a thousand years is a day, and though some of the early patriarchs came close, no one has ever made it through one full day in God’s eyes, so He spoke the truth like always. You claim that the god who made the earth wasn’t the God of Jesus, but in the New Testament it says that Jesus made all things.

“The Lord of that servant shall come in a day that he looketh not for Him, in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” Matthew 24

Sounds like the same Yahweh I’ve always known and loved!!!


Posted by: Duano at June 17, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #158697

Oh, yeah, and the Apostle John, one who was told to be “wise as serpents”. Wrote about his vision of the war in Heaven in that ancient time in Revelation. “And he was cast out, that old SERPENT, which is the DEVIL and SATAN. He was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him”

Posted by: Duano at June 17, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #158699

BTW, still praying to Jesus(Yahweh) earnestly for Him to TRULY open your eyes to His truth so you and I can talk about who was right or wrong in the arguments we’ve had face to face as brothers someday on the street corner in New Jerusalem. I’m not gonna give up on you.

BTW, last night my preacher(that’s right, I go to Church on Friday nights) said “People say I’m narrow minded. I say I can afford to be narrow minded, because I’m right. 8o> {}{

Posted by: Duano at June 17, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #158972

Duano,

The bottom line is that all scripture must be interpreted within the context of the teachings of Christ. If something in the OT, NT, or non-canonical texts is out of synch with the teachings of Christ then it must either be re-interpreted within the proper context or discarded as corrupted by those with an agenda.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 18, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #159226

I love it…all the religion lawyers. This is exactly why I don’t buy into any organized, man-run religions. You can quote and interpret until you’re blue in the face. If it was divine wisdom, it certainly wasn’t written devinely, or clearly for that matter. Pick an issue and I’ll bet I can quote 2 passages from the bible that give us contradictory answers.

Not exactly “Natural Law” if we can’t even agree what the words mean. Obviously, “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is up for debate.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 19, 2006 5:18 PM
Post a comment