AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > June > 21 > Entry
Will same-sex marriage have consequences for religious freedom?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Whenever I correspond with gay couples about same-sex marriage (SSM), their most common request is for conservatives to realize that “You will not be affected by my marriage.”
Unfortunately, we are learning that that isn’t true. Where SSM has been codified – or anti-discrimination laws include sexual orientation – we’ve seen serious violations of freedom of speech and religion for those who disagree.
I had heard rumblings for years about pastors being jailed in Sweden for anti-gay preaching, or Catholic hotel owners in Canada being sued for turning away gay couples. But frankly, I viewed these concerns as alarmist, assuming religious liberties weren’t in real jeopardy.
My research for this column changed that, providing dozens of examples of gay-marriage opponents prosecuted, jailed, fired or put out of business, for simply standing up for their beliefs. For example, after Canada legalized SSM, several teachers and pastors were fired for writing critical letters to the editor. Clergy in Ontario who refused to perform same-sex marriages lost their licenses – and their income — to perform any marriages. A Catholic printer in Toronto who declined to print homosexual material, and referred the customer elsewhere, was sued and ordered to pay crippling fines.
And now, religious liberties are affected in the first U.S. state to legalize gay marriage. Catholic Charities of Boston is revered in the adoption world for placing challenging kids. But since its adoption arm cannot, on religious grounds, place kids with gay couples, it cannot comply with Massachusetts’ new (court-imposed) laws and has been forced to shut down.
The director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, Brian Rushfeldt, observes, “Once same-sex marriage is passed, there will be systemic legal ramifications. It affects every part of society: education, job benefits, church teachings, editorials… Judges will have to change dozens of other laws because of it. The only way to avoid that is to enshrine traditional marriage in your constitution.”
I believe that most gay couples wouldn’t want these infringements of religious freedom. But now we know this will happen, I hope they can understand why conservatives want to constitutionally define traditional marriage. Not out of bias or hatred, but out of a desire to preserve the freedom that all of us must keep, to agree to disagree.
Rebuttal
How very christian of the religious right to say they want to protect the religious freedoms of gay people through their own (religiously-imposed) heterosexist bias. And the irony doesn’t stop there.
“The fact that churches perform civil marriages is in itself a clear violation of church and state separation,” bemused New York-based Reverend Clifford Frasier pondered in an interview.
And then there are the inherent issues with international expert commentary and questionable analogies.
“Comparisons with other countries’ laws are tricky. The guarantees of freedom of speech and religion in the U.S. Constitution are not in place in Scandinavian countries or Canada,” says Timothy Cravens, bishop of the Independent Catholic Christian Church, a small inclusive independent sacramental church in Philadelphia.
“The real problem,” Cravens explains, “is that certain religious groups have been allowed to pressure the state to prevent other denominations’ marriages from being recognized. All religious groups do not oppose same-sex marriage.”
To illustrate, Cravens draws from his own experience: “I belong to a religious group that teaches that treating same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples the same is mandated by the gospel. Who will stand up for my religious freedom? Why are some of the marriages I perform being denied legal status because of the teachings of the Roman Catholic denomination that is only now beginning to apologize for centuries of anti-Semitic violence, the Southern Baptist Convention which was formed to defend the institution of slavery, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints which began ordaining African-American men to the priesthood only in the late 1970s?”
Clearly, religious denominations translate the Bible in as many ways as lawyers interpret civil laws.
The solution to this modern-day Holy war, advises the Solomonic Reverend Frasier is to quite literally split the baby in half. “Perform two ceremonies — one secular marriage ceremony in front of a judge granting a couple earthly rights and another religious ceremony celebrating a couple’s sacred union. Then the separation between the church and state would be clear.”
That’s a solution even a biblical translator couldn’t misinterpret.
Services »
Comments
By Randy
June 23, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
Hopefully, with one more vote on the Supreme Court, same sex marriage will cease to exist.
By Larry
June 26, 2006 07:02 AM | Link to this
Boston Catholic Charities’ president, Father Bryan Hehir, supports placing foster children with homosexual adoptive parents - which, for those of you suffering from chronic unawareness, was legalized 10 years BEFORE gay marriage existed in their state.
There was no disagreement between Father Hehir and some mythical activist judge, it was that some people pressured the state’s Bishops to enforce the Vatican’s official position. When the Bishops ordered Catholic Charities to stop placement with homosexual adoptive parents, eight board member resigned in protest.
Additionally, this is 1 of 50 services Catholic Charities provides to the state, for which they are paid $20 million a year. When you refuse to fulfill a contractual obligation that pays millions from tax dollars, it’s hardly a religious freedom issue.
That was real FoxNews-ish of you, Ms Feldhahn.
By Jack
June 26, 2006 07:14 AM | Link to this
Yeah. Let’s beat this dead horse for the 100th time. I’ll check in later.
By Carlton Wyatt
June 26, 2006 07:19 AM | Link to this
I find it amazing how people like Shaunti can tell such blatant lies while wearing the mantle of their religion so prominantly. I suppose it is like the Islamists who say they are killing for their religion, Shaunti is lying for hers. How far up the justification ladder is killing from lying? Does Shaunti have any weapons we should know about?
By Brian Curtis
June 26, 2006 07:43 AM | Link to this
Well, I admit they’ve hit on a new tactic (or kind of new, anyway). Now legalizing gay marriage would “restrict religious freedom,” huh? Actually, I’ve heard this before when it comes to religious indoctrination in the schools; anything less than total government force behind the fundies’ beliefs counts as “oppression” in their warped little minds.
It’s a common complaint among zealots that gay marriage would “force” their church to embrace something they consider sinful—in spite of the fact that not a single gay-marriage advocate has suggested this even once. Nobody CARES what your church thinks, and nobody’s interested in forcing a church to perform any religious ceremony for anyone against its will. It’s the legal status that matters; “By the power vested in me by the State of Georgia….”
Ideally, I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely—or, second best, draw a strict dividing line between the religious and civil aspects of the event. On one side would be all the legal, medical, and financial rights and responsibilities (the stuff that “counts”), and on the other would be whatever church ceremony you want to have, with no legal/financial ramifications whatsoever.
So here’s my proposal:
Let’s reserve the term “marriage” for the civil ceremony that unites any two consenting adults in a legal and financial relationship, with all medical, insurance, and other implications. And if you want to skip that and go for a church service, go right ahead—we could call it something like, oh, I don’t know…. how about “religious unions”?
See, a religious union would be just like a “real” marriage—it just wouldn’t have any of the governmental recognition or legal status that a marriage would. But hey, why should that bother you? You’re preserving a sacrament, after all. And that’s what should REALLY matter to you.
So whattaya say, fundies? Ready to hand over the word “marriage” to the civil side and start calling your church services “religious unions”? After all, what’s in a name?
By Carlton Wyatt
June 26, 2006 07:56 AM | Link to this
Even if Shaunti’s argument wasn’t based on exaggerations and outright false statements, it holds absolutely no bearing on the issue here in the USA. Just as any religious institution currently has the right to speak against any traditional marriage they don’t like (just ask my cousin, a mormon, who was refused at the last minute her use of a Baptist church for her wedding… but the church kept her $2000 deposit, calling it a “donation”), there is no reason whatsoever here in the USA for any church or other institution to support or perform any wedding, straight or gay, they don’t agree with. This is simply another baseless argument by the anti-gay bigots. They cannot produce ANY VALID reason a gay marriage would any any way negatively affect “traditional” marriage so they resort to lying and manufacturing tales. I thought they were supposed to be of higher morals than that?
By Lyrazel
June 26, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this
Shaunti’s final quote: “…Judges will have to change dozens of other laws because of it. The only way to avoid that is to enshrine traditional marriage in your constitution.” This is her argument: Lets make laws to keep gays from marriage because if gays can marry we will have to change laws….
By Archie
June 26, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this
Shanti’s column is an example of egregious bigotry. She uses Canada and Sweden when she knows that America is culturally different than both countries and then she picks one charitible organization to make her very weak point. Same sex marriages will not have consequences for religious freedom. Same sex marriages will have consequences for those that want to impose their will on other people. Although I do go to church weekly I do understand that what you don’t understand or like,etc is just that, something you don’t understand,like,etc. People simply aren’t going to follow a set definition of a relationship. Shanti uses the classic bigot thought pattern when she says “I believe that most gay couples…”
It’s time to move to the 21st century with this same sex thing.
By Jason
June 26, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this
Wow, this debate is starting to sound like the Iraq debate. Our first reason for going there was WMDs, then it was Saddam’s purported support of terrorists and Osama bin Laden, then it was the “ruthless dictator” that we needed to depose argument…….the arguments keep changing. Now, with same-sex marriage……first, the fundies said same-sex marriage would crumble the foundations of Western Civilization itself, then they said it would destroy the family unit as we know it, then they said it would be harmful to children, then it would put a strain on the economy with social security benefits and the likes extended to same-sex couples. And now we are supposed to believe that same-sex marriage will infringe on the freedom of speech of the religious right? Their freedom of speech seemed pretty secure this weekend while they were standing all over midtown with “Homo sex is sin” and “When man lies with man, Jesus vomits” signs and bullhorns.
What’s the next argument going to be?
By Chilao
June 26, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this
So a Catholic couple owning a hotel, discriminating against their gay potential customers, being sued for turning them away, is an infringement on their religious rights? Now that’s a new one for sure. I thought someone’s religious rights ended at the end of their nose.
So will Randy’s first comment result in a stacked right wing court and gasp, a whole slew of activist judges. Just a thought.
By Ben
June 26, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this
Same sex marriage will face the same arguments based on “religious freedom” that interracial marriages faced, that equal rights legislation faced, the vote for women faced and all other civil rights movements faced and with the same result. Bigotry has always hidden behind the face of the church ever since the days of the Christians and the lions.
By Samuel
June 26, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this
I see again Diane is drawing her sources from groups that have found ways to twist theology to incorporate human rights. Also, by the way Diane, performing marriages in churches does in NO WAY violate seperation of church and state. You and so many other liberals seem to think that chuch involvement in ANY social arena is an infringement of that concept which is NOT in the constitution ANYWHERE.
The case Shaunti makes may be about other countries, but as we’ve seen before, these “politically correct” activists want to be just like europe and canada and want to supress the voice of Christians everywhere. Christians want to keep their right to speak their minds in public without their own govenrment taking things away from them just because of what they believe.
The liberals in the sentate and the media need to get over their “political correctness” for one minute and realize that a constitutional ammendment banning “gay marriage” once and for all is the best solution for everybody.
By Tim
June 26, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this
realize that a constitutional ammendment banning “gay marriage” once and for all is the best solution for everybody.
I am so happy we have God on the blog today… nice to see He has decided to let us all know what is best for us… welcome God… hope you stay a while
just a lil fyi about the ones with the loudest voices usually having the most to hide… while walking to my desired destination to watch the parade yesterday… I saw a guy check me out… when I got closer he handed me a pamphlet that said “I used to be gay”… he obviously is still working on the definition of “used to”… what great fun… I used to go to the parade to watch all the fun lil creative ways to use a rainbow… well lemme tell ya… that is not half the entertainment you get from watching the REAL crazies :)
By GOB
June 26, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
I see again Diane is drawing her sources from groups that have found ways to twist theology to incorporate human rights.
Yeah, we certainly wouldnt want human rights to be important to a church…
By Samdy
June 26, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
I couldn’t agree more with the above poster. Banning same sex marriage is something we need to do. Just because a few people want to sleep with the same sex does not mean that society ahs to change it’s laws for them.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
I believe that most gay couples wouldn’t want these infringements of religious freedom. But now we know this will happen, I hope they can understand why conservatives want to constitutionally define traditional marriage. Not out of bias or hatred, but out of a desire to preserve the freedom that all of us must keep, to agree to disagree
This quote pretty much exemplifies why I generally detest Shaunti. It’s patronizing and insulting, and yes, Shaunti, we absolutely DO understand your motivations.
Shaunti’s entire argument is rooted in the idea that her religious “freedom” is more important than other people’s religious freedom. More specifically, she is claiming that her freedom to discriminate is being challenged.
Now…it seems like we’ve been here before. When churches preached against myscegenation, did the Supreme Court violate their religious freedom by ruling in favor of the Lovings in Loving v. Virginia? Or did the abolishment of segregation violate the religious freedoms of people who believed the Bible said that blacks were inferior to whites?
Religious freedom doesn’t mean you can do ANYTHING in the name of religion. You can’t kill someone or beat someone up because you think God wants you to. You can’t violate EXISTING federal guidelines preventing discrimination, even if your religious beliefs make you want to.
No, the only “threat” here is the one identified so astutely by Brian Curtis: that religious fundamentalists like Shaunti feel that if their beliefs aren’t given dominance over others then they are being discriminated against. Once more, the “persecuted Christian” care has been played.
By Peter
June 26, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
Gay pride…what IS that? Yeah, be proud that you’re a pervert? Keep it in the closet and out of our laws.
By Chuck Anziulewicz
June 26, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
DEAR SHAUNTI: Regarding Catholic Charities of Boston … I couldn’t care less if this organization wants to discriminate against qualified Gay couples who wish to adopt children, but they better not accept any taxpayer money either. The state of Massachusetts was giving Catholic Charities of Boston over a million dollars per year, money that comes out of the pockets of Straight AND Gay taxpayers. Any organization that wishes to accept that sort of public funding had better be prepared to play by the rules. Catholic Charities didn’t want to obey the non-discrimination law, so they stopped the adoption program rather than lose their funding. No one FORCED them to do anything!
By Jason
June 26, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Just because a few people want to sleep with the same sex does not mean that society ahs to change it’s laws for them.
Yeah, and I suppose you think that just because a minority group of Americans wanted to be able to use the same facilities as white people and sit in the same sections of buses and theaters, society shouldn’t have changed it’s laws just for them? Laws and courts should be in place to PROTECT minorities, not to discriminate against them, history has taught us that time and time again. In time, this cause will be added to that list.
By Susan
June 26, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
No, what does same sex marriage have to do with religious freedom?
Civilized society does not want gay marriage to be legalized. It has nothing to do with religion. We do not need to change the definition of marriage. One man and one woman make a marriage and that’s the bottom line. Sign it into law to protect it.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
Gay pride…what IS that? Yeah, be proud that you’re a pervert? Keep it in the closet and out of our laws.
That “our” you so casually throw around includes all those “perverts” you condemn. Or, weren’t you aware that gays and lesbians are citizens of this country, too? And taxpayers, and volunteers, and employees and employers, etc.
Don’t you think it’s rather arrogant of you to assume that the law is only designed to serve you? Or perhaps you don’t realize that this statement is exactly why gay men and women are fighting so hard for our rights - because people like you honestly believe we deserve to be second class citizens.
Well, we don’t. We don’t care if you think we’re “perverts” (and why do straight people obssess about the sexual aspect so much? When you look at a married straight couple do you immediately start imagining their sexual activities?) and we don’t care if you like us or not. But we do care that you think you can legally discriminate against us.
By Archie
June 26, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
72John, Good day man. Shanti’s column isn’t about religious freedom it’s about practicing bigotry. I am religious myself and I feel no need to put discriminatory laws on the books. When I read about people in the San Francisco newspapers that have worked somewhere for 30 years and they want their benefits to go to their partner of 30 years it changes one’s perspective on same sex marriage. We do need rules in society but we need honesty when it comes to sexual relationships.
By Anthony J
June 26, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
I don’t see how marriage and religion have to be lumped into the same issue. People get married before a judge every day and it has nothing to do with religion.
Just because we want a law that defines marriage as being with a man and a woman does not mean religion plays a part in the drive to do so.
Some things need to be defined to protect society from the popular “anything goes” mindset.
By Jack
June 26, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Gay marriage really hurts society. It’s perfectly morale to deny a person rights because of sexual preference. It’s ok to deny a partner of 20 years entry to the intensive care unit to see his/her significant other’s last breath. Why isn’t more said about the illegitimate birth rate? That makes more of a mockery of marriage than 2 people who are dedicated to each other who happen to be the same sex. In some communities the illegitimate birth rate is close to 80%. Give me a break. Oh, we don’t want opur taxes to go to gays but we gladly give them to illegal aliens. We should spend our thoughts and ideas on more important issues. Live and let live. Do unto others.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Civilized society does not want gay marriage to be legalized. It has nothing to do with religion. We do not need to change the definition of marriage. One man and one woman make a marriage and that’s the bottom line. Sign it into law to protect it.
I see - CIVILIZED society doesn’t want gay marriage. I guess that other side of that coin would be to say that gays are not civilized, or that countries that have gay marriage are not civilized? C’mon…admit it…you just used that word because you thought it sounded good, not because you really understood what it means? Didn’t ya?
Now…since apparently religion has nothing to do with your bigotry, maybe you can tell us what does? Which nasty little petty hatred is responsible for your desire to discriminate against a whole group of people?
C’mon, tell us! I just love hearing the venom spew from people like you.
By William
June 26, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
This country is made up of various religions and each religion is allowed to marry whether in a church or before a judge.
The issue is not religious but secular. Society has voted across the nation to deny the legalization of same sex marriage. That’s pretty plain I believe. Society wants marriage defined as man and woman alone.
By GOB
June 26, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
Civilized society does not want gay marriage to be legalized. It has nothing to do with religion. We do not need to change the definition of marriage. One man and one woman make a marriage and that’s the bottom line. Sign it into law to protect it.
Just because we want a law that defines marriage as being with a man and a woman does not mean religion plays a part in the drive to do so.
Really? Can you tell me where the idea that marriage is to only be between a man and a woman comes from, if not from religion?
If religion isnt the driving force behind wanting to enact a ban on gay marriage, what is?
By GOB
June 26, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
The issue is not religious but secular. Society has voted across the nation to deny the legalization of same sex marriage. That’s pretty plain I believe. Society wants marriage defined as man and woman alone.
And society used to think slavery was a pretty good idea, that blacks should not be allowed to go to school or eat in the same places that whites did, that it was ok to make a treaty with the native americans and then break it.
Remember, if you use what “society” wants as a basis for you might end up on the other side before too long. Unless you speak fluent spanish that is.
By E. Lewis
June 26, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
If these neocon really want to protect marriage, why don’t they propose banning divorce?
As an added measure, send them all back to ex-spouse #1.
By lauren
June 26, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
I agree that society does not want llegalized gay marriage. Religion does not have anything to do with it.
Since when does a person have to be “religious” to get married anyway? Oh, right-NEVER.
The majority rules and says NO to gay marriage.
Leave religion out of it-that’s NOT the issue here.
By kimberly
June 26, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
Bigotry in the name of religion is a tired old song. Now Shaunti picks up the tempo with bigotry in the name of religious freedom!
Yo, Shaunti! We already thought you were a B!TCH! Your “columns” offer no insight, only fodder for bigotry and the same lie-based judgmental rhetoric that’s divided this country and turned people away from the Christ you claim to worship. HERE’S AN IDEA: Go clean your house, cook for your kids, pretty yourself up for your husband’s neglected needs, and give up this silly notion that you are a “journalist.”
By Jack
June 26, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
“And society used to think slavery was a pretty good idea, that blacks should not be allowed to go to school or eat in the same places that whites did, that it was ok to make a treaty with the native americans and then break it.”
Good point GOB.
By William
June 26, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
This is ridiculous. All of a sudden Hollywood and their ilk say that it’s okay to come out of the closet and show everyone that they’re gay and the whole country is supposed to not only accept it but change our laws to suit THEM??? No way folks. Enough is enough.
By Billy
June 26, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
I wonder if Bob will come in this week and retract last week’s claim that Diane cannot match Shaunti’s debating ability. I think she did pretty well this week! Shaunti’s was the most BS argument I’ve read in a while.
This whole argument is bunk; all opposition to “SSM” is completely based on religion! I refer you to this article. Now, I know that doesn’t prove anything, but it does further show that the opposition, when challenged, cannot come up with a valid, non-religious reason for their vehement opposition to gay marriage.
I’ve said what Brian said: separate the civil from the religious. You want a religious marriage? Get a religious marriage. You want a civil one? Get a civil one. You want both? License clergy to grant civil unions, and they they can do them both at the same time. Like now. They won’t have to marry anyone they don’t want to, however.
This does boil down to bigotry, plain and simple. Some people do not want gay couples to be equal to themselves. That’s all this is. There’s still no valid non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage. Until I hear one, I’m all in favor of it.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
The majority rules and says NO to gay marriage.
Apparently someone never made it past about sixth grade, or you would have learned that “Majority rules” is a rather infantile way to explain the basic concepts of democracy to elementary school students.
Those with a more advanced education learn about the various mechanisms in place to protect the rights of minority groups from the “will of the majority”.
Actually, the correct term is TYRANNY of the majority. I suggest you google it.
Since when does a person have to be “religious” to get married anyway? Oh, right-NEVER.
Hmmm, though I’m sure you didn’t mean to, you make an excellent point here. Religion has nothing to do with the civil rights conferred by marriage. So…why are fundies making such a big deal out of it.
By Julia
June 26, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Well, at least you people who sound so full of bigotry admit you’re NOT religious or Christian! ;)
I don’t think anyone should have their rights lessened because they are gay. I don’t think we shold take away anyone’s right to enter into a marriage union and devote their lives to each other. (And for the record-for those who are new here-I’m a Christian.)
By kimberly
June 26, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
So, William…. should society get to decide whom YOU marry? What’s good for one gander is good for another, doncha think? In love? Want to marry? Screw you too! Is that fair?
Gay bashing is absolutely the most pointless waste of effort I can possibly imagine. Seriously… WTF is WRONG with you people that you think you can make the decision to deny civil rights to a portion of the population, simply because YOU think, “Ewww.” Get OVER yourselves, you stupid hateful bigots. YOU’RE the problem with this country, not men who love each other! YOU ARE.
By Randy
June 26, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Legislating intolerance,bigotry, here we go again. Guess all you folks have long forgoten about the politicians who campaigned to keep interracial marriage illegal, especially in the south for such a long time on the basis of the institution of marriage and protecting the church. Since im assuming you are making a concious choice to be a heterosexual and your agenda is denying anyone the legal rights you want to protect for yourself. You can have the church issues, since your religion is your choice. But other people, yes we are human beings and tax paying citizens, deserve the same special legal rights you enjoy under the institution of government. Me and my partner have the right to love one another for as long as we want. Using the church to hide behind your prejudice is a sin in itself. Before you so proudly wave the statement, mentioning homosexuality in “leviticus” in everyones face, please scroll down the page. You will see Lev.25:44 state “I may indeed possess slaves”, or better yet, Exodus 21:7 “sanctioned selling of your daughter into slavery”. I dont see you screaming about enacting laws for this? All you folks should get some professional help, or better yet get a life, if that is all possible.
By Jason
June 26, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
The majority rules and says NO to gay marriage
Some points to ponder while one contemplates this rediculious argument:
Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion—and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion … while Truth again reverts to a new minority. -Kierkegaard
When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right. -Eugene V. Debbs
Shall we then judge a country by the majority, or by the minority? By the minority, surely. -Emerson
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
By Chilao
June 26, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
well we know there are two Randy/s on the blog, don’t we. LMAO
By Jason
June 26, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
The majority rules and says NO to gay marriage
Sorry, I forgot my favorite quote in my previous post, I think it rings very true with some of the ignorant posts I have seen this morning:
“Nothing is more revolting than the majority; for it consists of few vigorous predecessors, of knaves who accommodate themselves, of weak people who assimilate themselves, and the mass that toddles after them without knowing in the least what it wants” -Goehte
By William
June 26, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
So, if a group of people decided to change laws and say that the minimum legal age to marrry should be 8 years old should we go along with that as well?
The group would be a “minority” so shouls that “minority” rule?
What if they want to change the legal drinking age to 12 yrs old? is that ok too?
Laws are in place for a reason-and it’s not because of religion. Some things just don’t make sense and would lead to the moral decay of the country. What the heck am I saying? This country is already morally decayed! So, why not let the gays marry?!?!
By All Mine
June 26, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
If gay marriage happens then it will negatively affect the inheritance of the real families. I already have a lawyer on retainer to challenge my brother’s will. He is leaving his estate to his partner. Well, I am blood and I deserve that estate and will challenge the will and will get all the money. I can’t wait to kick that partner on the street!! My brother should be taking care of me and my kids not some other man. If he could marry, I don’t have a chance! So NO GAY MARRIAGE.
By Randy
June 26, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
Chilao,, Im a new “Randy” on here.Yes there are more than one of us in the world……..
By Tim
June 26, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
everyone don’t mind “All Mine”… he goes on any blog that has anything to do with anything gay and says the exact same thing… has actually said it on this one before as well… just trying to get people upset
By GOB
June 26, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
Laws are in place for a reason-and it’s not because of religion. Some things just don’t make sense and would lead to the moral decay of the country.
What defines moral decay though? Is it from religion, or some other source? If it is some other source, please tell us what it is.
And to your point about laws not being based on religion, why cant I buy beer on Sunday??
By Jason
June 26, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
What on earth do you think entitles you to your brother’s estate if he left it someone else in his will. Domestic Partner or not, he chose to leave it to someone other than you for a reason. Why is your brother obligated to support you and your children? Why can’t you?
What made you become such a sad and hateful person?
By Toad
June 26, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
Jason, great quotes on majority/minority.
One of the most ridiculous examples of Shaunti’s is the poor innkeeper who is discriminated against for discriminating. What a laugh! No Christian compassion for the individuals who were discriminated against. Poor Lester Maddox, he was just exercising his freedom of speech in preventing African Americans from entering his restaurant.
By Jason
June 26, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
So, if a group of people decided to change laws and say that the minimum legal age to marrry should be 8 years old should we go along with that as well?
Well, the problem with that would be that most adults don’t know how to handle alcohol responsibly, more less and 8 year old. Not to mention the negative health effects that would result from allowing 8 year olds to drink. It would have a negative effect on children that arent developed enough,old enough, or mature enough to make those kinds of decisions. Gay marriage would be a decision by two consenting adults to enter into a legal contract to ensure that their union is protected. Tell me how that has a negative effect on society.
Those are two polar opposite issues and you bringing up the question of lowering the drinking age to the age of eight demonstrates your ignorance.
By Billy
June 26, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
All Mine — Nice! Funny…
Randy — You’ll soon see that the other Randy that frequents this blog is rabidly on the other side of issues like this. That’s why my and probably several other people’s brains nearly exploded when we read your comment.
By Jack
June 26, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
Hi Sweet Thing.
By William
June 26, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
GOB-so, what do non-religious people base things on? Good question. What do non-religious people use as a measuring stick for what’s right and what’s wrong? Are you saying atheists and non-religious people have no values or morals? And if they DO-then exactly WHAT do they base them on?
Excellent question indeed. Anyone want to take a shot at it and at the same time answer GOB’s question. Because they are one and the same.
And yes, you should be able to buy beer on Sunday.
By Toad
June 26, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
All Mine, love the satire, Sweetie!
By Chuck Anziulewicz
June 26, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
I’m always amused by those persons who claim, “We don’t hate the sinner, we just hate the SIN! We are motivated only by Christian love and concern.”
TO WHIT: Gay people must not be protected from job discrimination. Gay people must not be allowed to adopt children. Gay people must be barred from serving in the military or joining the Boy Scouts. Gay people must not be protected under existing hate crimes statutes. Gay couples must not be allowed to file joint tax returns. Gay couples must not be allowed to declare one another beneficiaries under Social Security. Gay people ought not to be teaching in public schools. Gay couples must not be allowed to marry. Gay relationships, no matter how long-term or monogamous, are absolutely OUT OF THE QUESTION.
But remember: “IT’S ONLY BECAUSE WE LOVE YOU!”
Yeah, right.
By GOB
June 26, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
William - I am absolutly not saying that religion is the only basis for moral and ethical behavior. I am not athiest, but certianly dont get my ethical and moral grounding from a religion.
I was asking for an answer that applies to the specific idea of gay marriage. What, other than religion, dictates that gay marriage or activity will lead to the moral decay of our country?
By Chilao
June 26, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
The regular (first/earlier) Randy did the first post, dated last Friday, he did not seemed to be concerned about the potential for activist judges, well, if they were acting as HE wished. LOL
By Julia
June 26, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Hi Tim! We’ve missed ya’ on the blog lately. How are you doing? Hopefully in August we’re finally going to get to the beach (yay!). Probably our usual Myrtle Beach. I hope all is well with you darling. ;)
By Toad
June 26, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
To say marriage is for one man/one woman is against the Bible since the Bible has multiple instances of polygamy. Look no further than the story of Abraham.
By William
June 26, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
What, other than religion, dictates that gay marriage or activity will lead to the moral decay of our country?—-by GOB
Take out the words “gay marriage” and insert theft, murder, arson, etc…
What besides religion makes THOSE things wrong? Again, what do non-religious people base laws and beliefs on? You can’t just say they are all based on religion.
Where does an atheist get their basis for right and wrong?
Since the ten commandments says “thou shalt not kill” does that make laws that ban murder religious? Are laws against murder religious? What about stealing? What about lying under oath in court?
By Tim
June 26, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Hey Julia
sorry I haven’t been around too much… my boss for some reason has decided I need to work lol… so not too much time for blogging… but I skim through every now and then… I am doing well… actually going down to Naples, Fl next week… so get to enjoy the beach a lil bit more this summer… hope you have a great time at the beach in august :)… that is my month for family reunions… uggggg… same questions 500 times… so when are you going to get married… I have a feeling one day I am just going to finally say… probably about the same time I decide to move to Massachusetts
By The72John
June 26, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
GOB-so, what do non-religious people base things on? Good question. What do non-religious people use as a measuring stick for what’s right and what’s wrong? Are you saying atheists and non-religious people have no values or morals? And if they DO-then exactly WHAT do they base them on?
I’m not a particularly religious person in the sense that most people mean when they say “I’m religious”. My morality comes from a basic sense of ethics and fairness. I don’t need God to tell me that I shouldn’t eat meat on Fridays because eating meat on Fridays doesn’t HURT anyone. And as far as I can tell, my sense of ethics is far stronger than those of a lot of people who claim to be Christian. Just last week, on of the semi-regular religious fanatics on this board admitted that he makes his living preying on the financially destitute. Now, THAT’S moral decay.
What, pray tell, does who someone loves have to do with moral decay? Brittany Spears getting married and divorced in a 24 hour period is moral decay. A preacher spending millions of dollars donated to his church on himself and his Bentley is moral decay. Pretty much anything you might see on Jerry Springer represents moral decay.
Two people living together faithfully for twenty years and wanting to put a legal stamp on that relationship is not moral decay. Just because you are obsessed with the sexual aspect of gay relationships and are unable to process the fact that they are really just about two people who love each other doesn’t make it immoral.
By Toad
June 26, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
Murder is wrong, theft is wrong. I don’t need religion to tell me these things are wrong because these are actions that hurt other people. All societies have mores (moral codes) that the individuals in that society live by. It is institutionalized by each society, no matter how civilized or religious we may think it to be.
Homosexuality is not wrong because it harms no one when I love someone of my own gender.
By Billy
June 26, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
I’m not religious. I base my morals on the idea of not hurting my fellow man. On the idea that my right to swing my fist ends just before my neighbor’s nose. On the idea that who or whatever our creator was or is, he/she/it doesn’t actively involve him/her/itself in our day-to-day lives. On the idea that if God judges me he’ll do it after I die and that in the meantime I should live my life the way I want to do so, provided I do not infringe on others’ rights.
By Randy
June 26, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
I will now be known as “Gay-Randy”, that will sure make him flip
By Jason
June 26, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
What besides religion makes THOSE things wrong? Again, what do non-religious people base laws and beliefs on? You can’t just say they are all based on religion.
William- There is a very fine line in your argument. It would appear that most civil laws are based on a religous point of view or some type of religious doctrine, but lets take one step back. Various civilizations, throughout time, in all corners of the globe, with distinct societies and distrinct religions, of different backgrounds, in different technilogical ages have all had the same basic concepts to their laws. Ex, don’t kill, don’t steal, dont’ lie, don’t cheat, etc. One could argue that laws appear to be based on religion, but those religious ideas stem from some innate, sense of right and wrong that humans possess, almost like an instinct. In fact, one sees it all the time in nature……animals don’t kill eachother for sport, only for food or in defense. In March of the Penguins, it clearly demonstrates the society ostricizes female penguins who try to “steal” another female’s baby after loosing her own. Families of chimps/gorillas have a clear patriarch that administers discipline when a member of the family “acts up” in one way or another. Sure, it looks like societies base their laws on religion, but I think we are born with a basic idea of “right and wrong.” Politics and religion account for the laws that go above and beyond the basic ideas of right and wrong.
By chuck
June 26, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Good morning,
72Johm you made 2 interesting statements:
Shaunti’s entire argument is rooted in the idea that her religious “freedom” is more important than other people’s religious freedom. More specifically, she is claiming that her freedom to discriminate is being challenged.
AND
You can’t violate EXISTING federal guidelines preventing discrimination, even if your religious beliefs make you want to.
These are interesting statements because they serve to prove Shaunti’s argument. You are exactly right, her right to discriminate IS BEING CHALLENGED. That’s the whole point. When the issue first came up back in the 80’s with a proposal that would have added “sexual orientation” as a protected class under the civil rights act, We were told that the Christian school run by our church would not be able to discriminate in hirng homosexuals to work in our school. In effect, we would be in the position of having to choose between following God’s Word OR following the law. That would have been a huge impingement on our first amendment rights.
This issue is no less an imposition on Christian churches. While I agree that we can’t discriminate EXISTING federal guidelines, I absolutely DISAGREE with adding homosexuality AS A NEW federal guideline. Thank you for clarifying that john.
By Lyrazel
June 26, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
If gay marriage happens then it will negatively affect the inheritance of the real families. I already have a lawyer on retainer to challenge my brother’s will. He is leaving his estate to his partner. Well, I am blood and I deserve that estate and will challenge the will and will get all the money. I can’t wait to kick that partner on the street!! My brother should be taking care of me and my kids not some other man. If he could marry, I don’t have a chance! So NO GAY MARRIAGE.
Poster, you were on before under a different name and I recognize you by the ludicrous content of this posting. Your brother probably has made accommodations to make sure there are no legal challenges to his decisions—especially from his siblings—so either you are an impostor looking to bait us or you really are the missing link…..You bore me.
By Chilao
June 26, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
What about lying under oath in court?
Isn’t that really “Thou shalt not bare false witness” a deviation of the much earlier, Egyptian Negative Confessions(one of the 40-42 or so) “I have not sold short the bushel”(misrepresented).(where the Jews/Moses got that commandment)
what’s court got to do with it? It is okay to lie, but just not in court?(cause you swore on the Bible or something)
By Jack
June 26, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
Hey Julia. Cube mates back yet?
By B.
June 26, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
This is an old and threadbare argument. It’s true that we lost a certain freedom when we lost the right to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin color. And I’m sure we’ll lose some small modicum of freedom when we finally stop discriminating against gays.
On one hand, Shaunti is absolutely right - outlawing discrimination limits a person’s rights. If you cannot legally decide who to serve in a restaurant based on their skin color, then you do lose a certain amount of freedom -the freedom to discriminate based on race. The same is true for printers, hotels, and adoption agencies that refuse to serve gays.
Of course, as others have pointed out, all laws limit freedom. And some people believe the lost freedom to discriminate is more valuable than people’s right not to be discriminated against. The central question is this: is your right to assert individual discriminatory preferences more important than the right of the other person not to have such discriminatory preferences imposed on them? Like all laws, it is a “balancing of the rights.”
The religious aspect is a smokescreen and turns out to be irrelevant. One person may well believe that his god hates gays, and that his religion mandates discrimination. But another may equally well believe that his god loves gays, and that his religion outlaws discrimination. So it turns out that you cannot “balance the rights” based on religious preferences - indeed, any attempt ends up in a morass of Church/State issues. (e.g. which religion has the most people, or whose interpretation of the Gospel is more “correct.”)
Of course, not all of Shaunti’s examples are based on “laws.” There are two situations she cites:
There is a law against sexual orientation discrimination, and breaking it carries a legal penalty. This is the case with the printers in Canada and the adoption agency in Massachussets. This is nothing but the balancing of the rights discussed above.
There is no law against discrimination, but discrimination carries a social penalty - like being fired.
Shaunti’s most “horrifying” examples fall into this category. Teachers and pastors fired for expressing their views on gay marriage in the newspaper! So? Particularly with the pastor - who fired the pastor for anti-gay rhetoric? Presumably the church did. So whose religious freedom was harmed there? Do churches no longer have the right to fire pastors whose views on major issues disagree with the congregation? Isn’t it a much greater breach of “religious freedom” to try to force a church to employ a pastor whose religious views differ from the church’s?
In any event, Shaunti’s argument is not particularly new or interesting. If you agree with her that gay rights are unimportant, and that being discriminated against is no big deal, then you would value the right to discriminate more. If you think that discrimination is a big deal, and that the right to love the person you love is important, then you value the right not to be discriminated against more. Simple as that.
By Jason
June 26, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
Chuck- The Supreme Court has already said that the Boy Scouts of America have every right to discriminate against homosexuals by not allowing them to be Scout Masters. Why is that? Because they are a private organization. Maybe it’s the little Republican in me, but even as a homosexual, I couldn’t agree more. If a private christian school wanted to hire candidate B becuase candidate A is a homosexual, they would have every right to do so. How would allowing gay couples to marry change that?
By Kyle
June 26, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
could someone on this blog who opposes gay marriage please give me a valid reason as to why two people of the same sex have any less of a right to get married than a man and a woman - and while your at it, please also tell me why you care so much about what others are doing in their personal life. this issue seems like nothing more than an attempt to force the entire population to abide by the morals/beliefs of a select group. i know many of you on here say its not about religion - bu11$hit. where does the notion that being gay is wrong come from if not religion.
By Toad
June 26, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
To a non-believer swearing under oath is meaningless. How about swearing under threat of perjury?
By The72John
June 26, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
This issue is no less an imposition on Christian churches. While I agree that we can’t discriminate EXISTING federal guidelines, I absolutely DISAGREE with adding homosexuality AS A NEW federal guideline. Thank you for clarifying that john.
Well, I’m sure there were people who didn’t and don’t like not being able to discriminate against other groups, too. Fortunately for them, they don’t have a choice. And you won’t have a choice one day, either, bigot.
Whatever rationale you create for yourself, the fact remains that Shaunti and you and all the other Christapo out there think that the laws of the land should be tailored to favor YOUR beliefs and no one elses. Saying “We can’t have gays as a protected class because our Churches would have to hire them” is basically saying “Our religion and religious freedoms trump everyone elses. Sorry!”
By chuck
June 26, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
This post I somewhat agree with:
By Chuck Anziulewicz
June 26, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
DEAR SHAUNTI: Regarding Catholic Charities of Boston … I couldn’t care less if this organization wants to discriminate against qualified Gay couples who wish to adopt children, but they better not accept any taxpayer money either. The state of Massachusetts was giving Catholic Charities of Boston over a million dollars per year, money that comes out of the pockets of Straight AND Gay taxpayers. Any organization that wishes to accept that sort of public funding had better be prepared to play by the rules. Catholic Charities didn’t want to obey the non-discrimination law, so they stopped the adoption program rather than lose their funding. No one FORCED them to do anything!
Churches should NOT be accepting ANY federal dollars. PERIOD!!! To me, it is ridiculous for a church to claim belief in the true meaning of the first amendment to then turn around and accept money from the government to do GOD’S WORK. If God calls a church to minister through a program of some type, then it is the responsibility of God’s people to fund it.
The same poster later said this:
TO WHIT: Gay people must not be protected from job discrimination. Gay people must not be allowed to adopt children. Gay people must be barred from serving in the military or joining the Boy Scouts. Gay people must not be protected under existing hate crimes statutes. Gay couples must not be allowed to file joint tax returns. Gay couples must not be allowed to declare one another beneficiaries under Social Security. Gay people ought not to be teaching in public schools. Gay couples must not be allowed to marry. Gay relationships, no matter how long-term or monogamous, are absolutely OUT OF THE QUESTION.
But remember: “IT’S ONLY BECAUSE WE LOVE YOU!”
Your only problem in this statement is the obvious sarcasm. The statement is TRUE in its entirety. Any Christian that claims to love another would have to agree with those things because homosexuality is a sin. No Christian who is a true believer would EVER want anyone to continue in their sin. That my friend is true love.
By Brian Curtis
June 26, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
Churches can discriminate all they want to. It’s the notion of passing laws to enforce that discrimination that outrages Americans.
And, for those of you who’ve forgotten high-school civics or Social Studies, here’s a quick refresher: The will of the majority doesn’t mean SQUAT when it comes to civil rights.
If 99.9% of Georgia residents passed a referendum to deny free speech to the Klan, or to NAMBLA, that law would be struck down in a heartbeat. Because free speech is a constitutional right that no mere majority can squelch.
The right to equal treatment under the law is another such basic right, and it doesn’t really matter how many people vote “for” or “against” it.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
Your only problem in this statement is the obvious sarcasm. The statement is TRUE in its entirety. Any Christian that claims to love another would have to agree with those things because homosexuality is a sin. No Christian who is a true believer would EVER want anyone to continue in their sin. That my friend is true love.
Put this in Arabic and it would sound like something coming out of the mouths of an Al-Qaeda spokesman.
By Toad
June 26, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
If you think homosexuality is a sin, don’t have sex with a person of your own gender. For those of us who don’t believe it is a sin, keep your laws off our personal relationship.
By chuck
June 26, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
Jason, It is the slippery slope. A Christian School cannot discriminate against Blacks in hiring. If they do they will be sued and they will lose. Now I don’t think that Christian schools SHOULD discriminate against Blacks in either hiring or admissions…the point is IF homosexuality is gradually granted SPECIAL rights in the areas of marriage or family, then they will become a “protected class”.
Jason, the Boy Scouts won BECAUSE homosexuals are NOT a protected class under the Civil Rights Act.
By chuck
June 26, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
BC, it obviously does not outrage too many Americans, because every state but one currently outlaws gay marriage. We’re trying to make sure that this does NOT become a Civil Rights issue. Protected classes should only include those currently protected. We don’t extend SPECIAL rights based on BEHAVIOR. Gays currently have the SAME marriage rights that I have. ANY MAN may marry a woman of his choosing as long as she chooses back. ANY WOMAN may marry any man she chooses. These rights are the same FOR EVERYBODY. Having a special right to marry within one’s gender is just that. AN EXTRA right.
By Jason
June 26, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Allowing gays and lesbians to marry and making gays a lesbians a “protected class” are two completely different issues. I don’t think I have heard any gay rights activists out there advocating ammending the Civil Rights Act to include gay’s and lesbians. I can’t speak for the entire gay and lesbian community but I, for one, am not interested in becoming a “protected class” or getting “special rights.” Equal rights? Yes. But you’re talking about an issue that isn’t even on the radar.
By chuck
June 26, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
When you ask for a SPECIAL right, there has to be an EXTRAORDINARY or compelling REASON. Not just to make some group happy. There is no compelling reason to legalize gay marriage. EVERYTHING that they think the change would bring about can already be done through LEGAL means now. Durable power of attorney for instance among others.
No, what gays want these laws changed so that they can feel good about themselves. So they feel normal. That’s the bottom line here.
By Mara
June 26, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
By Toad - To a non-believer swearing under oath is meaningless.
As an agnostic, when I make a promise (swear) to tell the truth, I hold to it because that’s what I said I’d do. Not because I fear to go to jail for purjury. but because it’s the right and decent thing to do. I guess Toad has never heard of personal honor.
But that shouldn’t surprise anyone. There is a segment of society that seems to need someone to tell them when something isn’t right…
By SUZAN
June 26, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
First I will say that I am a Christian Second, There is no way to put this Jeanie back in the Bottle! Gay marriage will happen whether people want it or not.
Third, All citizens in this country should have the same rights. What ever the race, religion, color, or gender, or gender preference.
Fourth, No minster should be forced to go againt their beliefs to marry a same sex couple. Civil unions or marriages by churches that endorse homosexuality will happen. Fifth, I am really tired of hearing about what people do in their bedrooms and I just wish people could use a b it more discretion.
All Citizens should have the same rights. and when this happens perhaps we wont have to listen to people talking about their sex lives.
By Billy
June 26, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
Chuck, the only places that should(?) have any “reason” for discriminating against homosexuals are religious institutions. No other person or group has a reason to discriminate against them. Assuming you’re right that churches would lose the right to discriminate against gays, well, why would a gay person be applying for a job or whatever in a place like that anyway? Just to force the place to hire him, or to force a lawsuit if it did not? That person would be just as dickish as the religious group doing the discriminating.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
Jason, It is the slippery slope. A Christian School cannot discriminate against Blacks in hiring. If they do they will be sued and they will lose. Now I don’t think that Christian schools SHOULD discriminate against Blacks in either hiring or admissions…the point is IF homosexuality is gradually granted SPECIAL rights in the areas of marriage or family, then they will become a “protected class”.
And because Chuck and HIS religion thinks that gays are evil, then the rest of the country must follow suit and legally discriminate against them. HIS church and HIS beliefs should be enshrined into law, in blatant violation and utter disregard for the religious freedom he prattles about when he mentions the 1st Ammendment.
HIS church. HIS beliefs. HIS bigotry and discrimination. HIS determination of who is and isn’t worthy to be protected should have precedence because HE is a CHRISTIAN and HE IS RIGHT.
You can’t argue with him, Jason. You can only ridicule him for his Taliban-like beliefs. And Julia, if you were wondering about the Christians I’m talking about, look at Chuck. You wonder why I despise so many of you?
By chuck
June 26, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
Hey gang, got to go for today. I’ll be back tomorrow for more stimulating conversation.
Bye now.
By Billy
June 26, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
Gays currently have the SAME marriage rights that I have. ANY MAN may marry a woman of his choosing as long as she chooses back. ANY WOMAN may marry any man she chooses.
Talk about desecrating the sanctity of marriage!
By Billy
June 26, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Chuck, power of attorney is still legally assailable by the family of the person in question.
By Mara
June 26, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Chuck, nope. The Boy Scouts got to discriminate not because orientation is un-protected, but because they are a private institution. Just as the Augusta Country Club can descriminate with gender because they are a private club.
And for the record, nobody is asking for special rights, we’re asking for EQUAL rights for everyone. A gay marrying the one he loves should be EQUAL UNDER THE LAW to a heterosexual marrying the one he loves. He should have the same responsibilities as well as the same benefits.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
Hey gang, got to go for today. I’ll be back tomorrow for more stimulating conversation.
Yeah, hope you don’t die or anything.
By Toad
June 26, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
Mara,
I do believe in personal honor and my oath is my word. I totally reject the idea that morality is based on religion. As a non-believer, to me swearing on a Bible is meaningless. My remark about perjury reflects the state’s belief that people won’t lie if they swear on a Bible and are afraid of incurring the wrath of g-d. So I was saying if someone needs fear in order to tell the truth try the legal punishment for lying.
By Jason
June 26, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
EVERYTHING that they think the change would bring about can already be done through LEGAL means now. Durable power of attorney for instance among others.
Chuck, you could not be more wrong about that. The Human Rights Campaign has identified more than 3,000 rights and privilages on the state and federal levels that same-sex couples do not have, many of which cannot be secured even with legal documentation.
Besides that, your argument stinks of “Seperate but Equal”
By Toad
June 26, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
Also, swearing “to tell the truth, so help me God” violates the separation of church and state. I wouldn’t mind just swearing to tell the truth without a bible or mention of G-D.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
ANY MAN may marry a woman of his choosing as long as she chooses back. ANY WOMAN may marry any man she chooses. These rights are the same FOR EVERYBODY. Having a special right to marry within one’s gender is just that. AN EXTRA right.
ANY MAN may belong to ANY RELIGION as long as he chooses MINE. That right is the same for EVERYBODY!
When you ask for a SPECIAL right, there has to be an EXTRAORDINARY or compelling REASON. Not just to make some group happy. There is no compelling reason to legalize gay marriage. EVERYTHING that they think the change would bring about can already be done through LEGAL means now. Durable power of attorney for instance among others
False. On both counts. It’s an extension of rights not a granting of special rights. SPECIAL rights would be something that I could do that you can’t. Sorry. Bad logic there, yet again. But hey - it’s straight from another of your canned religious hate sites, so I’m not surprised.
As to the other - none of the tax priviliges of marriage can be granted by other legal means, and for heterosexual couples all of those rights are granted for the tiny fee of a marriage license and the stroke of a pen. For gay couples to cement even those rights they CAN get through legal means would require enormous legal fees.
No, what gays want these laws changed so that they can feel good about themselves. So they feel normal. That’s the bottom line here.
I’m SO glad you know what “the gays” want, Schmuck. I had no idea that we wanted marriage rights. Perhaps the reason that you DON’T want us to have them is so you can continue to sit smugly in the knowledge that we are discriminated against as you think we should be. Those laws keep us “not happy” and “not feeling normal”, is that it Chuck? Is that what makes you feel superior?
And we ARE normal, a*******hole.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Besides that, your argument stinks of “Seperate but Equal”
Just so you know, Chuck doesn’t care about Separate but Equal or anything else. All he wants is justification of his hatred of gays.
By GOB
June 26, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
Take out the words “gay marriage” and insert theft, murder, arson, etc…
What besides religion makes THOSE things wrong? Again, what do non-religious people base laws and beliefs on? You can’t just say they are all based on religion.
Well, the reason you cant simply change gay marriage to murder or arson is because those things infringe on the rights of another person. How does gay marriage infringe on the rights of anyone else?
Also, I have not claimed that all beliefs or laws are based on religion, but the gay marriage issue most certainly is.
By Mara
June 26, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Sorry, Toad. I misunderstood. I thought perhaps the scaredy-cat who “borrows” other peoples psuedonyms had stolen your name for a post or two…sorry.
By lozen
June 26, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
What do non-religious people base their morality on? If it harms themselves or others, it’s bad. If it helps themselves or others, it’s good. And by the way, in a democracy we have a constant debate about what’s right and what’s wrong. That’s what freedom is. Let me say that one more time: The debate we are having about what is wrong and right is what our freedom is based on! Making a pronouncement that gay people shouldn’t have the right to marry under the laws of this country doesn’t end the discussion. At one time slavery was moral and right in this nation, although it was never right in the minds of a great many individuals (they were the minority!). At one time disenfranchisement of women/black men/women was moral and right. At one time under the U.S. law it was illegal for a woman to have birth control information. At one time it was legal for a man to beat his wife! So what’s right keeps changing in a democracy and (I know I’m repeating myself and it needs to be repeated!) that is what freedom in democracy means. Do you really think only christians have morals? Civilized people have always developed moral codes to live by no matter what their religion was. Religious ideas are just one expression of moral thinking. Well, as many different religions as there are, I really should say religious ideas are just dozens of expressions of moral thinking!
By concerned citizen
June 26, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Shaunti, was this the same argument you made back in the sixties against civil rights? Just substitute “black” for “gay” and shazaam, there you go. The truth is, letting people be who they were born to be, and giving them all the rights granted to the rest of us can NEVER be a violation of another person’s freedom of speech or religion. Your freedom of speech and religion ends when it calls for the discrimination against a certain segment of society. You can hate it if you want, but you haven’t the right to stop the rights of another person to exist with their rights intact.
By Mara
June 26, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
lozen - don’t forget those once-sacred moral rights of marriage. Those great “domestic rights” like marital rape, wife beatings, keeping the woman at home destitute, choosing who she can associate with…you know…the whole sacred father-knows-best laws that were once acceptable to a majority of people.
By SUZAN
June 26, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
There is no seperation of church and state in the US Constitution. It says that the government will not have an official church recognized by the state (government). That being said. If you are a US citizen then you should have the rights of a US Citizen, All the rights. No matter what you are, where you came from, or what you believe. However, this does not give anyone a right to invade or force themselves into private instituions. Nor should it give anyone special rights. If people do not want to accept homosexulaity then, homosexual will need to understand that you can not force people to love or accept you as you are. There will always pe prejudice in the world for something or someone.
For my fellow Christians, remember to render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s and to God that which is God’s. Be salt and light, not vinegar and bitterness. God, the Father has laid down his laws and none are able to keep them. This is why Christ came to deliver us. If you go into a village and speak the word of God and none will hear it, leave and shake the dust off your feet.
God does not need us to defend him. He is the creator of all. We do not have to try and make excuses for our beliefs. We need only to be available to Him when he calls us. If God decides to use us in a way that is pleasing to him and that glorifies him, he does not need to beg. I would ask just how many Christians have ever befriended a Gay person. How do you expect them to see the Christ in us when all we can say is “hate the sin lover the sinner” This is so asinine a statement as to be shameful. We cannot stop this from comming. Is this not part of the prophecies for the end times. Do what Christ commanded. Spread the gospel, teach, feed the hungry, clothe the naked. Be a light that shines forth. Speak the truth in love and pray unceasingly. This is our job. We are not militants, we are a Royal Preisthood. We are in the world and not of the world. Open your hearts that others may see the Christ in you. All sin is the same in Gods eyes. If we all fall short, then is it not better that we pray to God to guide us to rightousness first.
We will not change the world. But we need to watch that the world does not change us!
By Nancy
June 26, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
Gay marriage does not infringe on anyone’s rights. However, once it becomes legal then other things will change in society such as adoption laws. Once children are taught it’s ok for men to marry men and for kids to have two “daddies” then society as we know it will continue to speed down that slippery slope of immorality and indecency.
Just like the Terri Schaivo incident-it wasn’t about ONE woman-it has now set a legal precedent that it’s ok to put handicapped people to death.
When gay marriage becomes legal it will affect society in many ways and will mean many other laws will be challenged and changed. The trickle down effect of a slippery slope.
By Justin
June 26, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
With all the problems in the world, my marrying my partner of 8 years is going to be the catalyst that causes society to come crashing down? I never realized I yielded so much power.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
Gay marriage does not infringe on anyone’s rights. However, once it becomes legal then other things will change in society such as adoption laws. Once children are taught it’s ok for men to marry men and for kids to have two “daddies” then society as we know it will continue to speed down that slippery slope of immorality and indecency.
So, again…why is it immoral or indecent for two men or women to have a loving relationship? Answer without invoking religion or tacit religion and you win!
Just like the Terri Schaivo incident-it wasn’t about ONE woman-it has now set a legal precedent that it’s ok to put handicapped people to death.
Oh, now I see - you are just an idiot. It’s OK to put handicapped people to DEATH because of the Schaivo case? Were you born a moron, or did some kind of catastrophic head wound occur later in life? Do you think that people are running around “putting down” the handicapped because one BRAIN DEAD woman was removed from artificial life support?
God, you people are SO freaking STUPID.
By Nancy
June 26, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
No Christian wants a sin to be legalized. So if the bible speaks against homosexuality then Christians do not want it legalized and given the notion that it’s a-ok. (A stamp of approval on something that’s against the bible.)
SUZAN, Julia and others-how can you be for gay marriage and still be a Christian?
By Jason
June 26, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Nancy, Nancy, Nancy……I don’t even know where to begin. First of all, I love your choice of words: “it’s ok to put handicapped people to death.” So very Republican of you…..kinda like calling the Estate Tax the Death Tax. Conservative Republicans are sooooo good at scaring people! I also love how you conservatives talk about how everything will lead to a “slippery slope.”
Oh, and God-forbid, that we teach our children to be tolerant in our school systems. What a travesty! Put aside your religous beliefs and what makes having two daddies immoral or indecent? I’ll bet you can’t come up with something. But, hey, if you don’t want your kids to be tolerant of other people, religions, sexual orientations, ideas, races, etc., then take them out of our public schools and put them in a private school where they can be taught all the ignorance that you want.
And what is the problem with laws being changed and challenged? We have a proud history in this country of admitting our mistakes and changing our laws as a result, more than enough examples have already been cited in this blog, so I won’t re-hash that.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Once children are taught it’s ok for men to marry men and for kids to have two “daddies” then society as we know it will continue to speed down that slippery slope of immorality and indecency.
And just for the record, Schaivo (Can I call you Schaivo? It seems appropriate, ‘cause you have so much in common)the phrase “Slipper Slope” refers to a specific kind of logical fallacy, one that you ironically invoked in your nonsensical diatribe.
To say that A will cause B which causes C which leads to D until E (Disaster) ensues is a fallacious (It’s ok, look up the word) use of reasoning. Fa-lla-cious.
By Toad
June 26, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Nancy, it is okay for a kid to have two daddies. Adoption laws in most states do not discriminate against people who are single or are in a relationship with a person of the same gender. Why is it a slide down the slippery slope for a child to be raised by two parents in a committed relationship? I know many single parents and gay parents and in all cases the children are exposed to persons of the opposite sex than their parent(s) for role models so it’s not an excuse to discriminate by saying they need a mommy and daddy.
By Mara
June 26, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
Nancy - what immoral and indecent things do you see becoming acceptable to society once little Johnny finds out that his friend lives with two mommies instead of a mommy and daddy? What do you fear will happen if little Mary’s two daddies come to the PTA meetings? I’ve heard so often about the horrible things that’ll happen if gays get to marry, but honestly, I can’t think of what is meant by that…
By Toad
June 26, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
There is a class of people in this country who receive SPECIAL RIGHTS! Married people enjoy, as another poster pointed out, over 3000 legal advantages that single people do not. Many of these privileged persons want the constitution to enshrine their SPECIAL RIGHTS so no one else is entitled to them. All people, singled or coupled, should have access to health care, inheritance, tax benefits, the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital, immunity against testifying against their loved ones, etc.
By Nancy
June 26, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
72 John-Calling people “freaking stupid” does not make you seem intelligent or worthy of debate…NOR DOES IT MAKE YOUR CASE SEEM VERY STRONG.
By Justin
June 26, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Hey Nancy, I’ve got a kid in my neighborhood who I’m sure would love to discuss his 2 fathers with you. I’ve not seen a more polite, well adjusted kid in my life.
By GOB
June 26, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
SUZAN, Julia and others-how can you be for gay marriage and still be a Christian?
How can you allow your husband to cut the grass on Sunday and still be a Christian?
By Mara
June 26, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
Nancy - * No Christian wants a sin to be legalized*
so when you gonna lead that charge to outlaw adultry, overindulgence of wine, eating shellfish, wearing more than one type of cloth at the same time, using the bathroom within the city limits, telling lies, working on the Sabbath, gluttony, envy, laziness, holding your good-for-nothing drunk of a parent in contempt, spoiling your child, worshiping a god other than your God, worshiping graven images (all thos 10-commandment zealots better watch it on this one!) etc etc etc….
Huh? When you gonna start your crusade to outlaw “sin”?
By The72John
June 26, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
SUZAN, Julia and others-how can you be for gay marriage and still be a Christian?
Oh, NancySchaivo…do you ever stop to think before you speak? LOL, look what I’m talking to - a fundamentalist Christian, of COURSE you don’t think before you speak…that would require the ability to think in the first place.
Tell me, Schaivo dear, when you read about Islamic extremism, or the Taliban, or about the Saudi Arabian religious police, or other extremist theocracies around the world, do you ever stop and think “Wow, that sounds AWESOME! I gotta Get Me Some of THAT!” Because, dear, that’s what you are advocating. You’re advocating a society that bases its discriminatory laws on the religious beliefs of ONE group of people.
Really, Schaivo, you ought to MOVE to Saudi Arabia. You could even try to buddy up to the Religious Police you are so obviously interested in…accept that they tend to kill women who get out of line.
Can I buy your ticket for you?
By Nancy
June 26, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
And what is the problem with laws being changed and challenged? We have a proud history in this country of admitting our mistakes and changing our laws as a result,
You made a great point there seeing as how Roe v Wade is going to be overturned soon enough!!!!!!
You are right that some laws should be changed and wrongs corrected. Roe v Wade has allowed 45 million innocent children to be slaughtered. I wonder if those supreme court justices are PROUD of their vote now?
By Chilao
June 26, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
So no one eats shellfish or pork anymore? That is soy meat being grilled at the BBQ places with the hog figurine out front? Smells porcine to me.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
72 John-Calling people “freaking stupid” does not make you seem intelligent or worthy of debate…NOR DOES IT MAKE YOUR CASE SEEM VERY STRONG.
Schaivo, coming from someone who thinks that we’re rounding up the handicapped and killing them AND from someone who obviously bases her every thoughts on “The Bible”, that’s not much of an indictment, now is it?
You ARE freaking stupid. You can’t help it, I realize. It’s the nasty bigoted part of you that you choose to let come out.
By Jason
June 26, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
No Christian wants a sin to be legalized. So if the bible speaks against homosexuality then Christians do not want it legalized and given the notion that it’s a-ok. (A stamp of approval on something that’s against the bible.)
Well, why don’t you and all of your fundamentalist christians go off and start a theocratic state? I’m sure Osama bin Laden and the Taliban wouldn’t mind giving you some pointers. You could probably also get good advice help from Suadi Arabia and Iran while you are at it!
It is completely legal to get drunk out of your mind every night of the week in this country as long as you don’t drive. You can also eat to your heart’s content (or destruction in this case) and get as fat as you want in this country…..last I checked gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins. You wont get stoned for commiting adultery, heck, you won’t even go to jail. Most states even have sanctioned gambling in the form of lotteries. As long as you are a consenting adult, you can have all the sex you want before getting married. You can even buy pornographic magazines at your gas station down the street. In most cases, you won’t get arrested for lying to someone (unless it’s purjury or violates a written contract) nor will you get in trouble for working on the sabbath. Oh, and the REALLY big one……..you can worhip any God that you want….or even none at all without breaking any laws.
How about thinking your arguments through a little better next time?
By Mara
June 26, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
GOB - you’re a riot, y’know that!? How can you allow your husband to cut the grass on Sunday and still be a Christian? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
By William
June 26, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
GOB-actually the Sabbath day is on Saturday. The Catholic church changed the day to Sunday to avoid being like the Jews which they hated so much. We have the Catholic church to thank for trying to change God’s Sabbath day to a different day-all out of hatred for the Jews. Catholics are not Christians. So, you should ask if they mow the lawn on Saturday since it’s the day of rest.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
You are right that some laws should be changed and wrongs corrected. Roe v Wade has allowed 45 million innocent children to be slaughtered. I wonder if those supreme court justices are PROUD of their vote now
Probably they would be more proud if you had been one of them.
By GOB
June 26, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
Mara - What can I say, I am in a good mood today (got that teaching job offer…)
By The72John
June 26, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
We have the Catholic church to thank for trying to change God’s Sabbath day to a different day-all out of hatred for the Jews. Catholics are not Christians. So, you should ask if they mow the lawn on Saturday since it’s the day of rest.
Wow, this topic brings out all the crazies, doesn’t it?
By William
June 26, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
72 john-you need to cut the death wishes to those that disagree with you. What a great person you must be if everyone who opposes you gets a death wish. (You would have liked Hitler I suppose.)
By Mara
June 26, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
congrats, GOB. And best of luck.
Well, Nancy?…what immoral and indecent things do you see becoming acceptable to society once little Johnny finds out that his friend lives with two mommies instead of a mommy and daddy? What do you fear will happen if little Mary’s two daddies come to the PTA meetings? I’ve heard so often about the horrible things that’ll happen if gays get to marry, but honestly, I can’t think of what is meant by that… Well? What do you see in that crystal ball of yours?
By Jason
June 26, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
This has really been a blast, but I have a meeting to go to. I can’t wait to get home tonight and get all caught up! I especially can’t wait to hear more of Nancy’s great arguments! I leave for now with this thought:
“When you are outraged by somebody’s impudence, ask yourself at once, “Can the world exist without impudent people?” It cannot; so do not ask for impossibilities.” -Marus Aurelius Antonius
By lozen
June 26, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
Catholics aren’t christians? When, oh when, did that happen?
By Toad
June 26, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Nancy, what about the 10% of the “innocent” “slaughtered” babies who would have been born gay?
By Chilao
June 26, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
Thank You William, I almost added that ‘as long as he did not mow the lawn on Saturday’ thing.
Regulars here know that we have Chuck to thank for providing me with all the support I needed to demonstrate so much of what passes as Gospel Truth is really nothing more than ‘man said….’.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
72 john-you need to cut the death wishes to those that disagree with you. What a great person you must be if everyone who opposes you gets a death wish. (You would have liked Hitler I suppose.)
Ah, the Hitler reference! Why am I not surprised that the religious crazy brought it out first. Don’t you know that whoever compares the other side to Hitler first loses?
Now, Willie, the abortion comment was obviously barbed humor, and the comment to Chuck has a history behind it.
As for this comment:
What a great person you must be if everyone who opposes you gets a death wish.
Tell me, Willie, not that I actually wish death on people, but what reaction do you expect me to have to bigoted pieces of sh!t like yourself who come on and start talking about my sinning and my moral decay and my fundamental unworthiness to live as an equal citizen of this country? Hmm? Want me to bake you cookies and sing Kumbaya?
Maybe you ought to consider YOUR actions, a*******hole, before you start pointing the civility finger in MY direction.
Personally, if EVERY religious fundamentalist on this planet spontaneously dropped dead this afternoon, I wouldn’t shed a single tear.
By Justin
June 26, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
72john-I do think you’ve let Schaivo get to you because I’ve read almost all of these posts, and you’ve been pretty well spoken, and I have agreed 100% with you. Don’t let her bring you down to her level.
By Jason
June 26, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Catholics are not Christians.
Sorry, I had to come back and respond to this one, it was just too good! This is the height of evangelical, right wing nut job, neocon, hypocritical, “my-way-or-the-highway,” non-sensical christian rhetoric. Now you guys are out there accusing other denominations of not being christian just because they dont think exactly like you do. It’s a good thing that God has a direct line to your house or we wouldn’t know what he was saying!
By Chilao
June 26, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
so when you gonna lead that charge to outlaw adultry, overindulgence of wine, eating shellfish, wearing more than one type of cloth at the same time, using the bathroom within the city limits, telling lies, working on the Sabbath, gluttony, envy, laziness, holding your good-for-nothing drunk of a parent in contempt, spoiling your child, worshiping a god other than your God, worshiping graven images (all thos 10-commandment zealots better watch it on this one!) etc etc etc….
Dang, Mara, you missed asking who has a nice little slave girl for sale? One that I will treat nicely; well, when I am not beating her. LMAO (j/k)
By The72John
June 26, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
72john-I do think you’ve let Schaivo get to you because I’ve read almost all of these posts, and you’ve been pretty well spoken, and I have agreed 100% with you. Don’t let her bring you down to her level.
People like her rob me of any pretense of reason and reduce me to pure anger. It’s a flaw. I know it. Sometimes I let it get the better of me.
By Julia
June 26, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Well, since you asked…
It’s not up to me to judge what people do in the privacy of their homes or with whom they do it. I personally would rather represent Christ by loving people no matter what sin they are guilty of. It’s up to God to judge-it’s not supposed to be OUR job. Some Christians forget that sometimes-as do others.
By Toad
June 26, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Rep. Nancy Schaefer is that you? Nancy, whoever you are, you make Shaunti seem reasonable.
By Mara
June 26, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Ah, but GOB, having a nice little slave girl isn’t a sin…if I’m understanding Nancy correctly, “sin” should be illegal but all the other stuff is okay. Of course we’ll have to comb through all the holy books for all the sins from all religions, just to keep things democratic and all
By lozen
June 26, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
Jason, “Catholics are not Christians. Sorry, I had to come back and respond to this one, it was just too good! This is the height of evangelical, right wing nut job, neocon, hypocritical, “my-way-or-the-highway,” non-sensical christian rhetoric. Now you guys are out there accusing other denominations of not being christian just because they dont think exactly like you do…” And it’s a d.mn good thing they can’t get along with each other for those of us who want to keep living in a democracy!
By Ross
June 26, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Being a gay man who appreciates the sanctity of marriage and would appreciate it just as much to be allowed to be a part of one, I see no problems whatsoever with guaranteeing different religions and denominations the right and ability to refuse SPECIFIC things that go against their beliefs. The Catholic group that provides orphaned children with families has the right to discriminate. They place the child in a family that they feel is right for the child. WHen I adopt, I’ll go to an organization that will allow me to adopt a child. It’s that simple. I don’t understand all of the people who feel that they must go to certain places for certain things despite available alternatives. I also have no issue whatsoever with religious organizations not performating marriage ceremonies to those they beleive are not following their doctrine. However, I feel that these places need to be consistent. If you feel that cohabitation goes against your beleifs, then you should marry those couples either. If one wants to be married in a church/synagogue/mosque, then find one that will perform the ceremony. We all have a God-given right to freedom of religion. These churches also have their own belief systems. Also, requiring 2 seperate ceremonies is stupid. The state allows a “holy” ceremony to be applicable to satisfy the requirements for civil marriage. The state is also consistent. ANyone who is ordained can preside over a ceremony regardless of religious affiliation. For those who are not religious, their ceremony with a Justice of the Peace and the religious ceremony for other are equivolent. A Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc wedding are all equal as far as the laws is concerned and each of these ceremonies are accepted by the government. We need a continued debate and make sure that everyone gets necessary protections under the law. I think that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are extremely important whether or not I agree with what I hear. Censorship can be acceptable but only when it comes to children in a way where the parents are unable to police for their children.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Some Christians forget that sometimes-as do others.
Sorry Julia - I feel no obligation to love those who hate me.
By Zack
June 26, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
If legalized, sure it would. It would blur the lines of morality that much more to the casual bystander. It would CHANGE nothing about morality, as absolute truth is just that: absolute. It would have an impact on PERCEPTION, not reality, and therefore, religious freedom would be attacked that much more, as “separation of Church and state” would be wrongly translated even more.
We need to return to being a democracy and to standing for absolute truth, not relativism, as the latter is opening doors to all kinds of evil. As Rush Limbaugh once said, kids aren’t dumb. When parents tell them that murder is wrong but that abortion is okay, they see that for the hypocrisy it is. Very, very true.
We need to return to our original constitution, which was built on absolute truth, not like today’s society, where many embrace the myth that WE decide what’s true and what isn’t and that truth changes over time. Both ideologies are 100% wrong.
By Michael E
June 26, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
Catholics aren’t christians? When, oh when, did that happen?
The catholic church is NOT Christian. It’s doctrines and beliefs go against the teachings of Christ. It never was Christian. It is not a “denomination” as someone put it. They teach prayers to someone other than God, teach a different way of salvation, do not pray to Jesus, give Mary all the attributes of Christ, teach a false place called “purgatory”, teach confession to men instead of to God, teach a blasphemous thing called “mass”, and hundreds of other false doctrines that are in no way shape or form what Christ taught or what is in the holy bible. The church that truly follows Christ has no such thing as a “pope”-the head of our church is Christ himself.
Not enough room to go into here to explain fully why Catholicism is opposite to Christianity. If you had all the facts you would truly understand.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
The Catholic group that provides orphaned children with families has the right to discriminate. They place the child in a family that they feel is right for the child.
Ross, I agree with this statement with one exception - the group in question received State funds in return for its services. As an organization funded by taxpayers, it has no right to treat those taxpaying customers unequally. Either the agency is entirely funded by the Church (in which case, I agree that it has the right to place the children based on religious convictions) or it continues to receive state funding (in which case, it does NOT have the right to do so).
But for the most part, I think you’re correct. Churches like Chuck’s should be able to hire whom it chooses for whatever reasons it sees fit so long as it is entirely privately funded. Priests or pastors should be able to deny marriage rites to whomever they choose. After all, it’s the civil component of marriage that is at issue here - There are already Churches that see fit to confer the sacrament itself on same-sex couples.
That’s really the problem with Shaunti’s entire argument. Beyond the “My freedom of religion should trump YOUR freedom of religion” problem, it’s based on all kinds of things that might happen that are completely unrelated to the actual right to marry one’s same-sex partner. It’s one giant red herring.
By lozen
June 26, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
we’re rounding up the handicapped and killing them? I missed that one too;-)
By The72John
June 26, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Not enough room to go into here to explain fully why Catholicism is opposite to Christianity. If you had all the facts you would truly understand.
Yes, we understand that you are a raving lunatic who shouldn’t be allowed to go out in public. Much like Zack.
By GOB
June 26, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
As Rush Limbaugh once said, kids aren’t dumb.
Have you talked to any kids lately??
By Toad
June 26, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
We need to return to our original constitution, which was built on absolute truth, not like today’s society, where many embrace the myth that WE decide what’s true and what isn’t and that truth changes over time.
Ah yes, the good old days when “all men are created equal” meaning white men who hold property. (Property included wives and slaves.) Dang those pesky relativist amendments giving women and persons of color rights not intended by the drafters of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
By Julia
June 26, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
72 John-We have our arguments from time to time obviously on certain issues. But please know that I certainly don’t feel hate for you. And I hope you don’t hate me either. For the record, I’m on your side on this issue.
By Matt Simmons
June 26, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
Diane Glass’ comments are unfortunately typical of liberal-think, which is near-sighted to the point of blindness. She, and others who espouse the same views, are completely incapable of thinking about the effects that their views would incur. What is happening in Massachusetts is the perfect example. Marriage is not a freedom granted to us citizens by the Constitution, but religious expression is. Legalizing Gay marriage has repercussions that would grant “rights” where they do not belong and infringe upon freedoms that are guaranteed. The majority of Americans see this. Of course, liberals only characterize the opposition as bigots and homophobes because they are incapable of seeing past their nose. It is time to get the vision of liberals corrected before they inflict another unconstitutional “right” on America like they did with Roe v. Wade.
By Chilao
June 26, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Ah, but GOB, having a nice little slave girl isn’t a sin
that was actually a reference to one of the other aspects of the much-quoted Leviticus. Must be okay to own a slave-girl, all I was saying. LMAO. ALways wondered how many Leviticus-quoters were actually selling, though..
By The72John
June 26, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Have you talked to any kids lately??
There’s that, and the fact that Limbaugh obviously never met Zack or he wouldn’t be able to make that statement.
By Billy
June 26, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
As Rush Limbaugh once said, kids aren’t dumb. When parents tell them that murder is wrong but that abortion is okay, they see that for the hypocrisy it is. Very, very true.
Very, very stupid. What, murder is wrong, but abortion is not, but kids equate abortion with murder? And then they decide that abortion is OK so murder must be OK as well, instead of the far more obvious conclusion of abortion being wrong? I’m thinking kids aren’t dumb to Rush only because they’re that much smarter than he is.
Truth does change over time. Fifty year ago I would have been telling the truth had I told Archhie, “You are not allowed to use that water fountain.” That would no longer be truthful.
Michael E — Not enough room? The beauty of this blog is that it is ever-increasing in size to accommodate whatever ramblings lunatics like yourself deign to post.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
is happening in Massachusetts is the perfect example. Marriage is not a freedom granted to us citizens by the Constitution, but religious expression is
You mean…Massachusetts having the lowest divorce rate in the US?
Legalizing Gay marriage has repercussions that would grant “rights” where they do not belong and infringe upon freedoms that are guaranteed
Oh really? Which rights would be granted and where don’t they belong? Which freedoms would be infringed upon?
liberals only characterize the opposition as bigots and homophobes because they are incapable of seeing past their nose
Actually, this isn’t so much a liberal/conservative issue as it is a secular/religious one. There are plenty of gay republicans out there, and fiscal conservatives who support gay marriage. So, your characterization smacks as too much time spent in front of the radio listening to Limbaugh and Hannity. Talk about seeing beyond the end of your nose…
And, you may want to keep this in mind, if someone calls you a homophobe or a bigot, it may be because you’re busy attacking gay people…ever stop to think about that?
By The72John
June 26, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Julia - we may disagree on some things, but I think you are fine human being. :-)
By Nancy
June 26, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
we’re rounding up the handicapped and killing them? I missed that one too
No. But we set a legal precedent for future issues regarding the handicapped who can not physically speak for themselves. Every legal case in fact sets a precedent for future cases. That’s all I meant.
By Jack
June 26, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Mercy, mercy, me….things ain’t what they used to be..
By The72John
June 26, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
No. But we set a legal precedent for future issues regarding the handicapped who can not physically speak for themselves. Every legal case in fact sets a precedent for future cases. That’s all I meant
False. And you know why? Because there WAS NO LEGAL PRECEDENT SET. The case was settled according to EXISTING LAW and did not SET A NEW PRECEDENT. The only “interference” came from hysterical pro-life Christian organizations and their puppet religious extremist congressmen who ignored all SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE supporting the conclusion that the woman was a VEGETABLE to attempt to force their religious beliefs on a legal court decision.
By Mara
June 26, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
What is happening in Massachusetts is the perfect example.
Hey! What’s happening in Massachussetts?! Did I miss the total economic and social collapse of that liberal vanguard of the homosexual agenda? C’mon, what’s happening in Massachussetts???! What’d I miss?!!
By Tigerlily
June 26, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Nancy, thanks for your reasonable reply about the legal precedents of the Schiavo situation. Many disability activists hold the same opinion.
By Billy
June 26, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
Marriage is not a freedom granted to us citizens by the Constitution…
Hey, you’re right. And that’s fine. The government doesn’t have to allow gays to marry if they withdraw from straight people all the privileges that come with marriage. It’s equality that’s at issue here. I’d rather the government not be involved in marriage at all. That way my wife and I could let her best friend move in and it wouldn’t be polygamy. She could perform a rusty trombone on me while I teabag her friend. Then I could finish up with a dual Abraham Lincoln. And it’s all on the up-and-up. I’d just have to talk them both into it.
It is time to get the vision of liberals corrected before they inflict another unconstitutional “right” on America like they did with Roe v. Wade.
Imagine the unholy clusterfuck we’d be in were we to have another 45 million people in this country…assuming that figure is accurate. Now imagine that those 45 million grew up in homes where they were not wanted. Yeah. That’s something we don’t want to inflict on our country…
By Zack
June 26, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
To the individual who said Christians don’t want sin legalized, as though we’re trying to impose tyranny, let me remind you it’s just the opposite, my friend.
Abortion—the killing of another life—-is murder. We’re against that. The ones who say they’re about individual freedom contradict themselves when they support the likes of abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell research, euthanasia, etc..
Lozen—Catholicism is NOT Christianity, so please get your facts straight before you make assertions and accusations.
By Mara
June 26, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
Julia, I’m right there with John. We often disagree but you’ve certainly got my respect…
I gotta ask, though. Reading some of the posts from today, can you see why many non-Christians tend to view believers as wild-eyed zealots intent on disenfranchising us, enacting discriminatory laws, and forcing those who are different than they out to the fringes of society? Do you understand why we tend to get so stirred up when people start telling us how “wrong” our beliefs (or lack thereof) are?
By The72John
June 26, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Ooo…what’s a rusty trombone! And what’s an ABE LINCOLN!
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
By Mara
June 26, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Hey Billy…how’d you get “clusterfuck” through the filters?! LOL!
By Tim
June 26, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
perform a rusty trombone on me while I teabag her friend. Then I could finish up with a dual Abraham Lincoln
gross
By Nancy
June 26, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
the woman was a VEGETABLE
Great thing to call a disabled person who was denied medical treatment for over 10 years thanks to her husbands cruelty.
By The72John
June 26, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
Lozen—Catholicism is NOT Christianity, so please get your facts straight before you make assertions and accusations.
The irony of this statement is…overwhelming.
To the individual who said Christians don’t want sin legalized, as though we’re trying to impose tyranny, let me remind you it’s just the opposite, my friend.
No…you’re pretty much trying to impose tyranny. That’s what you call it when you force your beliefs on others. Tyranny. Look it up.
The ones who say they’re about individual freedom contradict themselves when they support the likes of abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell research, euthanasia, etc..
Huh?
By The72John
June 26, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
*Great thing to call a disabled person who was denied medical treatment for over 10 years thanks to her husbands cruelty. *
Nice hystrionics. Too bad that actually has nothing to do with reality and existed only in the minds of other hysterical women incapable of logical thought or rational behavior.
By Billy
June 26, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
Rusty trombone
[Abraham Lincoln}(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=abraham+lincoln)
By Mara
June 26, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
so whether I commit suicide (euthenasia) or not isn’t a matter of “individual freedom”? The decisions I make regarding my body aren’t a matter of “individual freedom”? Who I marry isn’t a matter of “individual freedom”? It certainly isn’t the business of the state, and if, as you say, it isn’t my individual freedom we’re talking about…who’s freedom is it Zack…yours?
By Chilao
June 26, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
interesting article about a book written to explain the reason for the Religious Rights political agenda; seems it was not inspired by abortion, but rather by the Feds targeting private segregated education.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785
yeah, rusty trombone, AbeLincoln, teabag. care to enlighten. LOL (the first one I can probably figure out)
By Julia
June 26, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Thanks 72 John. I appreciate that! ;)
Mara, thanks to you too. I understnad that there are people who do not do a very good job of representing Christ and that there are people who may not understand what Jesus meant whenHe said, “Let he who is without sin cast the firt stone”. I understand what you are saying but it’s not fair to stereotype Christians just as it’s not fair to stereotype gay people or black people.
By Toad
June 26, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
Billy, that’s the problem with you hetrosexuals, so blatantly talking about your sex lives. HA HA!
By GOB
June 26, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
I understnad that there are people who do not do a very good job of representing Christ and that there are people who may not understand what Jesus meant whenHe said, “Let he who is without sin cast the firt stone”.
Julia - I am with John and Mara. The first stone quote though wasnt really said by Jesus. It doesnt appear in any of the copies of the gospels until the middle ages. So really, a scribe thought it sounded good and added it. They are still wise words, but not from JC.
By Chilao
June 26, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
sorry, I did not even think of urbandictionary. LOL
By Billy
June 26, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
Abraham Lincoln
Rusty Trombone
Teabag
By The72John
June 26, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
Believe it or not, Julia, I try to avoid stereotyping. I DO pay attention to what people write or say, and I draw my conclusions from that.
I admit to a certain presumption of guilt, but I do my best to supress it.
By Julia
June 26, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
I meant “cast the FIRST stone”. Sorry my typing skills are not up to par. ;(
By lozen
June 26, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
Heeyyyyyyy Tim, how are ya, son? Congrats GOB!
72John, watch it buddy. Don’t say “vegetable” and don’t say “parasite.” You’ll get called “a piece of old trash” in a minute.
I missed the end of the day last friday but then had to go back and read what Randy said about how he makes all his money when you mentioned it today…. I wondered how somebody as smart as Randy (sharp as a dull butter knife according to someone) made lots of money if, in fact, he was telling the truth. Now we know! Good ole christian Randy and his mission to help others in this world! Wow.
By Chilao
June 26, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
Never knew there were such terms for such common things. LMAO
By Jack
June 26, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Tea bag sounds kinda dangerous.
By Billy
June 26, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Billy, that’s the problem with you hetrosexuals, so blatantly talking about your sex lives.
Nice!!!
By lozen
June 26, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
Tim, you’re right. Billy, the heterosexual, is super gross. I’ll be so glad when hets stop talking about their sex lives! Just give em their rights, please so they’ll shut up.
By Billy
June 26, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
Jack, it’s only dangerous if you don’t trust the person. Or do you mean for the baggee?
By Tim
June 26, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
oh my lord jesus… billy… my mama would tell you not to be so ugly… the abe thing… gross gross gross
Lozen… hey mah… been doin good… busy with work… but I guess they call the job security or something like that… I don’t really care… I’m ready for early retirement lol
By Jack
June 26, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
The one doin the danglin of course. I’ve been around awhile and those were new terms to me. Learn something new everyday!
By Julia
June 26, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
The first stone quote though wasnt really said by Jesus. It doesnt appear in any of the copies of the gospels until the middle ages. So really, a scribe thought it sounded good and added it. They are still wise words, but not from JC.
GOB-thanks to you too! Can you tell me why you think Jesus did not say those words or where you came up with this? Which texts are you referring to? The textus receptus, Alexandrain texts, Syriac texts, latin vulgate, dead sea scrolls, etc? I’m very curious as to which texts you are talking about that did not have this sentence in them. Thanks.
By Julia
June 26, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
I for one could have really done without learning what a rusty trombone is. (But my curiosity got the better of me.) Thanks for sharing…
By Chilao
June 26, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
dead sea scrolls were strictly Jewish and stored there before Jesus’ time, so that one definitely out.
By Tim
June 26, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
The one doin the danglin of course
that’s a very articulate way to put it Jack… lol… bravo :)
By Chilao
June 26, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
about 800-1000 years before Jesus’ time, in fact.
By Julia
June 26, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
Jack-I meant to say hi earlier. Only one office mate today and he’s cool. Didn’t mean to neglect you. you know I luv ya’! ;)
By Chilao
June 26, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
I always get that date wrong, they were stored there right around the time of Jesus, give or take 100 years; But strictly Old Testament. Interestingly, and relevant to today’s times, the religious sect that had them was isolated like that because they considered themselves Holier and superior to those secular/’heathen’ Jews down in the urban areas.
By Julia
June 26, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
I wonder what interesting new terms and phrases we will learn tomorrow? This blog is such a learning experience…(j/k)
By Jack
June 26, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
Ditto Julia. :)
By Kaka60229
June 26, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
[url=http://lip-plumper.coginfo.org/sitemap.htm]Best of Lip plumper[/url] * [url=http://bungee.clickmes.com/sitemap.htm]Very best of Bungee[/url] * [url=http://ultram-tablet.greatphenterminepills.info/sitemap.htm]All about Ultram tablet[/url] Best of Lip plumper | Very best of Bungee | All about Ultram tablet http://lip-plumper.coginfo.org/sitemap.htm http://bungee.clickmes.com/sitemap.htm http://ultram-tablet.greatphenterminepills.info/sitemap.htm
By Julia
June 26, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
72-you did well against all the visitors today!;)
By SUZAN
June 26, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
Nancy, I never said I wanted it leagelized, what I said was it is going to happen. I also made the point that this is not a theocracy but a republic, therefore all laws should be equal for all citizens. It is not about what I want or dont want it is about thr constitution and how it is written and defined. This is the world, not heaven. We are a republic, not a democracy. What I want is determined by representation of my vote in government. So, keeping this in mind and knowing that this is not a gevernment based on Christian principlas at this time ytou have to know that this is going to come to pass. It has nothing to do with what believe or disbelieve. It is not a matter of my faith. It is a matter of what the world wants. This does not make me of the world, but rather in it.
By Michael
June 27, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this
Ms. Feldhahn’s comments are based entirely in a lie, that it is a “Christian” position to be homophobic. It is not. There are many devout Christians who believe in equality, and who see that our society should not only allow gays to marry, but encourage them to, for the same reason we encourage straight people to, for stable families rather than promiscuity. There’s not a single word about homosexuality in the Bible. Not one. For all those who aren’t Christian and think this is a “religious issue” of Christians forcing their views on others, you’re being lied to. It’s a matter of bigots forcing their view on others and blaming them on God, just as those who opposed integration and interracial marriage and women voting and every other step forward for justice. OH! They’ll scream, what about this verse or that verse…none of the tired Old Testement code mentions homosexuality. It mentions certain sex acts, which were banned NOT because of homosexuality but because they didn’t know it existed and viewed the acts as unnatural, which we now know quite clearly is untrue. Also, anyone who wants to use Leviticus to back homophobic laws may make that argument if they ALSO work for legal restrictions on wearing polyester and eating shrimp. Sodom and Gomhorrah? The sin there was lack of hospitality, not homosexuality. And the “homosexuality” in that story isn’t real homosexuality but rather rape, a very different topic. There is an appearance of the word “homosexuality” in Romans (that’s right, folks…ONE MENTION in the entire New Testament…THIS is what we’re supposed to believe is some horrible sin? Every SECOND spent fighting against gay rights should be spent fighting poverty and hunger and injustice to truly follow The Way) and that is, in fact, a crummy translation and absolutely NOT the word Paul intended. Not only did Paul not know homosexuality existed, there’s a great deal of reason to think that Paul himself WAS gay and that not knowing why he had these feelings he viewed them as sinful and railed against them, when in fact God had nothing against it Himself. The lie that God is against homosexuality, that gays will all go to hell, that homosexuality is a “disease” that Jesus can “cure” cause massive amounts of suffering and misery and have led to many, many deaths…and they never helped a single person, never made one life better. So, if we still have to listen to the bigoted stance that there is something “perverted” about being gay, that there is something moral about discrimination and hate, at least be honest about it and stop blaming it on God. God’s not about hate, and not about discrimination. The loving, committed relationships between two gay people wanting to marry are just as real and just as valid in the eyes of God as any other marriage. All Christians need to stand up for justice and equality and fight the hate and bigotry coming from those who are SUPPOSED to represent the Prince of Peace.
By GOB
June 27, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this
GOB-thanks to you too! Can you tell me why you think Jesus did not say those words or where you came up with this? Which texts are you referring to? The textus receptus, Alexandrain texts, Syriac texts, latin vulgate, dead sea scrolls, etc? I’m very curious as to which texts you are talking about that did not have this sentence in them.
Julia - Since we do not have any of the original texts, we can look at the various copies that we do have and look at how the change over the years. The story about casting the first stone does not appear in any copy of the gospels prior to somewhere around the year 1000. Because we have copies that are older than that, we can look and see that it isn’t there, but then somehow it shows up in later copies.
The actual details are in a book called “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Erhman. He is the chair of the religious studies department at UNC-Chapel Hill.
By SUZAN
June 27, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this
Michael, I am saddened that you have not more thoroughly studied your Bible. The bible is most clear about this issue. However, please understand that Homosexuality is no better or worse than other sins. You also need to understand the mind set of the people in the times that the bible was written. While we don’t really know what causes Homosexuality it is not a normal state. It does not conform to nature. It does not reproduce. However, that does not make a person less of a person. They are human, and the human factor is the most important. God’s love extends to all man/woman kind and is available for all who except it. Please understand that we(not one human born on this earth) will ever be perfect here on this planet. The Bible clearly states that Christ will perfect all of us when we are changed. The Bible also states that in the next life neither man nor woman shall marry. Given that we all fall short and we are all sinners, it is clearly not my place to judge another human.
We are all imperfect. We all need the redemption of the Father. Please understand that I do not judge or condemn anyone. I can only say that if all are imperfect then none of us have the right to throw stones at another. For the Homosexual what he/she is, is normal.
By Julia
June 27, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
GOB-thanks for the information. I will certainly investigate the issue and get back with you on it. Obviously I’m skeptical about this Erhman fellow and his agenda. But I’ll keep an open mind and look into it.
SUZAN-I appreciate your stance on this issue and your determination to stay true to the Christian faith.
By Billy
June 27, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
Suzan, it does conform to nature. It’s not as common as heterosexuality, but it is not uncommon, either. While homosexuality, either in nature or in man, may not be the norm, neither is it abnormal.
By GOB
June 27, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
Obviously I’m skeptical about this Erhman fellow and his agenda. But I’ll keep an open mind and look into it.
What agenda do you think he has? Below are his credentials:
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he has been teaching for over 15 years. He completed his undergraduate work at Wheaton College and received his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. Prior to taking his position at UNC, Professor Ehrman taught at Rutgers University.
Professor Ehrman has published dozens of book reviews and scholarly articles for academic journals. He has authored or edited 17 books, including the New York Times bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, and After the New Testament: A Reader in Early Christianity. He has served as President of the Society of Biblical Literature, Southeast Region; book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature; and editor of the Scholar’s Press Monograph Series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers.
Professor Ehrman has received several teaching awards, including the Students’ Undergraduate Teaching Award, the Ruth and Philip Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for Excellence in Teaching.
By Jason
June 27, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this
Suzan - I can sincerely appreciate your argument and the demeanor that you take in this forum. I also appreciate the fact that you take the moral “high ground” in your arguments as opposed to most people who use slurs and names and speak with obvious hatred. Even though we have different opinions, you obviously do a better job of demonstrating god’s love than most christians do and I thank you for that.
I would point out that there is no scientific proof on either side as of yet to prove whether or not homosexuality is “normal.” There is some very promising research being done out there now that I hope will, one day, prove once and for all that homosexuality is not a choice.
I too have read the book “Misquoting Jesus” that GOB mentions above. It is a fantastic book that doesn’t set out to debunk christianity or destroy christian beliefs, but educates people about the history of scripture and how specific books and verses came to be. Having read that, and several other books on scripture, I don’t think the bible is as clear cut on homosexuality as many people think.
By Chilao
June 27, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
I don’t think the Bible uses the direct term “homosexuality” so Michael is correct there, isn’t he? LOL (otherwise….)
By GOB
June 27, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
Jason - Erhman has an entire lecture series on the New Testament that I listened to on my commute to work that you would probably enjoy. He also has about 5 other lecture series on the early christianity and how the biblical canon came into being. It is at the Teaching Company website (teach12.com). Very interesting stuff.
By Jason
June 27, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
Thanks, I will have to check that out. I really loved “Misquoting Jesus.” It was suprisingly interesting and easy to read. Thanks for the info….
By lozen
June 27, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
Michael at 8:07, I know that’s the truth.
By chuck
June 27, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that ‘male and female He created them’ (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan—male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.
Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.
1.
The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.2.
The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28—'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth'. This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms 'that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.'73.
Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman's role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.No harm?
Andrew Lansdown points out that ‘homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi’s Sarcoma and AIDS.’1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8 Effect on others
Secular psychologists assure us that ‘children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity’.6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.
'Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it' (Proverbs 22:6).You cannot faithfully teach God’s Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God’s Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God’s grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin. Nobody else’s business?
Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody’s business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.
'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination' (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God’s authority.
Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament. Equally valid?
Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g. 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.
'For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another...' (Romans 1:26-27).The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means ‘men who sleep with men’. It is the same Greek word used for ‘homosexual offender’ in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).
Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behaviour. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and…
'Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them”' (Genesis 19:4-5).“While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean ‘to have sex with,’ nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. …It means ‘to know sexually’ in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having ‘known’ a man (19:8).”9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.
Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. “The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an “abomination”. This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.”10
It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is ‘sodomy’.
Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as ‘Jonathan “loved” David (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David’s presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41)’.11
However, ‘David’s “love” for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).’12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David’s love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.
Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God’s presence (‘my temple’), but practising homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.
Other scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned. Punishment
The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).
Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.
"...Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).Hope
However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God’s grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.
‘Liberal’ churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of ‘love’. They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, ‘because they can’t help it’. They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.
Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the ‘liberals’ tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can’t help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.13 Conclusion
As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.
By Jack
June 27, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
Chilao. If we ever meet, I’ll buy you a beer.
By GOB
June 27, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
But Chuck, we were told that this issue has nothing to do with religion all day yesterday…
By Billy
June 27, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
goddammit, Chuck…
By Jason
June 27, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
Chuck-
With that long, theological post, you have made our point for us. The ONLY reason out there to legitimately oppose same sex marriage and same sex relationships is based one one’s religious views. There are no economical, sociological, scientific, logical, or ethical reasons to oppose same sex marriage. The only reason that people have to oppose same sex marriage is because “the bible says homosexuality is wrong.” Take religon out of the argument (as it should be since we are talking about a civil issue) and you have no case to oppose same sex marriage.
By Chilao
June 27, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
Thanks Jack. Learned awhile back Olive Garden has Newcastle Brown Ale on tap, can you get much better? Well, some of the dark local home brew ales in Asheville, NC are pretty Sweet as well. Brother buys it by the gallon up there.(well, when he is having company).
Notice there is no reference to ‘woman lay with a woman as she would with a man’…hmmmmmmmmmm….LOL
By Jason
June 27, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.13 Conclusion
Yeah, just like the head of Exodus International, the country’s largest “ex-gay” ministry, who was photographed last year in a Washington DC gay bar? Or how about the two guys who founded the nation’s second largest ex-gay ministry who ran off together and are now in a long term relationship? Psychologists and psychiatrists all over say these programs have a terrible psychological effect on people and they have an atrocious failure rate. AA and the 12-step program have higher success rates.
By tracy
June 27, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
The whole argument of protecting traditional marriage is old.If religious institutions and conservative lawmakers wanted to protect marriage, ammendments would read “one man, one woman, one time. People sould put down their bible cliff notes and read the same the books in the bible so often quoted to deny gay couples equal marrage rights. They would see that divorce and adultry are also punishable by death. Second marriages constitute adulty. Which also breaks the first of the ten commandments. That is sort of where the bigoty comes into play. It seems people do not mind discrimination, as long as it does not influence any aspect of their own lives. If we are going to codify marrage based on the bible, then we should deny divorce. I would love to see if a majority would vote for such an ammendment. Is it that conservatives want their marriages to be biblical in theory, but civil in practice? All law abidding, tax paying citizens should have equal rights under the law. What private organizations do or don’t do is their own business, as long as they do not accept public money.
By ernest the atheist
June 27, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
But GOB, Bart D. Ehrman might still be one of them thar atheist fellers cause one of the quickest ways to change a christian to a atheist is to send em to theology school where they’ll actually read the whole bible fer themselves and study the history of religion, don’t ya know.
By Jason
June 27, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Excellent point tracy! If the christian right were really concerned about the sanctity of marriage, we would have much stricter laws regarding adultery and divorce. Heck, it might even be a good idea to have arranged marriages since most young adults don’t seem to be able to make the right choices about who to marry (over 50% divorce rate). But no, that would effect them too much.
My brother and his wife are getting a divorce after less than 2 years of marriage, my dad has had more affairs than I can count on both hands, I would say at least 25% of my parents evengenical congregation has been married more than once, a couple from church that my parents socialize with is getting a divorce because the husband had an affair with a girl that they adopted from Estonia, of my dad’s 5 brothers and sisters two have divorced and re-married, of my mom’s 4 brothers 3 have cheated on their wives…….and these are all “christians!” Meanwhile, my partner and I have been in a loving, commited relationship for almost 5 years now (and we are only 25) You tell me who is damaging the “sanctity of marriage.”
By ernest the atheist
June 27, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
Yep, young lady, Tracy yer gosh dang right! All these de-vorced christians runnin’ around yelling bout homosexuals bein’ sinners when they are livin’ in sin. De-vorce is a sin. If you marry a de-vorced man you are a sinner. If you want to go to heaven when you die you gotta stop livin’ in sin. So if yer on yer second or third marriage stop livin’ in sin!
By lozen
June 27, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
Chuck, your long post is all BS! Marriage is unnatural. If Yahweh meant for us to be married, we would be born married.
By Julia
June 27, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
GOB-so far what I’ve found out is that tha author of that book is an agnostic. What it boils down to is whether you believe the Alexandrian texts (without the end of Mark and in disagreement in thousands of other places) or the Textus Receptus (which includes the end of Mark and agrees on most everything else as well).
The NIV uses Westcott and Hort (who deny the divinity of Christ) who in turn used the Alexandrian texts. The KJV uses the Textus Receptus. It is claimed that the Alexandrian texts omitted various verses for their own reasons (and on a side note that the Gnostics were living in the area).
I have read many things discrediting these texts as being accurate and they don’t even agree with each other. I will definitely believe the TR over everything I’ve heard about the Alexandrian.
So, yes, I’d say that Jesus DID say the words about the first stone.
Here’s a site for you to check out if you like GOB. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/201/
I do appreciate your sharing the info with me. Please keep an open mind instead of believing what an agnostic wrote in a book. He was under the false impression that the Alexandrian texts were the most authentic.
Not wanting a debate over which texts are correct. But when you have thousands of ancient texts in agreement it tends to lend more to the credibility of the TR instead of the Egyptian texts.
By Mara
June 27, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
(sigh) and here I thought we had broken chuck of his cut-n-paste habit…
By GOB
June 27, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
Julia - It really boils down to the fact that that story is not in any copy of the gospels until the middle ages. If you can find it somewhere else, then I would expect you could get a job at a pretty prestigous university as biblical scholar. It doesnt have anything to do with competing texts.
It is essentially the game of telephone. What is heard at the end is not the original message.
So what is your basis for believing the Jesus did in fact say those words, other than not wanting to believe an agnostic (who happens to be one of the prominant biblical scholars on the planet)?
By Julia
June 27, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
GOB-One more thing: Irenaeus in 150 A.D., and also Hypolytus in the 2nd century, each quote from these disputed verses (of Mark), so the documentary evidence is that they were deleted later in the Alexandrian texts, not added subsequently.
By Jack
June 27, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Unfortunately, this country has moved beyond “traditional” marriage. What Jason posted is true. People don’t take thier vows seriously anymore. One or the other in married couples gets the itch and then off to divorce city. Gays don’t make a mockery of marriage any worse than hetero-hypocrites who choose to sleep around while being married or those who choose to have children out of wedlock. We will find out the penalty, if any, when we take the dirt nap. It’s gone too far to reverse this course. God help us all.
By chuck
June 27, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Jason, The post above was in answer to 2 previous posts: First, Michael’s blatantly false post about scripture saying NOTHING about homosexuality. That is just true ignorance of scripture. Second, the post from yesterday that talked about the difference between the sinner and the sin. Certainly it appears that Christians are harsh toward homosexuality, but I contend that that is the HIGHEST EXPRESSION of love. If you love someone you don’t let them continue down the path of self-destruction without at least making an attempt to help them turn around.
Finally, Jason, it is disengenuous to say that because I posted “RELIGIOUS” reasons for opposing gay marriage that there are not NON_RELIGIOUS reasons as well. The following website does not explicitly take any position on “gay marriage”. It was a study on fatherless homes, but I think the findings explain why TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE AND FAMILIES ARE WORTH PROTECTING FROM A SOCIETAL STANDPOINT. BAD THINGS HAPPEN WHEN WE MESS WITH THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY!!!!
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php
* Lone mothers o Are poorer o Are more likely to suffer from stress, depression, and other emotional and psychological problems o Have more health problems o May have more problems interacting with their children * Non-resident biological fathers o Are at risk of losing contact with their children o Are more likely to have health problems and engage in high-risk behaviour * Children living without their biological fathers o Are more likely to live in poverty and deprivation o Have more trouble in school o Tend to have more trouble getting along with others o Have higher risk of health problems o Are at greater risk of suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse. o Are more likely to run away from home * Teenagers living without their biological fathers o Are more likely to experience problems with sexual health o Are more likely to become teenage parents o Are more likely to offend o Are more likely to smoke o Are more likely to drink alcohol o Are more likely to take drugs o Are more likely to play truant from school o Are more likely to be excluded from school o Are more likely to leave school at 16 o Are more likely to have adjustment problems * Young adults who grew up not living with their biological fathers o Are less likely to attain qualifications o Are more likely to experience unemployment o Are more likely to have low incomes o Are more likely be on income support o Are more likely to experience homelessness o Are more likely to be caught offending and go to jail o Are more likely to suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems o Are more likely to develop health problems o Tend to enter partnerships earlier and more often as a cohabitation o Are more likely to divorce or dissolve their cohabiting unions o Are more likely to have children outside marriage or outside any partnershipEffects on the Social Fabric
* Increased crime and violence * Decreased community ties * A growing ‘divorce culture’ * Cycle of fatherlessness * Dependence on state welfareWhy all these Effects?
* Poverty * Reduced parental and paternal attention * Conditions before, during and after divorceEvaluating the Results
The weight of evidence indicates that the traditional family based upon a married father and mother is still the best environment for raising children, and it forms the soundest basis for the wider society.
By chuck
June 27, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Well Jason, at least it is easy to see why your concept of marriage and family is so screwed up. BTW, I would love to make it more difficult to get divorced.
One study reported that while 43% of children in divorces end up divorcing themselves, only 29% of children who are raised with their biological parents in the household end up in divorce.
By Julia
June 27, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Office has been full-will check in later this afternoon.
By The72John
June 27, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody’s business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior ETC. ETC. ETC. blah blah blah
It will come as no surprise to anyone who frequents this board that this diatribe of Chuck’s is cut-and-pasted directly from the source of Chuck’s brain - the website “Answers in Genesis”. Of course, the only problem is that this article is absolutely religious in nature, which kind of makes any claims that he or any other member of the Taliban-of-Jesus makes about the nature of their objections to gay marriage moot.
Chuck…I’ll speak slowly for you, OK? I…don’t…care…what…you…think…the…Bible…says…because…the…Bible…is…fiction.
Now, you are perfectly entitled to bury yourself in superstitious nonsense, pseudo science, and circuler reasoning if you want, but when you try to turn this country into a legal theocracy that reflects those “values” it’s time to draw the line.
I do appreciate your sharing the info with me. Please keep an open mind instead of believing what an agnostic wrote in a book. He was under the false impression that the Alexandrian texts were the most authentic.
Julia, no offense, but the author of which you speak is hardly the only theologian to state, unequivocally, that the line in question did not appear in the bible until the middle ages. Why do you think that you are qualified to argue with a PhD theologian who has devoted his life to studying the Bible? Because you’ve found one website that supports what you WANT to believe?
The Bible is a hodgepodge of texts collected and altered over the centuries - you can’t HONESTLY believe it’s the literal word of God.
By Jason
June 27, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Chuck, it’s obvious that this study has absolutely nothing to do with same sex couples. This study is about single parents, and I would agree that much of it it probably true. Statistically, single mothers are more likely to be younger, poorer, and less educated than coupled mothers. This study says absolutely nothing about children raised in families with same sex parents. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Children born to a single mother out of wedlock are not in the same situation as children with two male parents or two female parents.
Nearly every single legitimate study out there says that children who grow up with same sex parents are just as emotionally and physically developed, independant, and healthy as those who grow up in a “traditional” family. They also say overwhelmingly that children in same sex families are much less likely to be abused. On the other hand the main study that conservatives cite as proving the opposite has been rejected by every mainstream health psychological organization as being biased, misleading, and as having used severly faulty data and data collection techniques.
By Tim
June 27, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
Jason… if it takes a “screwed up” view of family and marriage to have a good relationship like you seem to have… then I’ll take that too… I am at 3 1/2 years with my other half and I am only 24… may not sound like much to some but I don’t see either of us going anywhere anytime soon either
By Toad
June 27, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
Chuck, I’d like to refute your uninformed opinion of children raised by same-sex couples.
I helped my former partner raise her children and both of them are now married with a child each. We taught them the right way to live and my step-son is actually religious due to the influence of his grandparents. Even though their mother and I broke up, I have a close relationship with them and they welcome me and my current girlfriend to the major events of their lives (weddings, children’s birthday parties, etc.). By living with Lesbians they are more open to different “lifestyles.” When my step-daughter was in high school her boyfriend found out one of his good friends was gay. He said “I don’t know what to say to him.” She replied, “Why would you treat him any differently than you ever have?”
By The72John
June 27, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE AND FAMILIES ARE WORTH PROTECTING FROM A SOCIETAL STANDPOINT. BAD THINGS HAPPEN WHEN WE MESS WITH THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY!!!
Um, the study you cite refers to single-parent homes, mostly poverty-stricken homes. It has nothing to do with same-sex couples, who make a concious choice to have a child and who tend to have higher on-average incomes than their hetero counterparts.
Nice try to skew the truth though.
By Jason
June 27, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
Well Jason, at least it is easy to see why your concept of marriage and family is so screwed up.
First of all, with more than 50% of all marriages ending in divorce, and with recent studies showing that close to 70% of people have been in adulterous relationships, I am hardly alone in my situation. Secondly, I never said that I think marriage and family life in the US is screwed up. Personally, I think it is better for people to get a divorce and move on with their lives than living with someone that they hate as has been the norm up until recently. My point is that Christians like to talk about the Sanctity of Marriage so much as long as it doesnt apply to them and their marriages. I find that hypocritical in the highest degree.
By Billy
June 27, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Chuck, your BS cut-and-paste tripe just serves to support gay marriage. The study says nothing about gay marriage, and it is solely involving children. How many gays have kids? They can’t do it naturally, so they are forced to use donors/surrogates or adopt if they want them. That study you’re citing applies to divorced and single parents, not gays. The “gay marriage would be bad for kids” argument is bunk, because gays aren’t the ones responsible for bringing the vast majority of kids into the world.
By The72John
June 27, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
Nearly every single legitimate study out there says that children who grow up with same sex parents are just as emotionally and physically developed, independant, and healthy as those who grow up in a “traditional” family. They also say overwhelmingly that children in same sex families are much less likely to be abused. On the other hand the main study that conservatives cite as proving the opposite has been rejected by every mainstream health psychological organization as being biased, misleading, and as having used severly faulty data and data collection techniques.
Yeah, the problem is that Chuck thinks that non-biased means “from a Christian perspective”. If it’s not radically based in fundamentalist philosophy, Chuck dismisses it as secular, and therefore biased against the truth.
Did you know that he likes to cite a study that describes how dinosaurs were on the Ark? See, he’s a fanatical, Bible-believing, young-earth nutcase who is absolutely immovable in his fanatacism. You can’t argue with him because he just closes his eyes and starts quoting Bible verses when he gets painted into a corner.
Do what I do, and just heap scorn on him. That, and pray that he leaves this planet and joins his Creator in short order.
By Toad
June 27, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
43% of children in divorces end up divorcing themselves I tried divorcing myself, but I refused to move out, so now I’m stuck with myself!
By
June 27, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
Sherwin?intrinsically undertook supply incorrectness abashed sensations.- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
By Jason
June 27, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
Toad and The72John…..too funny! :-)
Where is Nancy today? Anyone else out there other than Chuck?
By The72John
June 27, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
Where is Nancy today? Anyone else out there other than Chuck?
Erm, I think she had to go lay down on the road in front of some Baby Killers this morning, and then this afternoon she is scheduled to be out combating the roaming squads of Handicap-murderers.
By Jason
June 27, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
Thats right, I think I heard her mentioning something about all that. Then she said something about going out to round up some illegals on Buford highway and kicking their a*******es back to Mexico. Sounds like she has a busy day lined up. It’s tough being a crazy evangelical!
By lozen
June 27, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
Like 72John I couldn’t care less what the bible says about homosexuality, what to eat, how to show you have a special covenant with Yahweh or any of that other stuff. It’s an old book of folktales and myths written by people who had no concept of the world as we know it. It is full of superstition, ignorance and fear. If many of the people who claim to be christians read the whole bible instead of returning over and over to the Xmas story, Psalms, Genesis and Revelations, they would see how ridiculous it is to base your whole life on this book. It is full of contradictions. And even less do I care what comes out of Chuck’s brainwashing and cut-n-pasting.
By Toad
June 27, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
Tomorrow Nancy’s visiting incoming college freshmen to encourage Evangelicals to major in pharmacy so they can prevent women from filling their birth control prescriptions.
By Jason
June 27, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
Wow, haven’t heard anything from Chuck in over an hour now. Did he run out of things to cut and paste?
By Kyle
June 27, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
ok, let’s try again. someone PLEASE give me a legitimate NON-RELIGIOUS reason for denying homosexuals the opportunity to marry. if someone is unable to come up with a non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage, all the anit-gay marriage people are simply pushing a theocracy (which i am glad to say we don’t live in)
-i believe someone yesterday said that gay marriage would be the equivalent of an additional (not equal) right confered on another group, which he then said should not be done without a compelling reason. this is nonsense and narrow-minded; flip the roles if you will. what if society actually allowed all people to marry those of the same sex and not the opposite sex - but you would no doubt still have the desire to marry someone of the opposite sex. for some reason i think you would be crying discrimination at that point b/c you of course would not see it as an “equal right” to marry someone that you had no desire to be with.
-and for those of you that are arguing that your stance against homosexual marriage is not based on religion (although i find it hard to believe), this argument is irrelevant if its simply based on your own values - you are still attempting to impose your beliefs on others, even when others actions are not harming you in the least.
-although i don’t attend church on a regular basis, i do consider myself to be a christian. however, i don’t feel that being classified as a christian gives me any right to impose my beliefs on others - i will keep my faith is a personal matter, and i will keep it personal unless someone asks me to share
By Jason
June 27, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
Kyle, I wouldn’t hold my breath for a good answer if I were you. ;-)
By
June 27, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
Justine?alloys Fitzgerald pillory blandly Ortega
By Jack
June 27, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
Wasn’t Socrates, Aristotle & DaVinci gay? We could use more men with brains like these in this day and time. Don’t ya think?
By Jack
June 27, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
“although i don’t attend church on a regular basis, i do consider myself to be a christian. however, i don’t feel that being classified as a christian gives me any right to impose my beliefs on others - i will keep my faith is a personal matter, and i will keep it personal unless someone asks me to share”
Amen Brother.
By Billy
June 27, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
Speaking of Socrates, I have heard people claim that he never existed since all we know of him we know from the writings of another, Plato. Why didn’t Jesus write anything down himself? I’m just curious.
By kimberly
June 27, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Kyle, there ARE none! People use religion to justify their bigotry, not only against homosexuals, but against anyone who is different. There are still people in Georgia who claim “The Bible says” interracial marriage is wrong, and say “Oh what a shame!” when they see the beautiful little cocoa-skinned children. What have the children done to deserve this? Just ask a fundie.
This misuse of religion does a disservice not only to a thinking, reasoning society, but also to the religion itself — or the purpose thereof. If an average secular citizen starts to feel the need to connect with a higher power and explore the role of religion in his life, WHY would he be drawn to the haters? He wouldn’t.
By The72John
June 27, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
ok, let’s try again. someone PLEASE give me a legitimate NON-RELIGIOUS reason for denying homosexuals the opportunity to marry. if someone is unable to come up with a non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage, all the anit-gay marriage people are simply pushing a theocracy (which i am glad to say we don’t live in)
Well, the truth is there isn’t one, that’s why you never hear it, and why Shaunti and other religious conservatives scramble all over themselves to find other things to object to, and why all they can come up with are blatant false dilemmas, red herrings, and other specious arguments.
If there is a potential threat to religious freedom of the sorts Shaunti identifies, then the problem is with our application of the 1st ammendmant, not with gay marriage. I agree with yesterday’s post concerning churches and wholly religious based institutions having the right to hire based on religious beliefs. The flaw with the argument as it is is that such conflicts already exist.
For instance - Religion IS a protected class under EEO guidelines. Therefore, a Christian-based school can not discriminate against a potential candidate simply because he is a Buddhist. Gender is also protected, so a fundamentalist church that believes that the only acceptable role for a woman to play is as homemaker can’t discriminate in hiring because a potential candidate is a woman.
The simple answer is that the conflict of belief that is posited by the fundamentalists already exists, so suggesting that it is new or represents some imminent threat to religious freedom is just nonsense.
No, the only claim that fundamentalists can make is that SSM is wrong because God says it is. They mask it with nonsense about “the only good family is a two-parent mom-and-dad family”, which is equally specious to the prior argument, given that single parent families and same-sex families already exist. Again, SSM would not introduce anything new into the equation.
As for the “Special Rights” argument, I addressed that already as well. Expanding an existing set of right does not grant special rights. By using their own “logic” against them, the idea that “Any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man - they have the same rights as I do”, the law would become “ANY man can marry any man or woman, and ANY woman can marry any woman or man”. The law would be applied absolutely equally to everyone. So, a heterosexual man would have the same right to marry someone he has no desire to marry as a homosexual man has today. Equal. Not Separate. Same. Therefore - Not. Special.
By Clark Seydel
June 27, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
I am a Christian and a full supporter of Gay Marriage. I believe that every individual has the basic right to a partner of choice. No one especially Christians in our society have the room to give me the definition of sin. We sin everyday. How can we get in our big SUVs and ruin the environment that the lord gave us and then have room to say “Why the hell is Bob marrying Dave?” Why can “happy” little Christian families just go to church and not worry about AIDS in Africa still have the right to say “Why is Sally marrying Beth?” THEY DON’T!! The last ones standing on this issue are going to be the KKK, so if you are going to be ignorant and be a burden on societal progress grab your sheets.
By Clark Seydel
June 27, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
I am a Christian and a full supporter of Gay Marriage. I believe that every individual has the basic right to a partner of choice. No one especially Christians in our society have the room to give me the definition of sin. We sin everyday. How can we get in our big SUVs and ruin the environment that the lord gave us and then have room to say “Why the hell is Bob marrying Dave?” Why can “happy” little Christian families just go to church and not worry about AIDS in Africa still have the right to say “Why is Sally marrying Beth?” THEY DON’T!! The last ones standing on this issue are going to be the KKK, so if you are going to be ignorant and be a burden on societal progress grab your sheets.
By Mara
June 27, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this
John - hate to break it to ya, but churches can descriminate against other denominations in regard to hiring for a supposedly “secular” program. Thanks to ol’ Dubya’s “faith based initiatives” it is now completely legal for a Baptist-run drug rehab program to refuse to hire, say…a jewish guy simply because he’s jewish. Before dubya shoved through this program, non-descrimination in all tax-payer funded programs was the law-of-the-land. Though churches could decide not to be inclusive in their religious practices, any monies recieved from the government was supposed to be strictly segregated for secular programs that were implicitly non-discriminatory. When the FBIs were impemented, it was decided that each denomination could insist that all employees, even the ones in the tax-funded programs, believe exactly what the church tells them to believe. The acceptance of religious discrimination in tax-payer supported programs and the potential for religious coercion are the reasons I vociferously opposed the presidents FBI’s.
By lozen
June 27, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Chuck must be a very frightened man (and Zack and Randy). The root of religion IMO is fear. Fear of death and the unknown. That fear can be dealt with using reason, or it can be dealt with using superstition and folk tales. Many cultures have created myths (many different myths) to help explain away the unknown of death. Socrates said, “Death is one of two things. Either it is annihilation, and the dead have no consciousness of anything; or, as we are told, it is really a change: a migration of the soul from one place to another.” The idea of the continuation of the soul existed long before christianity. It is really hard for humans to accept that someone we love is gone forever and we will never see them again. Follow where reason leads. That’s what humans were made to do and that’s what makes humans unique. Ignoring our human capacity to reason would be like an eagle walking everywhere all of its life - not much of an eagle.
By Tigerlily
June 27, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
When I was a teenager I was in love with my best friend and wished I were a boy so I could marry her. In 1972 that seemed to be the only way. Here it is 2006 and changing my sex still seems to be the only way I can marry my best friend. Nah, I think I’ll just move.
By Kyle
June 27, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
72John, after reading yesterday’s posts (gotta kill time somehow at work) i now see what you were talking about last week - its not christians that you despise, but rather those who belittle and condemn you for your choices, and top it off by attempting to impose their beliefs on you (your point is taken loud and clear) - i hope i never came of like some of these people (i.e. nancy)
-btw, how did the Shiavo case come into play yesterday? no new precedent was set, none, zip, nada. precedent that was already in place was followed, and that precedent would be that once a court has determined that a person has adequately put forth there preference on how their life should be handled if they ever find themselves in a p.v.s., that person’s personal wishes will be followed (even if it goes against what the remaining family wants). several courts had determined that she had told her husband that she would not want to live in that state, thus, her personal choice was honored.
By Jason
June 27, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
Nancy made the most rediculous comment about the sad state of affairs in this country and how now it is legal “to murder handicapped people.” That’s how the whole Schiavo thing got started.
By redredrose
June 27, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
In my early twenties, after a divorce, I fell in love with my friend/roommate. I was shocked by my dreams of kissing and holding another woman. I hid my love from her and everyone else for many years. I sneaked into the stacks of the library and read about “homosexuals” and told myself I could not be one of “those people” who were considered to be perverts and mentally ill (at the time). I continued dating men and loving men. Every so often I’d go out to the gay bars and look at the women there and have fantasies. Eventually I came to accept the fact that I can love a woman or a man. The qualities that attract me to certain men are the same qualities that attract me to certain women. Some would label me “bisexual.” Some have labeled me “homosexual” when I’ve been with a woman. Some have labled me “heterosexual” when I’ve been with a man. Maybe I am “flexosexual.” I’ve also been in love with several cats, dogs, the ghosts of Virginia Wolf and Edna St. Vincent Millay! I wish people would get over this gender fetish.
By The72John
June 27, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
-btw, how did the Shiavo case come into play yesterday? no new precedent was set, none, zip, nada. precedent that was already in place was followed, and that precedent would be that once a court has determined that a person has adequately put forth there preference on how their life should be handled if they ever find themselves in a p.v.s., that person’s personal wishes will be followed (even if it goes against what the remaining family wants). several courts had determined that she had told her husband that she would not want to live in that state, thus, her personal choice was honored.
What Jason said - it somehow got dragged into the conversation and the conclusion the woman who brought it up came to was so ludicrous and irrational that I just couldn’t help myself.
John - hate to break it to ya, but churches can descriminate against other denominations in regard to hiring for a supposedly “secular” program.
Mara, I didn’t realize that this breach of EEO guidelines had been back-doored with Bush’s FBI. I, too, ardently opposed this blending of tax payer dollars with religious organizations. Well, somehow I’m not surprised. Of course, this means that Shaunti’s argument is even MORE absurd than I originally thought.
By The72John
June 27, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
Maybe I am “flexosexual.” I’ve also been in love with several cats, dogs, the ghosts of Virginia Wolf and Edna St. Vincent Millay! I wish people would get over this gender fetish
HAHAHAHAHAH - Flexosexual - HAHAHAHAHA
Whew…hah hah
That is awesome. You are my new hero.
By lozen
June 27, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Tigerlily, you mean move to a state where gay people can get married, I assume. Tell us more. redredrose, please continue your story too. Did you ever tell your first love how you felt about her? I’d love to hear more from both you women. I agree about “gender fetish” and most humans would probably be bi if we weren’t so brainwashed into being straight from the moment we’re wrapped in either a blue or pink blankie.
By Tigerlily
June 27, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Tigerlily, you mean move to a state where gay people can get married, I assume. Yes, lozen, to Mass. or even Canada. I’m exaggerating, because I don’t really want to get married, but I’d like to have the option. When I tried to kiss my high school crush she said “You don’t really want this.” OH, but I did! So to save the friendship I just stayed frustrated and fantasized about being a boy. All that’s over, now, and I’ve kissed lots of women and am now in love with a wonderful woman.
By Toad
June 27, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
I think Edna St. Vincent Millay was “flexosexual” herself. Actually I believe we all have the capacity to love members of either sex, although most of us have a preference.
By redredrose
June 27, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
No, I never told her. I visited her a couple of years ago after not seeing her for several years. I drove up to her house and she walked out to meet me looking very dykish, I must say. But, alas she has become a bride of Jesus, very involved in her fundie, store-front, small town church, and of course believes homosexuality is a sin. I lost my first female love to Jesus! But she never married and I know she’s fooled around with women before she got saved and took Jesus as her main man.
By Zack
June 27, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
Jason—
People can be freed from homosexuality and/or any other sin/bondage. You can take what the world of psychology says with a grain of salt because that area is nothing more than garbage. I’m just being honest when I say that, and if you want disagreement, just fill up a room with a bunch of psychologists. Yes, they have points here and there, but overall, the field solves nothing.
By chuck
June 27, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Jason, Billy and john, TRY READING THE POST COMPLETELY. I said explicitly that the study was about fatherless homes!!!!!
My exact words were:
The following website does not explicitly take any position on “gay marriage”. It was a study on fatherless homes, but I think the findings explain why TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE AND FAMILIES ARE WORTH PROTECTING FROM A SOCIETAL STANDPOINT. BAD THINGS HAPPEN WHEN WE MESS WITH THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY!!!!
I’ll…speak…slowly…for…you. The non-religious reasons for continuing the 6000 year old traditional family is because it WORKS. We damage children when we step outside of that. As for the so-called studies of children in same-sex households, I believe that the phenomena is too new to know what the long-term effects will be. I’d personally rather not take the chance.
By Zack
June 27, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
and isn’t it ironic to hear Diane Glass talking about biases? She’s one of the most biased and sexist people anywhere.
By Toad
June 27, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
The Schiavo situation points out another benefit of marriage. If she had been a Lesbian, her partner’s contention that Terri has said she wouldn’t want to live in a vegetative state would have held no water and her next of kin, ie. parents would have been able to make any decisions about her life or death. Everyone should have a living will to put out their wishes about such a situation.
By James Keon johnson
June 27, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
This is REDICULOUS!!
It seems that everyone has an opinion in this matter too. It is sad that people hide behind their belief for malicious purposes. It’s very sad. I’m a religious person and I am a Christian. I would not have a problem with the people who claim to represent Christian values were the arguments congruent and rational. There is no public outcry over non-married cohabitating straight couples. There is no public outcry over adultery. There is no public outcry over divorce and remarriage. There is no public outcry over alcohol consumption (Which was a big issue with Baptists up till mid 20th century).
This issue has little to do with religion and much more to do with civil equality. How dare you usurp the power of the state to enforce your religious dogma!? Isn’t that a principal reason our spiritual ancestors left Europe?
Where as anything has the power to overstep bounds so does the church and religious freedom. Ms. Shaunti Feldhahn, give examples of people not allowed to practice the prerogatives of their faith to deny service. This is very convoluted to say the least. A Catholic organization didn’t want to allow homosexuals to adopt children. This is a violation of their religion?! Let’s examine this. The state and a religious organization collaborated to provide a public service. However, the children are the wards of the state and not the church. So basically, the church didn’t want to abide by the standards and rules of the state. We’re calling that a violation of their religious beliefs!? Because someone isn’t allowed to discriminate in housing we call that a violation of beliefs?
I’m very leery of these arguments. I’m an African American and the history of this country to the marginalized is a testament to our current treatment of homosexuals…
It’s not uncommon for the name of GOD to be invoked when it comes to denying people their rights.
This was the case with the Indians and manifest destiny (It was god’s will) This was the case with slavery (It was god’s will) This was the case with women not voting (It was god’s will) This was the case with segregation (It was god’s will) Now this is the case with gays (It is god’s will)
It’s an interesting pattern. If you don’t like something…just invoke the name of GOD and you’re justified.
As a gay man…marriage is one of the least things I’m concerned with…this is also why this issue is ridiculous to me. Why be concerned with marriage when you can still be evicted, fired, attacked, ostracized for being gay? Some gays believe that marriage is the silver bullet to remedy these other issues… I don’t agree. If you want to marry then do it! Regardless of what the government and others say…then see what happens? This is what every other group did. When the government said there wasn’t an issue with segregation, black demonstrated that they was by attempting to sit in the front, attempting to vote, attempting to shop…till the hand of the federal government was forced into action.
By The72John
June 27, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
The following website does not explicitly take any position on “gay marriage”. It was a study on fatherless homes, but I think the findings explain why TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE AND FAMILIES ARE WORTH PROTECTING FROM A SOCIETAL STANDPOINT. BAD THINGS HAPPEN WHEN WE MESS WITH THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY!!!!
Well, I’m glad you admit it was completely irrelevant to this discussion, much like everything else you cut-and-paste.
I’ll…speak…slowly…for…you. The non-religious reasons for continuing the 6000 year old traditional family is because it WORKS. We damage children when we step outside of that. As for the so-called studies of children in same-sex households, I believe that the phenomena is too new to know what the long-term effects will be. I’d personally rather not take the chance.
Bad argument. For one thing, we aren’t really talking about the family, we’re talking about extending marriage rights to two adults. The question of adoption or gay parenting is something completely different. Red Herring #234 of the Religious Right.
And you are certainly not one to bring up “so-called studies”. Given that most of your studies are conducted by “scientists” who are so fringe they’ve fallen off the edge. I guarantee you that far more studies conducted on same-sex children have been peer reviewed and accepted by the general scientific community than those you so frequently regurgitate for our viewing pleasure.
Oh, and the other reason that this argument in regards to same-sex marriage is flawed beyond redemption is that there are no restrictions NOW on “traditional families”. Families that don’t meet your perfect Cleaver definition exist, and will continue to exist no matter what you and your chanting cronies try to do to marginalize and demonize them.
BAD THINGS HAPPEN WHEN WE MESS WITH THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY!!!!
Ah, more substanceless garbage from a substanceless mind. What DOOMSAYING! BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN! BAD THINGS! BAD!
Yes, Henny-Penny…bad things will happen to you, because you will no longer be able to wallow in the self-gratifying knowledge that your personal bigotries and hatreds are codified into law.
Every reputable study on children shows that it is the amount of love and attention given during childhood that determines how a child turns out. The make-up of the family has very little to do with it. No matter what wild-eyed fanatical ranting you spew out, this won’t change.
By Julia
June 27, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
For GOB-
There is abundant manuscript evidence supporting the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. E F Hills wrote, “They [Mark 16:9-20] are found in all the Greek manuscripts except Aleph [i.e. Sinaiticus], and B [i.e. Vaticanus], … And more important, they were quoted as Scripture by early Church Fathers who lived one hundred and fifty years before B and Aleph were written, namely, Justin Martyr (c. 150), Tatian (c. 175), Irenaeus (c. 180), Hyppolytus (c. 200). Thus the earliest extant testimony is on the side of these last twelve verses.”
By The72John
June 27, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
and isn’t it ironic to hear Diane Glass talking about biases? She’s one of the most biased and sexist people anywhere.
Not even half as ironic as you thinking that you aren’t THE most biased and sexist person anywhere.
By lozen
June 27, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
“The non-religious reasons for continuing the 6000 year old traditional family is because it WORKS. We damage children when we step outside of that.” Works how Chuck? Interesting that the most damaged people I’ve known have come from traditional families. Families where their fathers/uncles/ step-fathers/grandfathers/brothers/cousins sexually and/or physically abused them! It worked primarily for men Chuck. I can see why you want to keep believing god created woman to be the helper for man. Because it’s in your best interest to try to keep things the way they were in the good old days when women knew their place.
By Kaka13160
June 27, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
[url=http://allergies.popupkillerplus.com/nice-allergies.htm]Nice Allergies[/url] * [url=http://allergies.popupkillerplus.com/good-allergies.htm]Good Allergies[/url] * [url=http://allergies.popupkillerplus.com/impressive-allergies.htm]Impressive Allergies[/url] Nice Allergies | Good Allergies | Impressive Allergies http://allergies.popupkillerplus.com/nice-allergies.htm http://allergies.popupkillerplus.com/good-allergies.htm http://allergies.popupkillerplus.com/impressive-allergies.htm
By Billy
June 27, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
Chuck, we fully understand what the study was about. Where we take issue is where you make the lodically absurd leap from “Mom & Dad is better than just Mom” to “Mom & Dad is the only viable option”.
Oh, and FYI — throughout history, one man and one woman has not been the norm. Ploygyny has. And there are even cases in which polyandry was the preferred system. And in cases where it was opposite-sex marriage to a single spouse, infidelity was (and still is) rampant.
By redredrose
June 27, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
Gosh Zack. Homosexuality isn’t a sin. And I believe I’ll just take what you say with a grain of salt!
By chuck
June 27, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
john you don’t have a logical bone in your body and I’m amazed that someone with your supposed superior intellect can’t follow an argument any better than you do…unless as usual you are just ignoring the facts and trying to make a point that isn’t there because YOU HAVE NO ACTUAL POINT. The “bad things” refer back to the list from the study. I’ll post them again for the slow of mind:
Lone mothers o Are poorer o Are more likely to suffer from stress, depression, and other emotional and psychological problems o Have more health problems o May have more problems interacting with their children * Non-resident biological fathers o Are at risk of losing contact with their children o Are more likely to have health problems and engage in high-risk behaviour * Children living without their biological fathers o Are more likely to live in poverty and deprivation o Have more trouble in school o Tend to have more trouble getting along with others o Have higher risk of health problems o Are at greater risk of suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse. o Are more likely to run away from home * Teenagers living without their biological fathers o Are more likely to experience problems with sexual health o Are more likely to become teenage parents o Are more likely to offend o Are more likely to smoke o Are more likely to drink alcohol o Are more likely to take drugs o Are more likely to play truant from school o Are more likely to be excluded from school o Are more likely to leave school at 16 o Are more likely to have adjustment problems * Young adults who grew up not living with their biological fathers o Are less likely to attain qualifications o Are more likely to experience unemployment o Are more likely to have low incomes o Are more likely be on income support o Are more likely to experience homelessness o Are more likely to be caught offending and go to jail o Are more likely to suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems o Are more likely to develop health problems o Tend to enter partnerships earlier and more often as a cohabitation o Are more likely to divorce or dissolve their cohabiting unions o Are more likely to have children outside marriage or outside any partnership
Effects on the Social Fabric * Increased crime and violence * Decreased community ties * A growing ‘divorce culture’ * Cycle of fatherlessness * Dependence on state welfare
Why all these Effects? * Poverty * Reduced parental and paternal attention * Conditions before, during and after divorce
Evaluating the Results
The weight of evidence indicates that the traditional family based upon a married father and mother is still the best environment for raising children, and it forms the soundest basis for the wider society.
Not some right wing conclusion but a factual study. Look it up for yourself…if you dare.
By The72John
June 27, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Oh, and just one final observation for the ZUKAC (That’s Zealot Unfortunately Known as Chuck - thanks Prince!)
The assertion that gay marriage will somehow lead to the disintigration of “The traditional family” is baseless and patently absurd.
Do you think that heterosexual families are going to alter their behaviors somehow because same-sex partners can now receive the legal benefits of marriage? Is there something that makes you logically (hah, look who I’m talking to) think that there will be any change whatsoever in the percentage of heterosexuals fathering children outside of wedlock, marrying and then divorcing after children were born, or marrying, having children and remaining together?
I’ll tell you the answer, since you so obviously are unable to come to it yourself. The answer is an unequivocal, resounding, indisputable NO. Gay marriage will have absolutely NO IMPACT on anything relating to heterosexuals and how they choose to conduct their family lives. Zip. Nadda. Zero. Rien. Niente.
Predicting the downfall of the traditional family as a result of gay marriage is just more fear mongering by the Religious Wrong. Just like telling West Virginia voters that the Democrats would “take away their Bibles”, the Christacrats are trying to scare the average voter into believing that some kind of familial armageddon will descend upon us if gays are allowed to marry!
It’s also humorous because, at the same time, they attempt to downplay the actual percentage of the population that is gay (based on yet another of their specially-conducted and generally disregarded and debunked “surveys”) all the while suggesting that the fractional minority they posit exists wields some EXTRAORDINARY power over the general social makeup of the land.
Personally, I’m waiting to be blamed for A) Hurricane Katrina, B) Rush Limbaugh’s drug habit, C) China, D) Brittany Spears, E) North Korea AND Iran, F) Global Warming, G) The drunken antics of the Bush twins, and H) Everything else.
By redredrose
June 27, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
The affairs I’ve had with women have been the sweetest and most sexually satisfying of all! Nobody knows how to please a woman better than another woman. Straight women complain all the time about men who rush thru the deed too fast to make them happy, don’t know how to listen, aren’t sensitive to their needs. And nobody knows how to please a man better than another man. You’re just afraid Chuck of what would happen if homosexuality weren’t such an anathema. You know you want to try it, don’t you?
By The72John
June 27, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
Chuck, we fully understand what the study was about. Where we take issue is where you make the lodically absurd leap from “Mom & Dad is better than just Mom” to “Mom & Dad is the only viable option”.
Here’s another logically absurd leap for you. Chuck has, on more that one occasion, suggested that the longevity of the early Biblical figures is scientifically based an idea that…are you ready…the oxegyn content of the atmosphere was SO MUCH HIGHER “back then”, that it created a giant, global HYPERBARIC chamber that kept them alive.
Of course, the pesky “Why didn’t they all combust like a pack of firecrackers the first time they struck a spark” question never comes up in this laughable attempt at biblical pseudo-science.
I mean, you just have to sit back and laugh at the joker, don’t you?
By The72John
June 27, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
john you don’t have a logical bone in your body and I’m amazed that someone with your supposed superior intellect can’t follow an argument any better than you do…unless as usual you are just ignoring the facts and trying to make a point that isn’t there because YOU HAVE NO ACTUAL POINT. The “bad things” refer back to the list from the study. I’ll post them again for the slow of mind
I think that we all know who is the credulous, illogical fool here, Chuck…and I’ll guarantee you that it’s not me.
Yes, we READ your study, Chuck. We understand it’s conclusions, but I’ll repeat, YET AGAIN, for your VERY slow mind that apparently lacks the ability to distinguish between correlation and casuality, that most of the negatives identified in the study can be traced back to the fact that the significant number of single parent families are…wait for it…poverty stricken.
However, yet again, we aren’t talking about single-parenting, two-parenting or any kind of parenting.
How many times do I have to say the words “red herring” before it sinks into that fanatic’s skull of yours, you crazed loon?
By ahmed
June 27, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
Oh God, You are peace. From you comes peace, To you returns peace. Revive us with a salutation of peace, And lead us to your abode of peace.
By The72John
June 27, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
unless as usual you are just ignoring the facts and trying to make a point that isn’t there because YOU HAVE NO ACTUAL POINT
Anyone else note the irony in this statement, given that Schmuck is trying to make a study about SINGLE parenting have meaning in an argument about people who want to get MARRIED?
And he accuses me of not being able to make a rational point…geeze.
However, I will point out yet again that parenting of any kind has absolutely no bearing on this argument.
By Billy
June 27, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
Here’s another logically absurd leap for you. Chuck has, on more that one occasion, suggested that the longevity of the early Biblical figures is scientifically based an idea that…are you ready…the oxegyn content of the atmosphere was SO MUCH HIGHER “back then”, that it created a giant, global HYPERBARIC chamber that kept them alive.
Woohoo, man I had completely forgotten about that! It’s been a couple of months, probably, but I definitely remember reading that!
By Amanda
June 27, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
Why is it that ignorant Americans are jealous to allow gay marriage? It is because they know that it is true happiness that is being shared and that is what is missing in most traditional marriages. Break tradition for true happiness and allow freedom for all and the power to choose!!
By Jason
June 27, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
People can be freed from homosexuality and/or any other sin/bondage. Yes, they have points here and there, but overall, the field solves nothing.
Well, Zack, the problem here is that it’s all relative. You think I am living in delicious sin and I think I am living the life that my creator intended for me to live. As a christian, I have spend years praying and agonizing over what I thought was an affliction. After all of my prayer, I can say that I am 100% at peace with my lifestyle and 100% at peace with my creator. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about whether or not homosexuality is a sin. The fact that you think it can be cured, however, I take serious issue with. Let’s take religion out of the equation(since it can’t be proven one way or the other) and look at the facts. (stick with me now, I know that facts, logic, and reason are scary to fundamentalists like you)
The validity of these “Ex-Gay” ministries has been repeatedly shot down by authoritative and credible scientific groups. The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association (let me remind you that you said “the overall field solves nothing”)have all issued strongly worded statements combating the idea that homosexuality is “treatable.” Even before 1973, when the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality as a mental disorder (in DSM-III), repeated studies confirmed it was virtually impossible to change someone’s sexual orientation, even through measures such as electric shock treatments and pain therapy.
The American Psychological Association passed a 1997 resolution stating that “that there is no sound evidence on the efficacy of ‘reparative therapy’, which seeks to ‘cure’ homosexuals.”
In response to the “Ex-Gay” advertising campaign, the APA also released a December 1998 statement. “The potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.”
Lastly, none of these ex-gay groups follow up with any of the participants in the therapy, eliminating any statistics on their success ratio. Exodus admitted, “People ask for that all the time, but we don’t keep records. We probably should.”
I wish we had camps where we could send fundamentalist evangelicals like you to “cure” you of your rediculous, hate-filled ideas and lunacies.
By Julia
June 27, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
GOB-there are a total of 140,521 Greek words in the traditional Greek New Testament. Now, out of these 140,521 words, 2,886 words are missing in the Critical Text of Nestle-Aland and Westcott and Hort (who created their texts using the Alexandrian manuscripts).
Chuck/Randy & Zack- I thought you might be interested in this information. So this is for you to read… (Everyone else please forgive the long post and skip over. I’ve seen both religious and non-religious folks do lengthy cut and pastes at times on here…so this is my turn I guess. Won’t be a habit I promise.)
In the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, there were many copies of the Originals of the Greek N.T. books. There was not a printing press at this time in history, so exact copies were by hand, compared to the Original, and then distributed to the various churches. These copies of the Originals became known as the Antioch Manuscripts, then later as the Textus Receptus. Since many of the Jewish people at this time in history were living in surrounding countries with different native languages (Acts 2:5-11), the Originals were translated into their native languages as well. These are now referred to as the Ancient Versions. The Originals, it is known, lasted at least into the 3rd Century A.D.
Then a 2nd set of manuscripts came along. These manuscripts were corrupt having many changes and omissions to them. These are known as the Alexandrian Manuscripts. They came out in the 3rd Century A.D. and were made by a man named Origen Adamantius.
Origen (185-254 A.D.) was the President of a group of teachers at the School of Philo located in Alexandria, Egypt. His preference was for Greek philosophy including Gnosticism, Platonism and Mysticism. He believed these were all of God. So when he was presented with a set of the Antioch Manuscripts - he re-wrote them - also in Greek. Origen went about blending the Antioch Text with his own pagan philosophies - in the mistaken belief he was correcting them - to come up with the Alexandrian Text.
One of Origen’s beliefs which he incorporated into his text was, the Logos Doctrine. In Greek philosophy, Logos was the name of rational world order and a divine principle of creation. In Origen’s mind Jesus was the personification of the Logos (created by God) to bring reason to the world. He believed Jesus was not God but a created being.
These are some of Origen’s other beliefs as pertaining to the Scriptures; he denied a literal hell, and that the Holy Spirit, like Jesus Christ, was created and did not eternally exist as God. He did not believe most of the Genesis account. He taught that the stars have souls and are rational beings, that Satan and infact all beings would eventually be saved, including the stars. As well, he also taught such errors as purgatory and transubstantiation.
But when he castrated himself, he was terminated from the School of Philo. So he then migrated to Caesarea and began his own catechetical, theological School.
Back to Alexandria, Egypt for a moment. Biblical typology consistently presents Egypt as a type of the world or worldliness - paganism. Also the first mention of Alexandrians to appear in Scripture is to instigate the stoning of Stephen (Acts 6:9). But, according to what is taught in many bible colleges today, they claim it was in this same city of Alexandria that Egyptian scholars preserved the New Testament Greek Text. And you thought mummies were all they preserved in Egypt.
Now onto the 4th Century and Constantine. Constantine (280? - 337 A.D.) when he became Emperor of Rome, he endeavored to form a union between Christianity and Paganism. So since Origen had ‘successfully’ blended Christianity with pagan philosophy in text; Constantine commissioned Eusebius - his buddy in this scheme, who was a great admirer of Origen - to prepare 50 bibles based upon Origen’s Alexandrian Manuscript. These were for use in the Roman Churches. Thus began the Roman Church.
Then a century or so later humanity plunged into the Dark Ages and the Inquisition. Some call this time period, the Millennial Reign of Satan. An excellent book to read about this time period would be, ‘Fox’s Book of Martyrs’ by John Fox.
Then Jerome (340 - 420 A.D.) decided to make a new translation into Latin from Origen’s Alexandrian corruption. It was named the Latin Vulgate. The Old Latin N.T. - one of the Ancient Versions - was a translation from the Antioch Manuscript. The Latin Vulgate was made the official bible of the Roman Catholic Church by the Counsel of Trent in 1546.
God-fearing leaders of the churches had consistently rejected the Alexandrian line. For almost 1,800 years the Textus Receptus was the accepted Greek Text down through the corridor of history. As of 1967-of the 5,255 extant Greek manuscripts known to exist, 5,210 agree with the Textus Receptus: that’s 99%. The other -45- or 1% are of corrupted variations. Then there are the Ancient Versions, which were translations from the Greek Originals into other languages (Acts 2:5-11) during the first -3- centuries. They also mostly agree with the Textus Receptus.
By j.c.
June 27, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
I think I am living the life that my creator intended for me to live. As a christian, I have spend years praying and agonizing over what I thought was an affliction. After all of my prayer, I can say that I am 100% at peace with my lifestyle and 100% at peace with my creator. My son, you make me so proud. I know how you wrestled with your desires due to living in a world that judged you so meanly. You are not afflicted. You have learned from your troubles not to judge others. You learned compassion. You deserve peace and love. Go and love some more.
By kimberly
June 27, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
Anyone else note the irony in this statement, given that Schmuck is trying to make a study about SINGLE parenting have meaning in an argument about people who want to get MARRIED?
Yes John, I noticed that. Today at least, I was able to resist my temptation to take Chuckie to task on is flawed logic and the hypocrisy of his pious ramblings. I’m sure he’ll provide another opportunity another day.
I wonder if he is still praying for us?
By Julia
June 27, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
Chuck, Randy & Zack-a site you might want to check out.
http://jacklewis.net/kjvniv/KJV5.htm
By The72John
June 27, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
Just a few more comments on the single parent study, just so I can say I once beat a dead horse with a red herring.
First, the conclusion of the paper is suspect in its editorial nature. The question asked by the study was “How do the children of single parents compare statistically to the children of two-parent families”. All of the data gathered was appropriate in answering this question, and indeed, I don’t question the validity of the hard facts. Other studies have shown similar trend discrepancies in achievment and happiness.
However, the final conclusion, that the “traditional” family (this word makes the author’s bias somewhat suspect) is better than the single parent and the best for society is not within the scope of the study. While the causal factors of the discrepancy were, in fact, mentioned (greater likelyhood of poverty, less time spent with children, etc) there was no attempt to isolate these factors and compare them with similar factors among two-parent families.
Isn’t it likely that the factors that lead to single parenthood in many cases are also the cause of the negative discrepancies between the two groups, rather than simply blaming the number of parents?
I suspect that a study that examined the two groups based on socio-economic factors as well as parental involvement factors would find that there is little difference in achievement, etc. between the children of affluent, attentive single parents and the children of affluent, attentive two-parent families.
Similarly, I suspect that there would be a similar incidence of delinquency, lack of achievement, depression, etc. among both groups at the opposite end of the socio-economic scale.
There - the dead horse has been thoroughly beaten with a well-worn and very pungent red herring.
By Brian Curtis
June 28, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this
Hmmm. Turns out that kids do better in two-parent homes than in single-parent homes. Clearly, gay marriage should be outlawed.
Likewise, children of rich families have more oppportunities than children of poor families. Therefore, gay marriage must remain illegal.
This just in! Tomatoes grow better in moist soil than corn does… therefore, gay marriage must be specifically prohibited.
C’mon, everybody—let’s play the Irrelevance Game!
By Lyrazel
June 28, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this
Yawn, blink blink blink……..guess I fell asleep in religion class again…..and woke up to the conclusions that catholics are pagans and gay marriage will cause Americans to kill vegetables…pity the zucchini…
Nancy, what is the morality in prolonging a life by artificial means? Your arguments declare that prolonged artificial life support systems should be mandatory. Have you considered how many people are without access to these life support systems? Why no further protests concerning them who are dying now turned over to god by hospital administrators? Our government subsided medicare will not provide prolonged life support and most HMOs and PPOs have limitations to how much life-support you are entitled to. Really dear, you should check your facts beforehand before making an affluent-only law.
Zack, for the first time I laughed at one of your quotes: As Rush Limbaugh once said, kids aren’t dumb! How profound! Like Rush was in the DR making the scene with a magazine…I guess…
Its strange so few people actually use the argument sexual preference should not be the basis of law for disapproving gay marriages. Instead the rally is to guard the moral integrity of a nation, pointing to scripture and speeches about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and its two-parent families which makes no sense considering how many divorces there are in this country and how many heterosexuals are raising children alone. Frankly I do not care if Beth marries Betty or Bob. The smoke screen this issue is hiding far more important issues, taxpayers though are having it flashed up on election year because it can rally conservative christians to the polls—and hopefully they will ignore things like Iraq, the ever-increasing deficit, a President who makes laws but chooses which ones to follow, covert spying on American citizens, massive collections of personal data by government sources without any protections in place…o I could go on but its a gay marriage…or illegals…like we dont need to know both GA Republican Senators helped to keep INS from raiding chicken farms, carpet factories, produce farms in Georgia…like we dont need to know..GA is still in the bottom of the pickle barrel concerning indigent children and education…nah, Gay marriage will ruin us…….
By Jack
June 28, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this
“The affairs I’ve had with women have been the sweetest and most sexually satisfying of all! Nobody knows how to please a woman better than another woman. Straight women complain all the time about men who rush thru the deed too fast to make them happy, don’t know how to listen, aren’t sensitive to their needs. And nobody knows how to please a man better than another man”
Oh sooo false.
By Tim
June 28, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
I have to agree with Jack… I’m sure his wife is very satisfied… as I am sure he is with her
By GOB
June 28, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
Julia - As interesting as all of that is, it doesnt change the simple fact that the story about casting the first stone does not appear until the middle ages.
There are also many documented cases of texts being changed (intentionally and unintentionally) over the years.
The entire bible is a giant game of telephone. We have all seen how much something can change just by going through 10 people. Imagine the changes that could happen over 2000 years. The gospels themselves are a good example. If you start with the first one written, and go through John, Jesus is portrayed as more powerful, spiritual and he performs many more miracles as the books progress. Could this be because the writers had a vested interest in Jesus being seen as the son of god? Seems logical to me.
And that doesnt even touch on the fact that most biblical scholars think several of the Pauline letters werent actually written by Paul…
By Jack
June 28, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
Thank you Tim. There are many of us who get a great deal of pleasure by seeing how high on the richter scale we can get our mates off. Plus you never get whisker burn from a woman.
By j.c.
June 28, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
Julia, mi hija, you are known by the company you keep! Cuidado!
By Billy
June 28, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
Redrose, I have to agree with Jack. Nobody knows how to please you better than some other women. And nobody knows how to please some men better than some other men.
By ernest the atheist
June 28, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
GOB, some folks jest need to cling to the belief that ever word of the Bible is true and inspired by God. That way they don’t ever have to think fer themselves about what is right and wrong, good and bad, black and white. They can have their morals handed to them in a book. What is faith fer them folks? Well, it seems to me like they say, I know this fantastic story couldn’t really be true but I’m gonna believe it anyway cause I’m skeered not to believe it! I’m digging in my heels (and my ability to reason)into this here sand and I jest ain’t gonna listen to anything that might make me question my superstitious thinking. And then I have to go to church ever week and listen to them others so we can support each other. Most of these folks were dragged to the church by their mom or pop when they was younguns and got filled up with fear of hell and that ole mean God watchin’ ever thing they was doing before they was old enough to know what was happening. I feel sorry for em myself.
By Julia
June 28, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
GOB-it doesnt change the simple fact that the story about casting the first stone does not appear until the middle ages.
Actually, they were there all along but the Alexandrian textx omitted them.
And for the record there are “theologians” on both sides of this issue. Just as there is such a thing as “false theology” and “false doctrines” which are being taught in various schools across the land. Just because some “theologian” says something is true doesn’t make it so. There are as many of these theologians who contend that the verses were there all along but changed by Origen (and others) in those Egyptian texts.
Again, there are flase theologies that are being taught in some of these institutions such as futurism.
I appreciate your input GOB and respect your opinion always. But I stand firm in my beliefs.
Jack & Tim-morning guys! :)
By Tim
June 28, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
Julia… good morning to you too :)
By Julia
June 28, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
ernest-There’s no need to feel “sorry” for me honey. There’s nothing wrong with me or my beliefs. I’m strong-just like my beliefs.
What do YOU believe in? That we evolved from apes? (Well, at least my family did not. hehe)
Careful I just might get a persecution complex! ;)
By Julia
June 28, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
sorry…gotta learn to proof-read…(yikes)
By Kyle
June 28, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
“Plus you never get whisker burn from a woman.”
-i’m not so sure. as much as this statement should absolutely be true, there are unfortunately some women out there that look like they would blow (pardon the pun) this theory out of the water
-72John, in response to your post at the end of yesterday and with the issue of SSM aside, i think i have to disagree with you that children are just as well off in a single parent home than a two parent home (provided all socio-economic factors are equal). although i don’t think either one of us are basing this on any facts, it just seems to me that there is some inherent benefit with having a two parent lifestyle (be it same sex or opposite). for one, i would think that two parents would have more time to spend with there kids than a single parent, thus lowering the possibility of neglect. second, if you have two parents there is a much better chance that at least one of them will be equipped to help a child through a particular situation, be it helping with homework or advice for a first date. also, with a two parent situation, the child is provided with a good example of two grownups loving and caring for each other and their family (and that’s always good for a child to aspire to).
By GOB
June 28, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
Actually, they were there all along but the Alexandrian textx omitted them.
Do you have any documented proof that the story about casting the first stone was removed, and then re-inserted hundreds of years later, or is that just a guess? Because some things were removed (and let’s be honest, added as well) does not prove that a specific thing was removed. There is no way to logically make that jump. It is possible, but there is still no evidence that Jesus ever told that story.
To your point about false doctrines and theology, have you ever considered you might be on the wrong side? Not saying you are or arent, but it is at least food for thought.
By Jack
June 28, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
Good morning Julia. :)
By Tim
June 28, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
I am sorry to get into the middle of this conversation but I’m honestly a little annoyed… if Julia wants to believe that Jesus said something then why does anyone else care
By GOB
June 28, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
I am sorry to get into the middle of this conversation but I’m honestly a little annoyed… if Julia wants to believe that Jesus said something then why does anyone else care
Couldnt we all say some variation of this when the subject isnt something we are interested in?
Also, it is really a conversation about logic and sources more than believing a certain phrase was spoken. I am by no means trying to convince Julia that Jesus didnt tell that story, I am just pointing out that there is no proof in the sources.
By Jack
June 28, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
If they ever invent a time machine……
By Billy
June 28, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Kyle, I’ll agree with you. Provided all other factors are equal, I also believe that two parents would be better than one. Provided the two have a good, loving relationship. But I think that, apart from that model of a stable relationship, most benefits of having two parents relate directly to the amount of time available to spend with the children and the amount of money coming into to the household. In which case, would three not be better than two? And four than three?
By Julia
June 28, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
GOB-you mean there is no proof according to a handful of agnostic theologians…(:’)
Anyway, I understand the points you are trying to make. And I hope you understand mine. There is a huge issue as to which ancient texts are authentic-the Textus Receptus or the Egyptian. That is where all of this stems from. The Catholic Church goes with the Egyptian and Protestants go with the Textus Receptus.
Tim-I appreciate your concern on this issue. You’re awesome darlin’.
GOB wasn’t trying to knock down my belief-he was just looking at a different side of things. No harm done.
By lozen
June 28, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Rather than two people (the “traditional family” that’s been around now for about, oh since the industrial revolution took people off the farm), how about an extended family? The way it was when people lived in the same place all their lives with their parents, aunts, uncles, etc. and the kids were cared for by all the family? The traditional two parent family is actually a rather new institution.
By GOB
June 28, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Julia - I do understand that there is controversy surrounding the texts. By definition, however, wouldnt an agnostic be the most likely to give an objective reading of the facts? The agnostic has no vested interest in either side of the argument. A believer has an awful lot at stake if it shown that the basis for much of their life was wrong, so they tend to see only those things that support their position. An athiest is the same way. They have a lot at stake as well becuase if it is proven that god does exsist, they are in trouble. Therefore, many athiest tend to see only the things that support their particular position.
As for the particular passage about casting the first stone, however, it still isnt in any of the surviving texts before the middle ages…
By lozen
June 28, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
What’s wrong with agnostic theologians Julia? Are you saying the only authorities you listen to are sure they and only they hold the only truth? An agnostic doesn’t say there is no god and the bible isn’t true. They say they don’t know for sure and that’s a pretty good stance. They’re open and unbiased to all information.
By Jack
June 28, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
Julia. You make me reach for the fan switch.
By lozen
June 28, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
Brian your post this morning was great. *Hmmm. Turns out that kids do better in two-parent homes than in single-parent homes. Clearly, gay marriage should be outlawed.
Likewise, children of rich families have more oppportunities than children of poor families. Therefore, gay marriage must remain illegal.
This just in! Tomatoes grow better in moist soil than corn does… therefore, gay marriage must be specifically prohibited.
C’mon, everybody—let’s play the Irrelevance Game!*
By Tim
June 28, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
GOB… I honestly couldn’t care less what y’all discuss… I would be just a tad hypocrital if I started b*** at you for not staying on topic… it just seemed to me you were more trying squash her belief… if that’s not the case… I’m sorry… I will get unannoyed
I am not as educated on the topic as the two of you are… I don’t know who is right and who is wrong… but I personally would like to believe Jesus did in fact say it… I think they are pretty good words to live by… and if he didn’t say it… oh well… they are still good words to live by
By GOB
June 28, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
Lozen - you know what they say about great minds…
By Julia
June 28, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
Jack-Are you gettin’ hot already…Summertime’s rough isn’t it…
Had any tea lately? (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.heehee)
;)
By GOB
June 28, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Tim - I absolutly agree that they are very wise words, regardless of who said them.
By Jack
June 28, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
It’s not the weather making me hot. :)
No tea lately. (not that high on my list though)
By Kyle
June 28, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
ok, maybe we should just go back to letting the kids be raised by the entire tribe/village
By Renee
June 28, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
Hi everyone, thought I would drop in and see what was going on. I’ve been super busy with my new position and just had my birthday last weekend as well as my one year anniversary (civil union).
Surprised by the topic but not the usual responses. We go around and around in circles on this issue. The usual people disagree and the usual people agree, and the conversation usually goes downhill from there.
I definitely am “for” religious freedom, but don’t need Shaunti to validate that for me, and she gives the same biggoted opinions.
The one thing that any of the religious zealots need to realize is that they don’t have to agree but you do have to respect another’s choices and/or beliefs. Personally, I don’t care who does or doesn’t believe in what I am as a person.
By The72John
June 28, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
I am not as educated on the topic as the two of you are… I don’t know who is right and who is wrong… but I personally would like to believe Jesus did in fact say it… I think they are pretty good words to live by… and if he didn’t say it… oh well… they are still good words to live by
They are good words to live by, but Julia’s unwillingness to consider historical evidence that they were added to a later edition of the Bible is indicative of the greater problem of conservative religion and fundamentalism.
(Julia, I promise I’m not directing this at you - this isn’t a personal dig).
It is the willingness to dismiss historical, scientific, and empirical data simply because one would rather not believe it that allows fundamentalism to thrive.
By lozen
June 28, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
ok, maybe we should just go back to letting the kids be raised by the entire tribe/village And obviously this shows we need another amendment outlawing gay marriage.
By lozen
June 28, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
72John, you are so astute! It is the willingness to dismiss historical, scientific, and empirical data simply because one would rather not believe it that allows fundamentalism to thrive. This is so true. Some religious do it a little, and some do it a lot, but it all contributes to the problem of fundamentalism, IMO.
By Jack
June 28, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Yes he is edgumikated isn’t he. LOL
By chuck
June 28, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
Here are a few studies that DO
By chuck
June 28, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
Here are a few studies that DO
By chuck
June 28, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
Here are some article summaries with references that may help some of you to understand why gay marriage and gay adoption/parenthood of any type is opposed by most Americans. Pay special attention to the 2 studis in BOLD lettering
Homosexual Parents
Summary: Does the homosexuality of parents affect the sexual orientation or experiences of their children? Seventeen of 5,182 randomly obtained adults from six U.S. cities answered questionnaires indicating that they had a homosexual parent. Parental homosexuality may be related to findings that: (1) 5 of the 17 reported sexual relations with their parents; (2) a disproportionate fraction reported sexual relations with other caretakers and relatives; and (3) a disproportionate fraction: (a) claimed a less than exclusively heterosexual orientation (47%); (b) indicated gender dissatisfaction; and (c) reeported that their first sexual experience was homosexual. Of 1,388 consecutive obituaries in a major homosexual newspaper, 87 of the gays who died had children and registered a median age of death of 47 (the 1,267 without children had a median age of death of 38); 10 lesbians did and 24 did not have children. We estimate that less than 1% of parents are bisexual or homosexual and that < 7% of gays and about a third of lesbians are parents.
References: Adolescence, 1996, 31(124), 757-776.
Effect of Homosexuality Upon Public Health and Social Order
Summary: Are homosexuals “not dangers to society” and is homosexuality “compatible with full health”? To answer these questions 4,340 adult respondents drawn via area probability sampling from 5 metropolitan areas of the USA self-administered an extensive sexuality/public order questionnaire of over 500 items. Bisexuals and homosexuals (about 4% of the sample) as compared to heterosexuals: (1) more frequently exposed themselves to biological hazards (e.g., sadomasochism, fisting, bestiality, ingestion of feces); (2) exposed themselves sexually to more different bodies (e.g., more frequently admitted to participating in orgies, reported considerably larger numbers of sexual partners); (3) more frequently reported participating in socially disruptive sex (e.g., deliberate infection of others, cheating in marriage, making obscene phone calls); and (4) more frequently reported engaging in socially disruptive activities (e.g., criminality, shoplifting, tax cheating). From the standpoints of individual health, public health and social order, participating in homosexual activity could be viewed as dangerous to society and incompatible with full health.
References: Psychological Reports, 1989, 64, 1167-1179.
What Proportion of Newspaper Stories About Child Molestation Involves Homosexuality?
Summary: Do homosexuals disproportionately molest children? A survey of 8 of the nation’s newspaper news stories of child molestation during the first 9 months of 1995 showed that about 40% of child molestation stories in the major cities involve homosexuality. An Internet survey of FirstSearch for 1989 through 1995 indicated 46%, and of Newsbank for 1990 through 1995 60% of molestations were homosexual. About half of teachers, day care workers and other professionals caught molesting children assaulted them homosexually. It is argued that large unbiased sets of newspaper news stories appear to approximate the figures for incidence of child molestation by those occupying a newsworthy status but overreport homosexual molestation in general.
References: Psychological Reports, 1998, 82, 863-871.
Child Molestations by Homosexual Foster Parents: Illinois, 1997-2002
Summary: Do those who engage in homosexuality disproportionately sexually abuse foster or adoptive children as reported by child protective services? Illinois child services reported sexual abuse for 1997 through 2002. 270 parents committed “substantiated” sexual offenses against foster or subsidized adoptive children: 67 (69%) of 97 of these mother and 148 (86%) of 173 of these father perpertrators sexually abused girls; 30 (31%) of the mothers and 25 (14%) of the father perpetrators sexually abused boys, i.e., 92 (34%) of the perpetrators homosexually abused their charges. Of these parents 15 both physically and sexually abused charges: daughters by 8 of the mothers and 4 of the fathers, sons by 3 of the mothers, i.e., same-sex perpetrators were involved in 53%. Thus, homosexual practitioners were proportionately more apt to abuse foster or adoptive children sexually.
References: Psychological Reports, 2005, 96, 227-230.
Numbers of Homosexual Parents Living with Their Children
Summary: Those contending for the ‘normalcy’ of homosexuality claim there are 800,000 to 7 million homosexual parents raising between 1 and 9 million children. The 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, a nationally representative sample of 12,321 ages 18 through 59 yr., reported about 416,000 parents — most of whom were married — living with children under the age of 17 yr. who reported same-sex “v****, oral, or anal sex” in the past 12 months. Two random-sample surveys suggested that there are fewer than half a million homosexual parents, and a total sample of 14,000 mothers in Avon suggests in fewer. Thus, it is likely that fewer than 500,000 homosexual parents live with fewer than 750,000 children under 18 yr.
References: Psychological Reports, 2004, 94, 179-188.
Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life? Summary: Previous estimates from obituaries and pre-1994 sex surveys suggested that the median age of death for homosexuals is less than 50 yr. Four contemporary databases were used to test that estimate: (1) obituaries in the homosexual press from 1993 through 1997 reflected treatment success for those with AIDS but suggested a median age of death less than 50 years; (2) two large random sexuality surveys in 1994 — one in the USA and the other in Britain — yielded results consistent with a median age of death for homosexuals of less then 50 years; (3) the median age of those ever married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway was about 50 years, while that of the ever homosexually partnered was about 40 yr.; further, the married were about 5 times more apt to be old and 4 times less apt to be widowed young; and (4) intravenous drug abusers and homosexuals taking HIV tests in Colorado had almost identical age distributions. The four lines of evidence were consistent with previous findings suggesting that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years. References: Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, 847-866.
Child Molestation and Homosexuality
Summary: How much child molestation occurs in our society and how much is homosexual? Random-probability samples in Los Angeles, Denver, Omaha, Louisville, and Washington, DC yielded 4,340 adults who answered an extensive questionnaire regarding sexual attitudes, activities, and experiences. Results indicate that perhaps 16% of both boys and girls claim sexual relations with an adult before the age of 16; if only experiences with men are counted about 5% of boys and 15% of girls claim sexual involvements. Sexual contacts with adults before respondents were aged 13 were claimed by 9% of boys and 7% of girls; if only experiences with men are counted, only 3% of boys claimed molestation. Considering only children’s claims of sex with men, about a third were homosexual molestations. About 1% of females claimed some sexual involvement with their fathers and a alike number with stepfathers. The latter were considerably more apt to be considered “serious.” About 1% of elementary pupils and 3% of secondary pupils claimed sexual advances by teachers and about a third of these advances resulted in physical sexual contact. Bisexuals or homosexuals claimed much more frequent sexual contact with caretakers, and homosexuality was disproportionately implicated in sexual events under caretakers’ charge. No generational differences in rate of claims of sexual molestation were found.
References: Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, 327-337.
Domestic Violence Among Homosexual Partners
Summary: Is domestic violence more frequent in homosexual partnerships? The 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse, based upon a random sample of 12,381 adults aged 18 to 59 years, estimated that 828,900 men and 828,678 women engaged in homosexuality in the prior 12 months. Random surveys indicated that at any given time, 29% of homosexual men and 32% of homosexual women are in same-sex partnerships. The National Criminal Victimization Survey for 1993 to 1999 reported that 0.24% of married women and 0.035% of married men were victims of domestic violence annually versus 4.6% of the men and 5.8% of the women reporting same-sex partnerships. Domestic violence appears to be more frequently reported in same-sex partnerships than among the married.
References: Psychological Reports, 2003, 93, 410-416.
By Jack
June 28, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this
Since we have played this subject out, I would like to say that the editors of the New York Times should be charged with treason and jailed for letting that story out after the White House asked them not too. How many people did they endanger by this act so that they could sell more papers?
By Julia
June 28, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Oh boy, fasten your seatbelts and put your helmets on…here we go…
By chuck
June 28, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
It is the willingness to dismiss historical, scientific, and empirical data simply because one would rather not believe it that allows fundamentalism to thrive.
That is such an asinine statement. First, Gob quoted ONE GUY who is nothing more than a liberal hack. There was absolutely NOTHING authoritative about what gob wrote. It was nothing more than his opinion. Gob often quotes some obscure source that is almost completely irrelevent and lays it out as if God Himself wrote it on stone tablets. I’d be surprised if any of his sources checked out. The words that he claimed didn’t appear until the middle ages ACTUALLY appeared in ORIGINAL TEXTS as Julia pointed out.
By Jack
June 28, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Chuck’s pretty good at this. Should be entertaining.
By GOB
June 28, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
Since we have played this subject out, I would like to say that the editors of the New York Times should be charged with treason and jailed for letting that story out after the White House asked them not too. How many people did they endanger by this act so that they could sell more papers?
Yeah! We should just get our news from the White House briefing everyday and be happy to have that…Damn Freedom of the Press…
By chuck
June 28, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
I agree Jack…I think you ought to get that rusty hack saw out for those NY times guys.
By lozen
June 28, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
A survey of 8 of the nation’s newspaper news stories of child molestation during the first 9 months of 1995 showed that about 40% of child molestation stories in the major cities involve homosexuality. Uh, Chuck doesn’t this mean 60% of child molestation stories involve heterosexuals?
By Jack
June 28, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
“Yeah! We should just get our news from the White House briefing everyday and be happy to have that…Damn Freedom of the Press…”
Yes GOB. Freedom of the press even when it endangers people’s lives. Yea Right on. Guess you don’t know any of the soldiers over seas or any of the victims of 9/11.
By lozen
June 28, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
About half of teachers, day care workers and other professionals caught molesting children assaulted them homosexually. and, uh, Chuck if this is true, it means about half of teachers, day care workers and other professionals caught molesting children assaulted them heterosexually!
By The72John
June 28, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
That is such an asinine statement. First, Gob quoted ONE GUY who is nothing more than a liberal hack. There was absolutely NOTHING authoritative about what gob wrote. It was nothing more than his opinion. Gob often quotes some obscure source that is almost completely irrelevent and lays it out as if God Himself wrote it on stone tablets. I’d be surprised if any of his sources checked out.
This is quite ironic, given that Chuck’s ENTIRE post of “Studies” came from Familyresearchinst.org, a bastion of hate-filled Christian psuedo-science if I ever heard one.
Yet, Chuck accuses other people of using laugh BIASED sources. As I said yesterday, if it doesn’t come from an ultra-fundamentalist Christian hate website, Chuck thinks it’s biased.
By lozen
June 28, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
Foster parents Chuck, (34%) of the perpetrators homosexually abused their charges. In other words 66% of the perpetrators heterosexually abused their charges. Come on! Who should we be worried about?
By chuck
June 28, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
Lozen nice try but statistically, when 23% of the population does 40% of anything that is a big deal!!!
You’d be better off leaving this to those better equipped.
By The72John
June 28, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
Since we have played this subject out, I would like to say that the editors of the New York Times should be charged with treason and jailed for letting that story out after the White House asked them not too. How many people did they endanger by this act so that they could sell more papers?
Yes, God forbid we expect our government to obey the laws of the land, rather than skulking about in secrecy violating laws at will.
By Tim
June 28, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
so now since we coulnd’t make an argument about gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because religious rights would be taken away… now it’s… gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because we are all a bunch of child molesters
this is gettin amusing
By Tim
June 28, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
You’d be better off leaving this to those better equipped
yes lozen… you are but a woman… unless you have a third leg… don’t continue posting
By Jack
June 28, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
I’m pretty sure Lozen has the right equipment! Heehee
By chuck
June 28, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
should have read 2 to 3%
The ‘gold standard’ of science is published research, not books about research per se, but rather scientific articles in peer-reviewed publications. On this score, only about 1% of Ph.D.s and M.D.s ever publish such articles, only about 2% of that group ever places an article in one of the handful of premier science journals, and only about 10% of this last group is ever asked to serve as a peer-reviewer of others’ research.
The scientists at FRI do original scientific research and have been asked to review the work of other scientists. Everything FRI has published has passed scientific peer-review. Its articles have been cited in major legal decisions, used by Congressional researchers, and employed by various State officials in blocking gay rights legislation and administrative proposals. Only FRI has been able to publish — unchallenged in the professional literature — three different peer-reviewed articles proving scientific malfeasance on the part of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological Association (APA), the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and other professional organizations in their handling of homosexuality.By Mara
June 28, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Julia - What do YOU believe in? That we evolved from apes? (Well, at least my family did not. hehe)
contrary to popular belief the theory of evolution does not attempt to say that humans are evolved from apes. What it does say is that several million years ago, all primates had a common ancestor. Just as zebras, onagers, horses, and burros are commonly descended from eohippus, so the bonobos, orangutans, chimps, great apes, and human all descended from a common ancestor, most likely Australopithecus afarensis. So I gotta say, even if one subscribes to the theory that all living things change, adapt, and/or mutate over time…I don’t know anyone who believes that man is descended from apes.
Jack - I disagree. I think the NYT should be commended. This administration has been so cavalier regarding the civil rights of private, law-abiding citizens that we need to know what’s going on. After all, congress has refused to check or balance the excesses of Dear Leader and his cabal so someone has to tell us what’s going on. And it’s not like this was some kind of national secret. I mean the U.N. has had info on global surveillance efforts and SWIFT up on it’s website for quite some time now. The sad part about the whole thing is that BushCo is howling about the Times reporting on one of the few surveillance programs that appears to be completely legal. Go figure…
By Billy
June 28, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
How many people did they endanger by this act so that they could sell more papers?
Zero?
Chuck, you are an idiot. Your studies are stupid. Homosexuality and molestation are two completely different things. Molestation is about power and the fetishization of children. Not about gender. Your claim that most child molesters are gay is completely off base. It only works if you consider a same-sex molestation to mean that the perpetrator is gay. If you reassessed the data and this time considered opposite-sex molestation to mean the perpetrator is heterosexual, you’d find that the majority of molestors are heterosexual. Your study is pointless except for the fact that molestors molest children of both genders.
Furthermore, I have to take exception with your “domestic partnership” study. The conclusion at the end said it best: “Domestic violence appears to be more frequently reported in same-sex partnerships than among the married.” Reported. That’s all it means, not that violence is more common. Perhaps that’s because homosexuals have a greater sense of self-worth and aren’t about to let a partner bully them around?
Homosexuality does not shorten the lifespan. AIDS does. Hepatitis does. Other infections can. Homosexuality does not. And using obits from a gay paper is not a fair sampling. That’s openly gay men and women. It doesn’t include the vast majority of gays whose obits are printed in your everyday local paper, and who are likely to live to be 80. There’s no causality for your conclusion that homosexuality leads to early death. Any correalation could be attributed to other factors — being forced to live “on the DL” because of society’s bias against gays contributes to random, anonymous, casual sex, ergo less safe sex, and then poorer medical care.
By chuck
June 28, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
Actually Tim, this is a result of an earlier post that claimed there are NO NON-RELIGIOUS REASONS FOR PROHIBITING GAY MARRIAGE. Obviously that post was wrong.
By The72John
June 28, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
By the way, the author of chuck’s cut-and-pastings is one Paul Cameron, a “scientist” who was expelled from the APA for his falsification of data in various rabid anti-gay papers. He is a fundamentalist Christian known for his vehement anti-gay bias and obsession with homosexuality.
He is one of THE most discredited anti-gay fanatics attempting to disseminate false information about gay people on the planet.
So, why am I not surprised that Chuck-I-hate-gays-and-obsess-about-them-more-than-anything-in-the-world uses him as unequivocal proof that his pathetic bigotry is justified?
Every time Chuck accuses someone else of bias, I just have to laugh. What scum.
By lozen
June 28, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
What fundie website did you get your statistics from Chuck? The same one that gave you the dimensions that prove two of every creature on earth really could have been floated on a boat for 40 days?
By The72John
June 28, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
The scientists at FRI do original scientific research and have been asked to review the work of other scientists. Everything FRI has published has passed scientific peer-review. Its articles have been cited in major legal decisions, used by Congressional researchers, and employed by various State officials in blocking gay rights legislation and administrative proposals. Only FRI has been able to publish — unchallenged in the professional literature — three different peer-reviewed articles proving scientific malfeasance on the part of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological Association (APA), the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and other professional organizations in their handling of homosexuality.
What’s funny is that this is ALSO cut-and-pasted from the website of FRI. Ooo, they TELL us they are legitimate so we should believe them, even through the legitimate scientific community denounces them as utterly fraudulent.
Yeah, Chuckie. You are SO credible when you cite your crazy religious hate sites. You’re a real credit to hate-mongering.
By Renee
June 28, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
You can’t take Chuck too seriously.
By chuck
June 28, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
HMMMMMM, you claim that he was kicked out of the APA…I reiterate:
The scientists at FRI do original scientific research and have been asked to review the work of other scientists. Everything FRI has published has passed scientific peer-review. Its articles have been cited in major legal decisions, used by Congressional researchers, and employed by various State officials in blocking gay rights legislation and administrative proposals. Only FRI has been able to publish — unchallenged in the professional literature — three different peer-reviewed articles proving scientific malfeasance on the part of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological Association (APA), the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and other professional organizations in their handling of homosexuality.
If he was kicked out it was because he exposed the reckless liberties taken by the APA and other liberal apologists in falsifying the results of scientific studies to promote their gay agenda.
By Tim
June 28, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
I love how PUTTING MY ARGUMENT IN BOLD AND ALL CAPS MAKES IT RIGHT works on this blog… here… lemme try… (ok breath Tim… remember to breath)
GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGAL
WOOOHOOOOO I made my point
nice to see that since there are some people who are child molesters I shouldn’t have the right to marry… just go from one point to another to another chuck… I would think that hole you’ve been digging is ‘dun bein dug’… good grief
By The72John
June 28, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
Actually Tim, this is a result of an earlier post that claimed there are NO NON-RELIGIOUS REASONS FOR PROHIBITING GAY MARRIAGE. Obviously that post was wrong.
So…falsified statistics fabricated by a religious fanatic to create fake studies demonizing gay people aren’t a religious reason?
HAHAHAHA. Buffoon.
By chuck
June 28, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
And 72, you are real credit to gayness…stereotypically so.
By Jack
June 28, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Zero is your guess N.D.
By chuck
June 28, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Can’t refute the science so you attack the scientist. That’s why you will NEVER win an argument with me. You are a strange sad little man.
By chuck
June 28, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
Can’t refute the science so you attack the scientist. That’s why you will NEVER win an argument with me. You are a strange sad little man.
By GOB
June 28, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
First, Gob quoted ONE GUY who is nothing more than a liberal hack. There was absolutely NOTHING authoritative about what gob wrote.
To a degree you are right. There is nothing authoritative about what I wrote, but there is an awful lot that is authoritative that was written by one of the most notable biblical scholars in the country.
The words that he claimed didn’t appear until the middle ages ACTUALLY appeared in ORIGINAL TEXTS as Julia pointed out.
Really?? And how could you even begin to know this? The orginal texts have been lost for almost 2 thousand years.
Although in your defense, they might be hidden with the dinosaur eggs from the ark somewhere, so we might still find them…
By Tim
June 28, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
And 72, you are real credit to gayness…stereotypically so
don’t try to flatter him… he’s still not going to sleep with you
By Julia
June 28, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
How many people did they endanger by this act so that they could sell more papers?
Jack-I couldn’t agree with you more!!!
By The72John
June 28, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
If he was kicked out it was because he exposed the reckless liberties taken by the APA and other liberal apologists in falsifying the results of scientific studies to promote their gay agenda.
Yes, Chuck…beacuse your little fringe organization that was established specifically to advance its ultra-fundamentalist agenda says that the mainstream scientific societies which were formed for the utterly objective purpose of advancing science, it must be so.
Yet again, folks - this passage of his comes straight from the website-of-christian-hatred. So it MUST be true, right?
So typical of you rabid, drooling Christers. You think that 5 scientists saying something have as much credibility as the 50,000 saying the opposite. Just because you want to believe it.
And you claim to be a teacher. It’s tragic, really.
And 72, you are real credit to gayness…stereotypically so.
Well, now you’re just running out of insults. I’m actually pretty non-stereotypical. Pointing out all of the obvious flaws in your sources is stereotypically gay? If being smarter than religious fanatics is stereotypical, then I guess in that respect I am.
By The72John
June 28, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Can’t refute the science so you attack the scientist. That’s why you will NEVER win an argument with me. You are a strange sad little man.
I don’t HAVE to refute the science, Chuck. Every major scientific organization on the planet has already DONE so.
And you are a pathetic, hate-filled monster.
By lozen
June 28, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Tim and 72John you are so right. Can’t show gay marriage will lead to religious discrimination? Find some crazy, biased, fundie pseudo-scientist with STATISTICS based on flawed work! Make that someone who got kicked out of the American Psychological Assoc, and about whom the Nebraska American Sociological Assn. says: Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism” and noted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research.” Pretty soon I bet it’ll be back to “because the bible says so!” Nice try Chuck but don’t ya think you’d be better off leaving this to those better equipped at picking their sources?
By lozen
June 28, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
unchallenged in the professional literature because he’s such a biased and unimportant f—k the real scientists ignore him!
By Jack
June 28, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
I think we’re out numbered on that Julia. They must think the media should print everything including our nuclear missile launch codes or the names and locations of all of the CIA’s covert operatives. The bad guys do have a right to know.
GOB & N.D. Watch that video of Nick Berg getting beheaded. Maybe it will open your eyes as to what we are dealing with.
By lozen
June 28, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
1985, Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it “formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality.”
By GOB
June 28, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
I think we’re out numbered on that Julia. They must think the media should print everything including our nuclear missile launch codes or the names and locations of all of the CIA’s covert operatives. The bad guys do have a right to know.
Yes Jack, that is what we are advocating…well done.
By The72John
June 28, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
I think we’re out numbered on that Julia. They must think the media should print everything including our nuclear missile launch codes or the names and locations of all of the CIA’s covert operatives. The bad guys do have a right to know.
No. I think that we have laws for a reason and that the government has systems set up to oversee covert surveilance that are being wilfully and deliberately bypassed by the Bush administration. I believe that when a government violates the law, the PEOPLE who vote for them DESERVE to know that they are breaking the law.
GOB & N.D. Watch that video of Nick Berg getting beheaded. Maybe it will open your eyes as to what we are dealing with.
So…we should become like them? Are we or are we not supposed to be the moral compass of the universe? Maybe your playground bully-boy view of America works for you, but I happen to believe we stand for something BETTER rather than WORSE.
Yes, there are people over there who do bad things. Saying that that the ends justify any means makes you not one shred better than they are.
The more America slips back into the kind of abuses of power common during the cold war, the more we allow our leaders to violate the law, the more the terrorists are winning.
By Billy
June 28, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
GOB & N.D. Watch that video of Nick Berg getting beheaded. Maybe it will open your eyes as to what we are dealing with.
Again with the needledick BS, huh? And Nick Berg? Come on. The guy’s own father is against the war. Explain to me exactly how the knowledge that the government examines bank records harms anyone. We already know they do that to catch money laundering!
By Mara
June 28, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Jack, Julia - the SWIFT datamining program wasn’t a secret…
In fact, a United Nations group set up to monitor Al Qaeda and the Taliban after Sept. 11 recommended in 2002 that other countries should follow the United States’ lead in monitoring suspicious transactions handled by Swift. The report is public and available on the United Nations Web site.
so basically, you both (and chuck) think the Times should be prosecuted (or persecuted) for printing a story based on a openly accessable report that has been in the public domain since 2002. And that makes sense…why?
By chuck
June 28, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
Dr. Cameron was not “dropped” from the APA. The first document, dated November 7, 1982 is a copy of the letter sent by Dr. Cameron announcing his resignation from the APA. By this point, all previous disputes between him and the APA had been settled, and there were no other charges or inquiries into possible ethical violations pending against him. The last previous correspondence from the APA was dated October 18, 1982, reminding Cameron that it had closed his dispute with 6 U. Nebraska psychologists.
November 29, 1982 marked the APA President’s acceptance of Cameron’s resignation. In March 1983, the APA Monitor (the official internal organ of the APA) published Cameron’s letter detailing his reasons for resigning. As per the APA President’s request, this letter had been sent January 12, 1983.
A commentary on the March letter was published in June 1983 (click here…). Although Pietrzyk asserts that one cannot resign from the APA while under an ethics probe, this rings hollow considering that the APA President and APA Monitor did nothing to challenge Cameron’s decision to resign. Only after the accepted resignation did the ethics committee “drop” Cameron for non-cooperation (see December 2, 1983 letter). Most of this and considerably more was covered in exchanges between Dr. Cameron and various adversaries from the U. Nebraska between October 1985 and March 1986 in the Nebraska Medical Journal.
She said that since they had noted that Pietrzyk wrote for the Log Cabin Republicans, such a designation was unnecessary. FRI replied that this was deceptive since few knew that the Log Cabin Republicans was a gay rights group. The sentence was retained.
There are a number of criticisms raised in The New Republic article. Some appear plausible, and some have been picked up and repeated as gospel truth by nonhomosexual newspapers. Addressing some of these:
Response: Gays create myths for their political and psychological comfort. They want to be seen as “shocked by any claim that we are other than kind, gentle people.” One homosexual contends that “gays are an experiment by nature in an attempt to create a human nature more compatible with the requirements of civil society.”1
But the gay life is a life of violence and depravity:
FRI has published2 estimates from its national sex survey that suggest that 80% of gays have engaged in oral-anal contact at least once in their life. Such unhealthy and unsanitary practice is commonplace among homosexuals.
40% of 4,808 Canadian gays in 1991-1992 admitted to oral-anal sex in the last 3 months, according to a governmentfunded study run by gays representing the largest survey of homosexuals in Canada.3
In the largest-ever study of homosexuals, completed just this year by The Advocate, the national weekly gay magazine, 13,000 readers responded to the questionnaire. The Advocate said that 45% of respondents “loved” anal/oral sex. Additionally, 20% said that they had engaged in bondage and discipline and 10% in sadomasochism in the past 5 years. And, most tellingly, among those who knew that they had the AIDS virus, “11% have said or implied that they were HIV-negative in order to have sex.” (8/23, p. 23)
FRI 2 found that about 13% of gays said that they had been raped, and a third had participated in sadomasochism.5
A study of 930 English gays asked whether they had ever been “sexually molested or raped?” 28% answered “yes.” In half (47%) of these cases the victim was either forcibly anally penetrated or an attempt to do so was made. Of men over 21 years of age, 52 cases (66% of the total reported) “were assaulted by regular or casual sexual partners.”
The authors of the English study (who appear to be homosexuals themselves) note that “Fantasies of the sexually forceful man, the pleasure of ‘being taken;’ and the excitement of power-driven sex are very common in gay culture and pornography. All these collective sexual fantasies normalize sexual abuse and rape of gay men by gay men, providing motivation, justification, and normalization for the assault. It is difficult to see how a climate of intolerance towards sexual aggression can be achieved when sexual aggression is one of the mainstays of collective sexual fantasies.” (p. 293)
Response: There are two problems with this criticism: 1) Pietrzyk didn’t accurately report how many gays and lesbians were in our sample; 2) he fails to understand modern statistical sampling theory.2
We reported all our comparisons between those who were exclusively heterosexual v the combined group of bisexuals and homosexuals. We had approximately 85 gays and 70 lesbians for each comparison though, as in all such studies, not every respondent answered each question. Combining bisexuals and homosexuals has become rather typical because their distinguishing characteristic is having same-sex relations. The new U. Chicago sex survey also combined bisexuals and homosexuals. It captured only 43 bi/homosexual men and 27 bi/homosexual women in its sample.6
The reason for these seemingly low numbers is that FRI, unlike Kinsey and the bulk of studies in the sexological literature, utilized random area cluster sampling techniques. Because homosexuals make up only a tiny fraction of the population, they show up in small numbers in any survey that randomly draws from the places people live. However, it is possible to have a fair degree of confidence in the generalizability of our results to “urban homosexuals-in-general,” at least for the time we did the survey.
Kinsey had 2,000 volunteer homosexuals. But our findings, based on a random sample a twelfth the size of his, are far more apt to be representative of homosexuals-in-general. With more money and time, we would have drawn a larger sample and our results would be more certain still. Having said that, however, as the studies about gays accumulate, the parameters we published look “solid.”
For instance, we reported that 4% of men and 16% of women claimed that they had been “raped.” The U. Chicago survey did not ask about rape, per se. Instead it reported that 22% of women and 2% of men were “forced to do something sexually at some time.” (p. 223)4 9 In his counter reply, Pietrzyk says he’d “sure like to know the source for Cameron’s claim that ‘one third of American men have served in the Armed Forces.”’
Response: On p. 343 of the Statistical Abstract of the United States 1990, we find that over 27,000,000 men have served. Since there were under 79,000,000 men over the age of 18 in 1990, the math is straightforward.
We can only report what our respondents tell us. It is noteworthy that Pietrzyk considers “preposterous” that ” 13 percent have served time in prison.” Since FRI actually asked “Have you ever been jailed or imprisoned for a crime?” Pietrzyk demonstrates his inability to get the facts straight. By comparison, the U. Chicago sex survey6 reports that “about 13%” of its respondents (both men and women) had “ever spent the night in jail.” (p. 219) It actually asked if respondents had ever “spent one night or more” “in (a military jail), jail, prison, reform school or detention center.” (p. 612)
*Pietrzyk rails about our utilizing obituaries from gay journals and calls it “a methodology that would not pass an undergraduate statistics course.”
Response: Our methodology was good enough for the Eastern Psychological Assn convention in 1993. Dr. Charles Smith of SUNY at Buffalo, chair of the session, publicly commended our novel approach and said he was going to warn the gays at his institution about the hazards of their ways. Further, it was good enough for the refereed scientific journal Omega in 1994, a journal specifically devoted to studies of death and dying.
The U. Chicago study provides grist for FRI’s mill as well. Note p. 305: age % men gay % women lesbian 18-29 2.9 1.6 30-39 4.2 1.8 40-49 2.2 1.3 50-59 0.5 0.4
These results should have given the authors a clear warning that homosexuals were much less apt to be old, yet they chose not to comment. Our lifespan study offers a plausible reason for the paucity of older homosexuals in the U. Chicago study: they die young. Other explanations for these findings require much more convoluted logic. For example, note that the proportions of homosexuals do not top out in the youngest age group. Therefore, it would be difficult to attribute the distribution of findings solely to the growth of the gay movement. Another plausible explanation would be that older homosexuals simply drop out of the lifestyle (if they don’t die first). However, if proved true, this would simultaneously argue that gays can and do change, as well as suggest that the gay lifestyle offers scant long-term satisfaction.
*Pietrzyk repeatedly questions Dr. Cameron’s scholarly credentials and “conveniently” avoids using his professional title of “Dr.”
Response: Pietrzyk is a political science graduate student at George Washington University. He has failed numerous times to get his facts straight in this brief article in the New Republic. Dr. Cameron has published over 60 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has written several books. How does being a member of a gay club qualify Pietrzyk to engage in scholarly critique?
*Pietrzyk complains that we have analyzed only “sexual mass murder” and found homosexuals responsible for about half of these sprees.
Response: He doesn’t deny the facts about sexually- motivated murders, he merely tries to divert attention toward serial and other non-sexual mass murders.
*Pietrzyk claims that we have “distorted” the evidence for disproportionate child molestation by gays.
Response: He cites our 1987 pamphlet on child molestation. It was updated in 1993. With new information our estimate of the proportion of homosexuals has dropped from 4% to between “1% to 3%” and our estimate of the proportion of homosexual molestations to “between a fifth and a third.” Thus the relative proportion of homosexual molestation has remained about the same (“the risk of a homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual”).
*Pietrzyk claims that Cameron advocated the “extermination of male homosexuals.”
Response: The Forum interviewer remarked that many societies have considered homosexuality a capital crime. Noting that it would be cheaper to kill homosexuals in primitive societies than jail or quarantine them is hardly an endorsement. In fact, Cameron is quoted in the same article as saying that such an idea is “not politically, ethically or socially acceptable” today. Where former Surgeon General Koop got his information is mystifying. He never asked Dr. Cameron whether he advocated such a policy.
*Pietrzyk calls “extreme” and “absurdly high” FRI’s estimate that lesbians are “nineteen times more apt to have syphilis than straight women and four times more apt to have had scabies.”
Response: Pietrzyk finally has it right. That’s just what we reported in the Nebraska Medical Journal in 1985.7 We also p. 6 reported that lesbians were three times as apt to have had a genital discharge, and twice as apt to have sores on their genitals.
The new U. Chicago6 survey does not report its sexually transmitted disease findings for lesbians. However, it reports that lesbians had about 4 times as many sexual partners as heterosexual women, were considerably more apt to engage in 11 unusual sexual practices,” and that a larger number of partners was associated with higher STD rates. It is probable that it found essentially what we found but was reluctant to publish the findings. [see ‘New Sex Survey: Dishonest Science’ in this issue of Family Research Report]
*Pietrzyk calls our 1983 national sex survey “discredited.”
Response: Since results from the FRI survey have been published in a number of scientific journals (e.g., Nebraska Medical Journal, Psychological Reports, Lancet, and Science), and have formed the basis for a number of scientific papers presented to the Eastern Psychological Assn, it would appear that it is “discredited” by gay activists, not by scientists.
FRI’s sex survey was one of the first national sex surveys to be drawn on a random sample. Random samples are supposed to give representative samples. Theory aside, however, proof is always in whether the technique “works;” that is, whether FRI’s results stack-up against other well-done surveys. For instance, how do FRI’s results compare to the recent U. Chicago effort?
FRI, in attempting to interview people from age 18 through the end of adulthood, ran into a buzzsaw of high rejection rates in people aged 50 or above. Overall, almost half of our potential respondents refused to fill out our questionnaire. But the median age of those who rejected was 55, meaning we got high rates of compliance for those in their 20s and 30s and miserable rates of compliance for those in their 60s, 70s, and 80s.
The lore that has developed from doing Gallup polls and similar surveys is “those who don’t respond are generally much like those who do.” So FRI reported its rejection-rate and then ignored the nonresponders when reporting results - just as the U. Chicago study did. We assumed that a person who initially rejected the survey would not be worth the effort and cost of a follow-up appeal. So we put our limited resources (about $100,000) toward fattening the size of the sample rather than re-visiting rejecters. All told, we got usable responses from almost 5,200 adults.
U. Chicago paid its respondents $25 to $35 apiece and apparently repeatedly called-back its rejecters, offering them more money to get them to cooperate. It got almost 3,200 adults for $2,400,000. Still, 20% of their respondents refused to take the survey though offered considerable sums of money. So their findings, like ours, could be way off if those who rejected were quite different from those who cooperated. No one will ever know. But since they found “no relation between respondent fee [up to $100] and quality of the information provided” (p. 56), it fits the model that such pursuit is probably unwarranted.
Beside detail about sampling theories, what proof emerges from the empirical pudding? How do the results of these two surveys, one greased with high levels of effort on the part of a few highly-trained and closely supervised interviewers while essentially ignoring refusals, the other with over 200 interviewers and the willingness to expend significant time and money to reduce the rejection rate, compare? They were very close. 6,7
Where both surveys asked similar questions, similar point estimates were generated. Comparing the two samples:
ever syphilis in life? FRI men - 2.4%, women - 0.9% U C men - 0.9%, women - 0.7%.
ever gonorrhea in life? FRI men - 11.2%, women - 3.7% U C men - 9%, women - 4.7%
ever genital warts in life? FRI men 5.0%, women - 4.3% U C men 3.3%, women - 5.9%
ever hepatitis in life? FRI men - 3.6%, women - 2.4% U C men - 1.3%, women - 0.9%
The lower figures on hepatitis for the U. Chicago study may be related to their claim that “hepatitis A is not sexually transmitted but hepatitis B is.” Subsequently they “eliminated the cases that were evidently type A from the counts.” (p. 380) More generally, the FRI study was only done in urban areas compared to the broader geographic coverage of the U. Chicago study. Still, examination of the unweighted comparisons above suggests that all the differences were within one or two percentage points.
Furthermore, about 21% of FRI females reported having “obtained an abortion” while 19% of the U. Chicago women said that they had ever “had an abortion.” (p. 457)
9% of gays and 5% of lesbians in the U. Chicago effort reported that they were heterosexual virgins. (p. 311) 8% of FRI’s gays and 5% of our lesbians reported that they were heterosexual virgins. Since few homosexuals in either survey were over age 50, where rejecters became a significant problem, we could expect high levels of agreement between both methodologies.
*Associated Press: The AP article (click here to view…) was carried by the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph on 9/16/94. FRI called AP on 10/12 about the falsehoods that Cameron: 1), “is barred from practicing psychology in Nebraska” and 2) had falsified data about homosexuals. AP was faxed a copy of Cameron’s license and a copy of the Bangor Daily News correction (see above). The Gazette Telegraph published the AP correction on 10/26/94 after FRI informed it of its existence.
The Advocate wrote on 11/1/94 that “Cameron, who contends that gays and lesbians are sexual deviants, was expelled from the American Psychological Association in 1983 for falsifying research data about gays. He was also barred from practicing in Nebraska, the only state in which he had been licensed.” (p. 16)
The Bangor Daily News, 10/10/90, had the following as part of its story of a Cameron visit to Maine: “The APA, however, said that Cameron was dropped from the membership because of a violation of the APA’s code of ethics involving the misuse of colleagues’ research.” It published the correction. Maine has a constitution which permits suits for libel irrespective of their proven economic impact. Newspapers in Maine publish corrections with dispatch.
References: 1. Harry J. (1982) Gay children grown up. NY: Praeger, p. 168. 2. Cameron P, Cameron K., & Proctor, K. (1989) Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order. Psychological Reports, 64, 1167-1179. 3. Doing it in the 90s. Canadian AIDS Society, May 1993.4. Michael, RT, Gagnon, JH, Laumann, EO, & Kolata G. (1994) NY:Little, Brown. 5. Hickson, F.C.I., et al. (1994) Gay men as victims of nonconsensual sex. Archives Sexual Behavior, 23, 281-294. 6. Laurnarm, EO, Gagnon JH, Michael, RT, Michaels, S. (1994) The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: U. Chicago Press. 7. Cameron, P, et al. (1985) Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease. Nebraska Medical Journal, 70, 292-299.
By Mara
June 28, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Jack - GOB & N.D. Watch that video of…
who’s N.D.?
By The72John
June 28, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
*1985, Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it “formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality.” *
Oh, lozen, give up…don’t you understand? As far as Chuck-the-schmuck is concerned the APA and any associated sub-groups are all hoplessly biased and under the thumb of the homosexual agenda.
Now, HIS organization, one established entirely by scientists who trumpet their bias from the rooftops, one whose members constitute a minute fraction of the scientific community, and whose members are roundly denounced by 99% of the scientists in the world, is ABSOLUTELY, UNDENIABLY NOT BIASED.
Even though their idea of “peer-review” is letting the very small community of like-minded peers sign off on their research…even though their methods are questionable at best…Chuck will still claim that they are right and everyone else is wrong because that’s what he wants to believe.
Yes, you and I both know that it is a tragedy that someone so warped and mentally and emotionally damaged is teaching in the public school system. You and I both know that, no matter what anyone says to him, he will always claim victory because he is just that positive that he is right. You and I know him for what he is - an evil, hateful, bigot.
If he had been born during segregation, he would have been swearing by studies showing that blacks are inherently genetically inferior to whites. If he had lived in pre-war Germany, he would have sworn by the textbooks that showed that Jews are fundamentally different from Aryans. Had he been born in the middle east, I bet you he would have been piloting a plane on 9/11.
That’s just the kind of man he is - narrow-minded. Hate-filled. Arrogant. Mean-spirited. Evil.
By Julia
June 28, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
You think that 5 scientists saying something have as much credibility as the 50,000 saying the opposite.
Who are the 5 and who are the 50,000? What if the 5 are like Ehrman and the 50,000 are on the opposite side? But the 50,000 are “Christians” so they must automatically be discredited…right.
By chuck
June 28, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
This statement shows the depths you will sink to TRY to win an argument:
No. I think that we have laws for a reason and that the government has systems set up to oversee covert surveilance that are being wilfully and deliberately bypassed by the Bush administration. I believe that when a government violates the law, the PEOPLE who vote for them DESERVE to know that they are breaking the law.
You are such a liar. EVEN the NYTimes said IN THE FREAKIN ARTICLE THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAD NOT BROKEN ANY LAWS IN LOOKING AT THE FINANCIAL RECORDS.
You and gob and billy are totally bereft of any semblance of decency and morality. You hate America, You hate God and you hate yourselves. What a sad, sad, life you must live.
By GOB
June 28, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
oh lord…Chuck - Links man! We all know you are just cutting and pasting, so just post the link.
By The72John
June 28, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
You can tell chuck is starting to get worked up into one of his self-righteous frothing-at-the-mouth I-am-right-because-God-loves-me rants when he starts cutting-and-pasting yards of text.
Poor chuckie. I wonder what it feels like to live with your head up your a$$?
By Kyle
June 28, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
I think we’re out numbered on that Julia. They must think the media should print everything including our nuclear missile launch codes or the names and locations of all of the CIA’s covert operatives. The bad guys do have a right to know.
-jack, julia; i definitely agree with you on this issue. this story is a glaring example of the nyt’s blinding hatred for the bush administration. the nyt’s release of this story (after being asked not to) also shows their hypocricy and inability to give bush any credit. if you look on the drudge report you will see that on or about sept 21, 2001 (just days after 9/11) the nyt blasted this administration for not having a program in place that could monitor and track international banking transactions (a strikingly similar program to the one that they just ousted and labeled as unconstitutional). the nyt claimed that a program such as this could have been able to identify these 9/11 terrorists and prevent the attacks. i couldn’t agree more. yet when the nyt learns that bush actually does have a program similar to the one they recommended, they expose the program and claim the administration is breaking the law for running such a program. this can be explained by nothing else besides the fact that the nyt didn’t run this story to protect americans’ rights and stand up for freedom of the press; no, the nyt ran this story to harm the bush administration pure and simple - and they gave no regard to the danger that they may be placing america in in the process
-do you guys really not see how this story can put americans in harms way? by taking away an effectice tool to combat terrorism (btw, telling terrorist of this operation does significantly diminish its value to us) our government is now less capable of identifying, tracking, and ultimately stopping terrorists that plan to attack on our soil. i don’t understand how you can dispute that?
By GOB
June 28, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
You hate America, You hate God and you hate yourselves.
Said in the South Park voice…”If you dont love Amerka, then you can geeet oouut!!”
Chuck - you should hit open mic night at The Punch Line. Your routine would kill.
By chuck
June 28, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
BTW, I guess that your source for the information on Dr. Cameron was totally unbiased:
Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. Department of Psychology University of California
*He is a past chairperson of the APA Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concerns. He also served on the APA Task Force on Avoiding Heterosexist Bias in Research and the APA Task Force on AIDS. He currently serves as chairperson of the Scientific Review Committee for the Wayne F. Placek Award, sponsored by the American Psychological Foundation.
Prof. Herek’s other professional involvements also have focused on lesbian and gay concerns and AIDS issues. In 1997, he was a participant at President Clinton’s White House Conference on Hate Crimes. In 1993, he gave written and oral testimony on behalf of the APA, the American Psychiatric Association, and four other national professional associations for the House Armed Services Committee’s hearings on gays and the U.S. military. In 1986, he testified on behalf of the APA for the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee’s hearings on antigay violence.*
HMMMM a gay psychologist is just the right guy to make claims against an anti-gay rights psychologist. What a maroon.
By Jack
June 28, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
Yeah John visit ground zero. We are better. I don’t recall our people beheading anyone. What an arguement.
By lozen
June 28, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
Yeah, we all know Chuck is worried about that oral/anal sex thing! He imagines that one all the time and is so bothered by it!
By GOB
June 28, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
HMMMM a gay psychologist is just the right guy to make claims against an anti-gay rights psychologist. What a maroon.
Chuck - you realize that you are calling John a “maroon” because you believe he did the exact same thing you did, right? Using a bias source to prove a point??
By The72John
June 28, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
You and gob and billy are totally bereft of any semblance of decency and morality. You hate America, You hate God and you hate yourselves. What a sad, sad, life you must live.
Hahahaha - now you just sound like one of those complete right-wing nut jobs. So typical - if one doesn’t agree with you they hate everything and themselves.
First, I don’t “hate” God, I just don’t believe in the God you do.
Second - I certainly don’t “hate” America, but I despise what the Bush administration and religious theocratic scum like you are trying to turn it into.
Third - the only thing that I can honestly say I “hate”, Chuck, is people like you.
I will put my morality and decency up against yours ANY day, Chuck. Unlike you I treat ALL people with kindness and compassion, and don’t require that they pass some religious conservative litmus test. The only exceptions are pieces of hateful filth like you that deserve neither compassion nor kindness.
And I’m actually quite pleased with myself, Chuck. It’s only a twisted bastard like yourself that thinks people who are angry about your bigotry actually hate themselves.
By Billy
June 28, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
who’s N.D.?
Mara, he means me. He called me that a couple of weeks ago. It started when he called me an a$s out of nowhere. I spent the rest of the week trying to get an explanation from him about it. He wouldn’t respond. So, after he said that he worked two jobs while going to school and raising two kids, I said that his kids probably wish he hadn’t neglected him. That’s when he got a bug up his arse.
Finally we came to find out that it was someone else who made the comment that originally offended him, but not after he christened me “needledick”. Funny, huh?
Oh, and Chuck? Anal/oral contact? Are you talking about anal sex and f******/c********* or are you talking about analingus? Cause I gotta tell ya, I did the latter to my wife the other night, and she didn’t find it depraved in the least. Actually, she rather enjoyed it. Straight people do the same acts gay people do.
By Kristel
June 28, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
As a gay patron of this oh so fabulous country, I am appalled by some of the outrageous comments made thus far. Regardless of what “religious freedom” people think they need to have, EVERYONE deserves the same religious freedom as everyone else. We are not perverts just because who we choose to love is breaking the rules of common society. We should not be stripped of the right to pronounce our love and affection to everyone around us just because someone may disagree with it. Why is it okay for two people dressed in all black and into witch craft or any other politically incorrect act, to get married without anyone saying a thing but when two women or two men want to express that same love, all of a sudden it is against your religious freedom. If a church or particular facility decides it is not in their best interest to marry a gay couple or support the gay lifestyle than so be it but its not right to strip away everyone elses freedom of choice.
By The72John
June 28, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
Actually, trash-Chuck, there are numerous, numerous, numerous articles about the man and his utter lack of credibility.
By GOB
June 28, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
Who are the 5 and who are the 50,000? What if the 5 are like Ehrman and the 50,000 are on the opposite side? But the 50,000 are “Christians” so they must automatically be discredited…right.
Julia - I am not sure what you think Ehrman’s agenda is, but I have just gone through 5 pages of a google search, and the only site claiming he has an agenda is Bible.com…What is it exactly that you think he is trying to accomplish through his research?
By GOB
June 28, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
Jack - I think we should just nuke the entire middle east. That’ll teach those savages to mess with America. Then we can go in and be good to go with oil for decades. Sounds like a sweet deal to me….Oh wait, no it doesnt.
By The72John
June 28, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
Yeah John visit ground zero. We are better. I don’t recall our people beheading anyone. What an arguement.
We are always held to a higher standard. Past offenses do not justify a violation of those very things that make this country great.
I don’t expect more out of you, though Jack. I gather you’re the kind of person who thinks that just because someone puts on a uniform, they’re a hero. No matter how many people they murder in cold blood.
By Billy
June 28, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
You and gob and billy are totally bereft of any semblance of decency and morality. You hate America, You hate God and you hate yourselves. What a sad, sad, life you must live.
Actually, Chuck, I love America. I just hate the fact that you live in it.
By Jack
June 28, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
You can’t say what I think dimwit. You have not seen what monsters men can become in war. No use argueing this with you. I won’t waste my time. I pray that when the next terrorist attack occurs that no one we know or love gets injured or killed, all on this blog included.
By Aelred Dean
June 28, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
The title of this opinion is oxymoronic because same-sex marriage will not have consequences for religious freedoms. The problem is that there seems to be a mixing in thinking that marriage in the United States is a religious insitution…which it is not. Marriage is not a religious act but a civil act and to confuse the two is where there are problems.
Marriage should remain a civil contract between two people regardless of sexual orientation. Afterall, if people are paying taxes then they should have equal rights as anyone else who is paying taxes. It is not “special” rights but “equal” rights under the law.
When a couple has a civil marriage then they can go to their place of worship to have a blessing placed on their marriage. Religious institutions will have the freedom to grant or deny a request of blessing. Plus, a homosexual couple who wants to have a blessing of their faith tradition will not go to an institution that would deny them…they would go to a place that will accept them. So again, religious institutions will have the freedom to accept or deny whom they wish.
Also, I have heard from the Christianists that same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage. I have asked the insightful question, “how will it hurt it”, and to my surprise not one can answer my question. It seems that the Christianists believe that if they say it will hurt it, even without giving examples of how it will hurt marriage, it’s still the truth.
Will heterosexual married couples will feel less married if same-sex marriage takes place? If the answer is “yes” then there is already a problem within that heterosexual relationship and has nothing to do with same-sex couples. Heterosexuals cannot blame homoesexuals for their failed marriages but need to take responsibility for their own failed marriages.
Also, how will same-sex marriage have an effect on anothers beliefs? If same-sex marriage passes…does that mean that Christianists will wake up the next day embracing diversity and pluralism? I doubt that! People will most likely have their same subjective beliefs and no laws of the land can change what a person believes. So again, it’s a pointless topic.
How I see it: right now the heterosexuals want special rights only for them while denying other tax paying Americans their civil rights. So do you want to support special rights for heterosexuals only? Americans should have equal access and benefits under the law and not limit rights to only a certain group of people.
By Aelred Dean
June 28, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
Human beings never behave more badly toward one another than when they believe they are protecting God.
By The72John
June 28, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
You can’t say what I think dimwit. You have not seen what monsters men can become in war. No use argueing this with you. I won’t waste my time. I pray that when the next terrorist attack occurs that no one we know or love gets injured or killed, all on this blog included
You’re right. You can’t argue this with me because I will not back down from saying that when we use the methods of the enemy we become the enemy. I will not back down from saying that war is no justification for murder. I will not back down from saying that a government that abuses its powers in wartime will also do so in peacetime.
I will not hold back from respecting the good men and women in uniform and demanding that the bad are punished as they deserve. A uniform and a gun does not make a man good or bad, Jack. It merely gives him an chance to prove that he is the former, or an excuse to be the latter.
By Jack
June 28, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
Mara. N.D. is Billy. It stands for Needle Dick.
By Jack
June 28, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Getting too steamed. See ya all tomorrow if work doesn’t kill me.
By The72John
June 28, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
Also, I have heard from the Christianists that same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage. I have asked the insightful question, “how will it hurt it”, and to my surprise not one can answer my question. It seems that the Christianists believe that if they say it will hurt it, even without giving examples of how it will hurt marriage, it’s still the truth.
Actually, then they try to Bush-administration it…you know, they make up various other reasons why we shouldn’t have it, and then they do like Chuck today. They just start throwing out fabricated “studies” that are supposed to prove that all gay people are fundamentally horrible creatures incapable of living in civilized society.
It’s rather pathetic, really.
By Aelred Dean
June 28, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
John, I have come to the realization that whatever “proofs” that Christianists use to prove their heterosexual agenda, they are guilty of practicing themselves. I believe that the Christianists are so defensive is that on the basis of civil laws apart from their subjective religious beliefs, they have no leg to stand on. Christianists are guided by fear and the false fantasy that they can control what others can and cannot do while ignore the proverbial log in their own eyes. Religion is not about controling others, but controling oneself. The Christianists need to focus on their behaviors and not worry about others for whom they have no control over.
By lozen
June 28, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this
I know that the religious fundamentalists in Iraq/Iran/ Afghanistan and other places are a great danger. I know the religious fundamentalists in America are a great danger. I just don’t know whether the religious fundamentalists in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan should frighten me more than the American fundamentalists. I truly believe if the fundamentalists in American win their war to establish a theocracy, they will not hesitate to go to similar extremes to punish the “godless”. Religious fundamentalists scare me to death no matter which religion they claim to be part of.
By Kaka15286
June 28, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this
[url=http://suffuse.est19.info/nice-suffuse.htm]Nice Suffuse[/url] * [url=http://suffuse.est19.info/description-suffuse.htm]Description Suffuse[/url] * [url=http://suffuse.est19.info/good-suffuse.htm]Good Suffuse[/url] Nice Suffuse | Description Suffuse | Good Suffuse http://suffuse.est19.info/nice-suffuse.htm http://suffuse.est19.info/description-suffuse.htm http://suffuse.est19.info/good-suffuse.htm
By Randy
June 29, 2006 07:13 AM | Link to this
Lozen, Every religious person I know in America realizes they can’t change your heart thru force. I can’t believe you would even think what you said in your 5:05 post from yesterday. The USA has been a devoutly Christian nation for hundreds of years, we love you guys and believe in freedom. Actually, free will is the only true way one can come to know Jesus.
By Randy
June 29, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this
I feel I must comment on Lozen’s comments from yesterday at 5:05 further. I’m confused Lozen, do you not have anyone in your family or friends who are Christian? If so, are they out to get rid of religious freedom in this country(saying you must worship Jesus), to be like the Muslim countries. I don’t know any Christian who is like that, our job as Christians is to throw out “seed”, or try to influence people in the right direction. Some of the “seed” falls on fertile soil, some falls on rock(and never grows) as seems to be the case with you. As I see it the only way to Jesus is thru religious freedom(this is what Jesus wants also), I don’t want people to have to believe in a particular religion(like in muslim countries), nor do I want people not to be able to worship(like in China). Now will I stand up for what I believe, absolutely, I believe abortion is murder, I believe the world didn’t create itself in the beginning. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing, you have a right to believe whatever you choose to believe, but I have that same right. Your extremely slanted view is really uncalled for, we have given you no reason to feel that way.
By GOB
June 29, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this
our job as Christians is to throw out “seed”, or try to influence people in the right direction.
There is quite a difference between throwing out seed and trying to pass laws that are based entirely on your religious principles.
By Brian Curtis
June 29, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this
To answer Jack’s question (of “how many people they endangered to seel papers”)… zero.
But here’s a better question: How many people would you willingly endanger to defend freedom of the press? I’d say about 280 million, personally. But then, I care about freedom, and a lot of people don’t.
Unfortunately, they’re in the White House.
By Brian Curtis
June 29, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this
Oops… SELL papers.
By Billy
June 29, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this
Jack, please refrain from speading your seed anywhere near me…
By Mara
June 29, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this
Billy - Jack, please refrain from speading your seed anywhere near me…
Now, I don’t care who ya are…that there’s funny! LOL!!
By chuck
June 29, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
Foreward by Dr. William L. Playfair The Gay 90s is a solid research effort that examines the science and politics that underpin the Gay rights movement. Dr. Cameron traces the assembling and ordering of the scientific community’s assault on traditional values to the National Research Council just after WWI. While many have rightly attacked the Kinsey report for having begun the process of ‘homosexualizing’ our culture, few realize that the National Research Council [NRC] prepared the way for and funded Kinsey. Fewer still appreciate the extent to which the NRC defended and promoted Kinsey against the scientists of his day who identified and denounced his excesses. Cameron stands alone in having examined, line by line and claim by claim, the 1950’s Evelyn Hooker studies that “proved” homosexuals were normal. He shows that, as so often happens in science, people read the abstracts and the conclusions, but failed to examine the actual details of her work. A generation of psychiatrists and psychologists have been reared on the notion that the Hooker studies proved, in a controlled test, that homosexuals were no different from heterosexuals. Cameron reveals that this interpretation was only made possible by ignoring two-thirds of the results. Yet, one can review the encyclopedias and court cases and find this erroneous interpretation presented as scientific truth. His extensively cited review of the relevant scientific evidence concerning the etiology of homosexuality, as well as his expose of homosexual practices and the violence and child molestation which result from this lifestyle, is more complete and comprehensive than one can find anywhere else. His insights into the development of the dropping of the military ban on homosexuals come from the “inside” so the reader is able to observe how this transformation of policy came to be. As one D.C. politician noted, “this will be the activists’ Bile on homosexuality.” Fifty years ago Pitirim Sorokin studied the life spans of rulers and potentates and found that they averaged only 54 years. Yet Christian saints living at the same time, eating inferior food, living in poorer housing, and often working under incredible privation, averaged 69 years of life. The detailing of the life span of another group given to sexual excess — the homosexuals — reveals the same kind of pattern. I am honored to have been part of the research team that nailed down the life span of homosexuals. I believe the relative brevity of homosexual life should end the twin calls for gay rights and the promotion in our schools of the homosexual lifestyle. The Gay 90s tells the reader how the data was collected and what it all means. This work demonstrates the importance of empirical research in current social policy formulation and adoption. “Published science” now has a canonical place in our society. As a wise man once noted, “the race is not always to the swift, nor the victory always to the strong.” Oftentimes the marketing of a scientific finding is far more important than the finding itself. The extent to which Big Business and Big Government have promoted the homosexual agenda is extensively documented. Especially troubling are the many concrete examples of the federal government, utilizing our tax dollars, to attack religion in general and Christianity in particular. The elite of our society seems determined to alter the nature of society itself. Contemptuous of history, devoid of principle, this elite seems determined to destroy the only value system that has actually worked in the past and still works — the one practiced by a majority of my fellow Americans — the Judeo-Christian ethic. What Pitirim Sorokin warned about in the 1956, that Western Civilization was unleashing sexual forces that would topple us from our position of world leadership, is happening before our eyes. The Gay 90s has the credibility and clarity to help America to its senses.
By chuck
June 29, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this
Hollywood has propagated the myth that when it comes to marriage “all you need is love.” This is simply not true. Marriage is not based on emotion any more than any other partnership in life is. Marriage, like many human activities, involves emotion but it is not constituted by the presence of any particular set of emotions. I do not deny that many homosexuals feel deeply for their partners; however I do assert that no matter how deep the feelings, what they have is not a marriage in God’s sight. It is a beautiful deception. Just because an emotion is deep or powerful does not justify acting upon it. Like drugs, like adultery, like the abuse of alcohol or the love of money, or the power rush of human ego trips, there are emotions which are powerful and addictive and ultimately terribly destructive. Same sex marriages must satisfy criteria other than emotion. A marriage is more than a sexual pleasure center. A marriage is a social unit that is interwoven with dozens of other lives. Same sex marriages do not last. Less than 5% of gays have ever had a relationship that lasted 3 years or more. Sex is not enough. Passion cannot sustain an inherently unstable social unit. Marriage is a fundamental social institution that does not exist just for the emotional satisfaction of two individuals but for the greater good of the community, which stands under the blessing or curse of God. Societies that put emotional fulfillment before right actions and principles will soon give way to a multitude of addictions and deep corruptions and collapse. God will judge any society that institutes same sex marriages. I also believe that God will judge a society that permits adoption of children or the use of sperm banks by same sex couples. His Word stands over society and when it is deliberately flaunted in the name of progress and enlightenment, then it is not light but deep darkness that results. We cannot bend the principles of God’s Word to suit vocal minority groups. While some nations may enact laws permitting these evils, the true church of God must stand resolutely firm and never allow the sanctioning of same sex marriages by Christian clergy. No church that takes the Bible seriously can sanction a union between homosexuals or lesbians.
Homosexuality, like all other types of fornication, has no place in the family of God. Regardless of what modern promoters of “gay liberation” might wish to believe, sexual perversions are not inherited genetically but rather are learned behaviors and willful sins. Like alcoholism and other such sins of the flesh, they may become very difficult to give up for those who have been enslaved by them, but God is able to give deliverance to any who sincerely desire true freedom and salvation. To “straight” Christians in the church, however, the familiar old admonition to “hate the sin, but love the sinner” surely applies in such cases. Homosexuals, long accustomed to being looked upon with disgust by most people, are understandably anxious for acceptance by society. Nevertheless, they must not be encouraged to continue in their wickedness, for it may well cost them their eternal souls. Instead, they need to be “loved into the kingdom,” being delivered first of all from their rebellion against God, then to Christ for salvation and cleansing. Notice Paul’s testimony concerning the very real possibility of such deliverance: Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, …shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. -I Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV) When there is true repentance and the sin is forsaken, then such a person should be lovingly received into the fellowship of believers (or back into that fellowship, if previously excommunicated), like any other repentant and believing sinner. This is the example given in the case of the incestuous Corinthian: Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that you would confirm your love toward him. -II Corinthians 2:6-8 (KJV) In spite of great pressure today from humanists and other liberals to get homosexuality recognized as an acceptable—if not even preferable—life style, the Bible makes it plain that it is really unnatural and animalistic wickedness that must be rejected by true Christians. At the same time, we cannot forget that Christ died for their sins, as well as ours. They are still objects of His sacrificial love, and we should seek earnestly to bring them to Him for cleansing and deliverance.
By GOB
June 29, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this
Chuck - For the love of all things holy, post a link!
By SUZAN
June 29, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
Arlene, You hit the nail on the head!!!!, I am a Christian and the one thing I do understand is that In my belief God is the Creator of all! He does not need us to take his side for anything. We are to live by his word and to pass the good news about him. Christians often get confused about what it is they are called to. Too many believe that to live by the law is the way to prove you are Christian. But no man born on this earth other than Jesus is with out sin and none can live by the law. Hence, God had a terrific plan of Grace. Too bad many Christians loose site of the Grace. While I don’t claim to be a theologin or an expert I can say that I believe in my heart that The Lord God Almighty needs no defense.
By Chilao
June 29, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this
Are my reading comprehension skills lacking(or too fine-tuned) but didn’t RANDY make the ‘throwing seed’ comment? Out a day, back to confusion.(and you can interpret that many different ways) LOL
By Billy
June 29, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
Jesus cocksuck, Chuck! Quit with the Gad damned cut-and-paste BS!
By GOB
June 29, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this
Are my reading comprehension skills lacking(or too fine-tuned) but didn’t RANDY make the ‘throwing seed’ comment?
Doesnt the bible say something about not spilling your seed, especially by “throwing” it?? Randy, you should be careful here…
By chuck
June 29, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
gob, I believe that you have stated through numerous posts that you HAVE NO LOVE FOR ANYTHING HOLY!!!!
By Jack
June 29, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
No intention of “spreading my seed” at all N.D. Drink your own.
By Aelred Dean
June 29, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Check was spreading a lie that same-sex marriages don’t last. I hate to remind him that there is only one state that allows same-sex marriage and to my knowledge there has only been one divorce of a same-sex relationship since it became legal. I do not have that statistics of how many heterosexual couples have divorced.
We’ve been hearing so much lately about the red state (Conservative Christian Territory)/blue state(Liberal Christian Territory) thing, how the blue states are full of immoral, gay-loving, baby-killing liberal pagans (and all vote Democratic) and the red states contain mostly morally upstanding, family values loving, God-ordained conservative Christians (who naturally vote Republican). But a quick look at some statistics on a wide variety of things shows that these labels have much more to do with rhetoric than reality.
Conservative Christians are forever telling us that their religion is the key to a cohesive and peaceful society, and that all hell began to break loose in American culture when we “took God out of the schools” (itself a myth). So at the very least one would think that the “thou shalt not kill” commandment would be more likely to be followed in those God-worshipping red states, right? Wrong. In fact, FBI statistics show that southern states have the highest murder rates, despite the fact that our largest cities are in blue states (New York, LA, Chicago). The top 5 highest murder rates per 100,000 in America? Louisiana (17.5), Mississippi (11.1), Alabama (10.4), Tennessee (9.5) and South Carolina (9.0). So much for that notion that small town, rural American is the Real America, not those big city hedonists who flaunt decency.
Certainly we should find that the red states, with their fervent belief in the importance of “family values”, would have families that stay together far more than those God-hating pagans in the big city blue states, right? Well, let’s check the state-by-state divorce statistics. And once again, the opposite of what we expect. The lowest rate of divorce in the nation? That would be none other than that haven of liberal political correctness, and beacon of gay marriage to the world, Massachusetts. Must just be an anomoly, right? Well, not exactly. In fact, 9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are in blue states, especially in the Northeast, allegedly the hotbed of pagan immorality. And the 10 highest divorce rates in the nation, with averages nearly 3 times higher than the 10 lowest? 8 of them are red states. And let’s not forget that these are led primarily by what is referred to as the Bible Belt. As a recent National Center for Policy Analysis noted, “Nearly half of all marriages break up, but the divorce rates in these southern states are roughly 50 percent above the national average.” Boy, I’m sure glad we’ve got these people to lecture us on family values, but one wonders how they get the time in between breaking up their own families!
Okay, so far this is looking bad for those red states, but it can’t be all bad. Surely those Real Americans in the red states are more self-reliant and hardy than us effete blue staters. With all the talk from red staters about smaller government and keeping those liberal pork project spenders in the Democratic party out of their pocketbook, it’s those effete blue staters who feed at the public trough and take our well-earned tax dollars from the big spenders in Washington, right? Er…well, no. According to a study by the Tax Foundation, of all the states that receive more federal money than they pay in Federal taxes, 76% of them (25 of 32) are those self-reliant, small government red states. And of the 10 states that pay the most in Federal taxes and get the least in return, 7 are blue states.
Okay, this isn’t looking good, is it? How about rates of teen pregnancy. I’m sure those family values folks who don’t believe in all that fancy sex education stuff do much better than us immoral blue state liberals who let our child run wild. Well, not quite. 6 of the 10 states with the lowest rates of teen pregnancy are blue states; 7 of the 10 states with the highest rates were red states. Texas, by the way, is one of only 5 states with a rate above 100 per 100,000 in population (3 of which are red states), and their school board just approved a set of sex education textbooks that do not even mention contraception. Yeah, that oughta help. Teen pregnancy, by the way, went down every single year after 1991, while those immoral liberals were in charge in Washington, with a national average of a 26% decline. But of the 10 states that showed the smallest decline? You guessed it, they were red states, with Texas leading the way.
The point of all this, I think, is that it’s easy to talk about “family values” and being moral, upstanding people; it’s quite another to actually live it. And as a group, the people yelling the loudest and pointing their fingers at others, are the ones who live it the least. And at the same time, ironically, they also want to claim victim status for how unfairly others look down on them. Sorry, but you have zero credibility on this one. You’re the ones who are unfairly impugning the moral values of people who, in reality, tend to behave a lot better than you do. You’re the ones who continually point out the splinter in someone else’s eye while ignoring the log in your own. You’re the ones who love spouting holier-than-thou rhetoric while living less holier-than-thou lives. So neither your pretensions of moral righteousness, nor your cries of unfair victimization, ring true.
Update: And while I’m at it, perhaps I should make clear that of course I recognize that this is based on broad generalizations that don’t hold true in every case, or anywhere close to it. But so is the broad generalization on the other side and I’m pointing out that their generalizations not only don’t hold true for those they’re criticizing, they do tend to hold true for themselves. I’m just really tired of hearing how those arrogant blue staters look down on those good simple folk from the red states. Of course it’s true that people from the blue states tend to look down on the red states as full of country bumpkins. But it’s also true that people from the red states tend to look at blue states as immoral heathens who kill their babies when they’re not attending gay orgies and pride parades. Both sides think mostly in caricature about the other side. But only one of them is trying to push through a moral agenda with police power behind it based upon their caricatures, and I think it’s entirely fair game to point out that their caricature is false (just as it is entirely fair game for them to point out that there are plenty of brilliant and well educated people on the other side of the cultural divide, as there are).
By GOB
June 29, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
No Chuck, I just have no love for what you consider holy.
By Mara
June 29, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Randy - “…are they out to get rid of religious freedom in this country(saying you must worship Jesus), to be like the Muslim countries. I don’t know any Christian who is like that…”
So you’ve never heard of RJ Rushdoony, Gary Noth, James Dobson, Roy Moore or Tim LaHaye? How about The Chalcedon Foundation, Focus on Family, Concerned Women of America, and the Moral Majority? What do all these people and organizations have in common? They all ascribe to the philosophy of Christian Reconstructionism (or Dominionist Reconstruction, if you prefer)
I could cut-n-paste reams of info on these folks, but I’m not chuck so I’ll let you google it yourself.
By Billy
June 29, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Jack, Jesus does not want to save us all. I have proof. I’m thinking he’ll get around to addressing your very non-Christ-like existence soon.
By Julia
June 29, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Billy-Can you please watch your language. Good grief! It’s not needed here and it’s very insulting. If you must use foul language please leave Jesus’ name out of it ok. Please.
By Mara
June 29, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
Hey Billy…how does Jack know you are a needledick?
By Billy
June 29, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Julia, we have asked Chuck repeatedly to refrain from posting the massive cut-and-paste crap, yet he continues to do it. Jack insulted me a couple of weeks ago and continues to do so. I’m only out to offend them. If you get offended, then I suppose I’ll have to consider you collateral damage. Like the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in our unjust war.
By Billy
June 29, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
And our liberties as well.
By lozen
June 29, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Mara, I used to read some of Rushdoony’s crap when I worked at a church. It was one of the more liberal denominations but still they subscribed to his crap! That’s what I mean about all religious contributing to fundamentalism. He is really, really insane. He hates women and would just love to get into a position where he could stone us all! Maybe Randy doesn’t know about these people. He is sharp as a dull butter knife after all, bless his heart.
By Kyle
June 29, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
“I just don’t know whether the religious fundamentalists in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan should frighten me more than the American fundamentalists. I truly believe if the fundamentalists in American win their war to establish a theocracy, they will not hesitate to go to similar extremes to punish the “godless”.”
-lozen, c’mon, your kidding right? by saying that american chrisitan fundamentalist would go to “similar extremes” if given the chance, are you saying they would behead people who disagree with them. this is absurd - a quite ignorant if you actually believe it. do you really not know who to fear most: the person that wants to stop gay marriage, or the person that will gladly fly a plane into a building to kill thousands of non-believers. i hear people complain about the religious right using “scare tactics” to get people to agree with them. what the hell is this comment if not a “scare tactic?”
By Aelred Dean
June 29, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
The Christian Left is a term used to describe those who hold a strong Christian belief and share left-wing, liberal, or socialist ideals.
As with any division into left-wing and right-wing, a label is always an approximation. The term ‘left wing’ might encompass a number of values which may or may not be held by different Christians.
The most common Christian viewpoint which might be described as ‘left wing’ is social justice, or care for the poor. Supporters of this might encourage socialised medicine, generous welfare, subsidized education, foreign aid and government subsidized schemes for improving the conditions of the disadvantaged. With egalitarian values stemming from a Christian perspective, action on behalf of the oppressed is considered a duty.
Many such people assert that their left-wing views derive directly from their Christian faith, and some cite Jesus as “the first socialist”. Many adherents hold also that the early Church practiced socialism, or even something resembling communism of a non-Marxist-Leninist variety, sometimes referred to as Christian communism (“The community of believers were of one heart and one mind. None of them ever claimed anything as his own; rather, everything was held in common.” - Acts 4:32) and that Jesus often seemed to advocate pacifism, while being opposed to the wealthy elite of his day.
By lozen
June 29, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this
ADean, great post at 9:48!
By lozen
June 29, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
Maybe not behead people Kyle. In the past, christians seemed to favor burning people at the stake and torturing them on the rack more than beheading!
By GOB
June 29, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Kyle - If fundementalist christians faced the same sort of social and economic conditions that most in the middle east do, they would without question be doing those same things.
The reason that fundementalist are so scary in America is because they have acheived a level of power that allows them the real possibilty to pass laws based on their beliefs. They have more power than the most powerful terrorist could ever imagine.
By A.L. Bridges
June 29, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
*”if given the chance, are you saying they would behead people who disagree with them. this is absurd” *
The non-Christian Catholic church did torture and burn people at the stake who disagreed with them. Whether they were Protestants, Jews or just plain ole “heretics”. This false church has given many people the wrong idea about Christianity! This Inquisition lasted about 600 years. Ratzinger/Pope Benedict ran this office for 20 years before becomming pope. Same building just a different name-it went from the “Holy Office of the Inquisition” to the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” around the year 1910. It has been housed in the same building since the 13th century. (If only those records could become public!!!)
True Christians do NOT believe in torturing and killing people who do not share their views.
By Kyle
June 29, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
“To answer Jack’s question (of “how many people they endangered to seel papers”)… zero.”
-brian c.: i simply cannot understand why you guys think that taking away a legitimate and effect terrorist fighting tool from our gov’t doesn’t place ALL americans in danger. some on this blog have said that the nyt story revealed no new information, and that everything was already public knowledge. i disagree. if the story only contained public info, why did the nyt run the story by the white house before they ran it? b/c they knew the story contained sensitive info that wasn’t public knowledge. if the story contained all public info, why did the white house ask them not to run the story? the answer is the same as the last question. if the story contained all public info, why did several countries and companies back out of the program once the nyt story ran? b/c the story revealed info that was otherwise unknown to the general public. yes, it was known that the u.s. was trying to track terrorist activity through financial transactions, but what wasn’t known is the extent of cooperation the u.s WAS recieving from around the world. now that this story has ran, everyone knows who was helping in this program and many have backed out. this loss of international cooperation, and giving the terrorist the knowledge of the extent of the program, seriously harms the effectiveness of the program. our gov’t is trying to protect our country from terrorist attacks, and, like it or not, there are people out there who are actively trying to plan attacks on our soil. if someone, our some paper for that matter, lessens our government’s ability to identify and track these terrorist, that person has put the whole country in danger through their action - and not just to sell papers, but to harm the reputation of bush. hope it was worth it.
“But here’s a better question: How many people would you willingly endanger to defend freedom of the press? I’d say about 280 million, personally. But then, I care about freedom, and a lot of people don’t.
Unfortunately, they’re in the White House.”
-yeah, the administration doesn’t care about freedom - that why they are fighting in iraq to replace a dictatorship with a democracy. and the program the nyt article addressed was breaking no laws and was not infringing on your freedoms in any way whatsoever.
By Billy
June 29, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
True Christians do NOT believe in torturing and killing people who do not share their views.
So, I guess everyone in the Bush administration and all its supporters who defend the use of torture on captured insurgents aren’t true Christians…
By Julia
June 29, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
lozen-christians seemed to favor burning people at the stake and torturing them on the rack more than beheading!
No, Christians did not do this. You are thinking of the Catholic Church-which is NOT Christian.
By GOB
June 29, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
-yeah, the administration doesn’t care about freedom - that why they are fighting in iraq to replace a dictatorship with a democracy.
Wait, I thought it was about WMDs??? How did we decide that Iraq was lucky democracy lottery winner? There are an awful lot of dictatorships in the world, and many that were worse that Iraq. Or is Iraq just part 1 of our 435 part series, “Better Know a Dictatorship?”
By Julia
June 29, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
If a religion does not teach what’s in the bible or what Christ taught then it’s NOT Christian. I could offer you hundreds of reasons I don’t think that church is Christian but won’t go into it now. (I’m not saying that there aren’t Christians who were raised in the Catholic Church and have actually found Christ. But the church definitely teaches false doctrines that go against the scriptures.)
By GOB
June 29, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
No, Christians did not do this. You are thinking of the Catholic Church-which is NOT Christian.
Oh, well I guess that is settled…
By Billy
June 29, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
-yeah, the administration doesn’t care about freedom - that why they are fighting in iraq to replace a dictatorship with a democracy. and the program the nyt article addressed was breaking no laws and was not infringing on your freedoms in any way whatsoever.
Kyle — First, the administration isn’t fighting in Iraq. None of the bigwigs in this administration have even though about joining the military. They’re just sending soldiers who are legally bound to follow orders to go do their bidding.
Second, I thought we were in Iraq because Saddam posed us an imminent threat with his WMDs? No, I mean because he has supported terrorists? No, I mean because he has attacked his own people? No, I mean…aww, screw it.
Last, no, the program in the article didn’t infringe on my personal freedoms, but the administration asking the NYT not to run the article and then likening the article to treason was pretty much infringing on the freedom of the press.
By lozen
June 29, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
Sorry, you guys. It was not the catholic church that murdered women in New England because they believed they were witches based on the hysterics of a handful of teenage girls.
By Billy
June 29, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
I’m a little confused as to how Christians claim the Catholic church is not Christian when the Catholic church was the only one preverving the Christian faith in the West for 1500 years. All the Protestant churches can be traced back to Catholicism. If Sunnis and Shi’ites are both Muslims, then Catholics and Protestants are both Christians.
By lozen
June 29, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
Julia, the bible says witches should be killed and women who have sex outside marriage should be stoned to death. Don’t tell me some insane protestant fanatic would not use that if he could. Rushdoony would! The more frightened people are, the more they lose their grip on sanity and resort to doing horrible things in the name of religion. It has happened over and over throughout history.
By GOB
June 29, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
I was wondering the exact same thing Billy.
By Archie
June 29, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
For Chuck, it really is rude to cut and paste the way you do. There used to be a word limit for people posting, perhaps the AJC needs to go back to that. I certainly will not read that many words posted on an internet blog. It just doesn’t make any sense to cut and paste that much verbiage,Chuck. Some of the things said and done make a person question the age and authenticity of the person posting.
By lozen
June 29, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
Yeah, I’m confused too on this “catholics are not christians” thing. The catholic church is the “mother” church of christianity. Of course there’s the problem there of which is the real catholic church now, Eastern Orthodox or Roman? But let’s just skip over that as usual.
By Julia
June 29, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
lozen & Billy-I’m not going to debate you on this because it’s pointless. Believe what you like…doesn’t change the truth.
By GOB
June 29, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Julia - When did you become the arbitrator of what is truth and what isnt? I am sure there are plenty of catholics who would say that you arent a real christian. Doesnt it seem at least somewhat arrogant to claim that you know what the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful god really means and what he really wants?
By Mara
June 29, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
so the Puritans that burned the witchs in Salem were actually Catholics? Who knew?!
Randy - Reconstructionists aren’t shy about what exactly it is they are pursuing: “The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise,” Gary North, a top Reconstruction theorist, wrote in his 1989 book, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism. “Those who refuse to submit publicly…must be denied citizenship.” The Old Testament—with its 600 or so Mosaic laws—is the inflexible guide for the society DeMar and other Reconstructionists envision. Government posts would be reserved for the righteous, as long as they are male. There would be thousands of executions a year, with stoning a preferred method because it would turn the deaths into “community projects,” as movement theologian North has noted. Sinners in line for the death penalty would include women who commit adultery or lie about their virginity, blasphemers, witches, children who strike their parents, and gay men (lesbians, however, would be spared because no specific reference to them can be found in the Books of Moses). DeMar told me that among Reconstructionists he is considered something of a liberal, because he’d execute gays only if they were caught indulging in sodomy. “I’m happy to just drive them back into the closet,” he said.
In his book Liberty at Risk, DeMar writes that “the State cannot be neutral towards the Christian faith. Any obstacle that would jeopardize the preaching of the Word of God…must be opposed by civil government.”
Besides facilitating evangelism, Reconstructionists believe, government should largely be limited to building and maintaining roads, enforcing land-use contracts, and ensuring just weights and measures. Unions would not exist, and neither would unemployment benefits, Social Security, and environmental protection laws. Public schools would disappear; one of the movement’s great successes has been promoting homeschooling programs and publishing texts used by tens of thousands of homeschooling families. And, perhaps most importantly, the state is “God’s minister,” as DeMar puts it in Liberty at Risk, “taking vengeance out on those who do evil.” A major task for the government key Reconstructionists envision is fielding armies for conquest in the name of Jesus.
for more see this link -http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/anationunder_god.html
By lozen
June 29, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Julia, you can say catholics aren’t christians until you are blue in the face. That does not change the fact that catholics are christians. But when have facts, reason, and history ever been important to a “true believer”?
By Rich
June 29, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Wow, the more I read, the more I’m led to believe that Chuck may well be Fred Phelps in disguise.
By Julia
June 29, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
The devil is very deceptive. He also apparently uses infiltration as well as divide & conquer techniques. Whether it’s phony bible translations or false religoins…and yes HE does have an agenda.
Going to lunch…will check back this afternoon.
It would take more space and time than this blog allows to discuss the differences between Catholicism and Christianity. And most of you would be bored anyway. So, I’ll spare you. ;)
By kimberly
June 29, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Julia, I don’t think CHURCHES are Christian. I think a Christian is a PERSON who believes that God sent us Christ to teach us how to treat one another. Were we all to follow His example, we could indeed make life on this spacerock work… for everybody, without war, poverty, and hate. The “way, the truth, and the light” is a roadmap to peace on earth, IMO. Can’t say I’ve seen much of that from [money-grubbing] churches, preachers, or judgmental “Christians” though. Sadly.
By Julia
June 29, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
http://www.ianpaisley.org/
A religion can use the name Jesus but that does not mean they follow His teachings. The pope has about as much right to represent Christ as does Madaline O’Hare or Anton LaVey.
By chuck
June 29, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
Hey Archie
Biblical Arguments Against Gay Marriage A Sermon Outline by Pastor Jim Feeney, Ph.D.
There are non-biblical reasons for taking a stand against gay marriage:
1) thousands of years of traditional, male-female marriage, across numerous cultures and religions.
2) The public health catastrophe among homosexual men.
3) Numerous studies showing the importance to children of a father and a mother.
•• But today let’s look at biblical arguments against gay marriages.
• These Scriptures may be meaningless to unbelievers.
• But these are the biblical reasons that should drive us who hold to the Word of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1) God defines homosexual offenders as among “the WICKED.”
• Ephesians 5:11, KJV And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
• The Christian’s duty is to reprove, not to ignore, that which God calls wicked.
(2) God lists “homosexual offenders” among those who HE determines will “not inherit the kingdom of God.”
• No “TOLERANCE” there. No bowing at the altar of “DIVERSITY” there.
• No endorsement from heaven of homosexual churches there.
• No platitudes about the LOVE of God embracing all lifestyles and behaviors, including gay marriages.
Genesis 13:13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were SINNING GREATLY against the Lord.
Genesis 19:4-5, 11-13, 24 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. [5] They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have SEX WITH THEM.” … [11] Then [the messengers from God] struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. [12] The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here — sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, [13] because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that HE has sent us to DESTROY it.” … [24] Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens.
(3) Homosexuality incurred God’s destructive judgment upon an entire city.
• Rampant homosexuality was a major contributor to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.
• I think San Francisco has not yet been judged because of the God-fearing Christians living there among the sodomites.
(4) The men of Sodom were said to be “SINNING GREATLY” because of their MEN having SEX with MEN.
• Other sins of Sodom are listed in Scripture, but this is the one that the Bible features as their great sin — the one that incurred God’s wrath against their city.
• Bible-believing Christians cannot just look the other way and say that gay marriage is simply a “personal choice.”
• Christians cannot fall for the modern mantra that it’s not our business what people choose to do “behind closed doors.”
• God says that homosexual conduct is “sinning greatly,” and Jesus came to save us from our sins.
Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and PERVERSION. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
(5) God labels Sodom’s sin as “sexual PERVERSION.”
• Societies (again, ancient Rome) that remain in perversion are doomed — Remember SODOM!
Romans 1:18, 24-28, 32 The WRATH OF GOD is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness…. [24] Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the DEGRADING of their bodies with one another. [25] They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen. [26] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for UNNATURAL ones. [27] In the same way the MEN ALSO ABANDONED NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN AND WERE INFLAMED WITH LUST FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their PERVERSION. [28] Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done…. [32] Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
(6) God’s Word identifies husband-wife relations as “NATURAL relations” and HOMOsexual relations as “UNNATURAL ones.”
• Again (27) God calls this “PERVERSION” that receives a “DUE PENALTY.”
(7) God’s word also condemns “APPROVING of those who practice [homosexuality].”
• That is why we need judges and legislators who will show their DISapproval of these things and will rule and legislate against gay marriages.
Matthew 19:4-5 “Haven’t you read,” [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the CREATOR ‘made them MALE AND FEMALE,’ [5] and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
(8) Jesus settled this issue once for all — GOD made them “MALE and FEMALE … a MAN … [and] his WIFE.”
1 Corinthians 6:11, KJV And such WERE some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
•• There is hope and forgiveness for all sins and all sinners who will repent and come to Jesus.
Summary of Biblical Arguments Against Gay Marriage
God lists “homosexual offenders” among “the wicked” (1 Corinthians 6:9).
God lists “homosexual offenders” among those who He determines will “not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9).
Historically, homosexuality has incurred God’s destructive wrath upon an entire city (Gen. 19:4-5, 11-13).
God’s word defines the men of Sodom as “sinning greatly” because of their men having sex with men (Genesis 13:13; 19:5).
God calls Sodom’s sin “sexual perversion” (Jude 1:7). Societies that remain in perversion (Sodom, Rome…) are on the road to destruction.
God’s word identifies husband-wife relations as “natural relations” and homosexual relations as “unnatural ones” (Romans 1:26-27) and “perversion” (vs. 27).
God’s word also rebukes those who “approve of those who practice” homosexuality (Romans 1:32).
Jesus settled the marriage issue once for all, declaring that God had made them “male and female … a man … [and] his wife” (Matthew 19:4-5).
By GOB
June 29, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
The devil is very deceptive. He also apparently uses infiltration as well as divide & conquer techniques. Whether it’s phony bible translations or false religoins…and yes HE does have an agenda.
Julia - Something to keep in mind…Many of those same “false religions” are saying the exact same thing about you. And who knows, maybe they are actually right. There is no way to know for sure about any of this stuff until we die and either go to heaven, hell, or nowhere. To argue that a certain religion is THE absolute truth is a completly ridiculous waste of time because at the end of the day, no one, not Billy Graham, the Pope, or anyone else really knows.
By GOB
June 29, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
A religion can use the name Jesus but that does not mean they follow His teachings. The pope has about as much right to represent Christ as does Madaline O’Hare or Anton LaVey.
Nice…Apparently this blog is now taking place in 1900…
By GOB
June 29, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
God’s word also rebukes those who “approve of those who practice” homosexuality (Romans 1:32)
I think as a nation, we should try to work the word “rebuke” into more conversations…
By Chilao
June 29, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
It would take more space and time than this blog allows to discuss the differences between Catholicism and Christianity. And most of you would be bored anyway. So, I’ll spare you. ;)
Thanks JULIA. Kimberly has a good point about ‘in the heart’. I think we actually did get it(explanation) once or twice or thrice before (right here on this educational blog..LOL)
By chuck
June 29, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Suzan, you said: I am a Christian and the one thing I do understand is that In my belief God is the Creator of all! He does not need us to take his side for anything. We are to live by his word and to pass the good news about him. Christians often get confused about what it is they are called to.*
God called us to stand up for the faith. The people on this blog are liars AND they believe a lie. They want the people who read this blog to think that homosexuality is just “an alternative life style”. It is not it is SIN.
Philippians 1:16 The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:57-59 (New International Version)
57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.
Ephesians 6:12-14 (New International Version)
12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place,
By Kyle
June 29, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
“Kyle — First, the administration isn’t fighting in Iraq. None of the bigwigs in this administration have even though about joining the military. They’re just sending soldiers who are legally bound to follow orders to go do their bidding.”
-ok, soliders SIGN UP VOLUNTARILY for the military and they know that they will be deployed to protect the country - they were not forced into the situation, although i have endless respect for them for doing so. but are you telling me that just b/c bush or cheney didn’t fight in a war, that they can’t lead our country during a war. from now on we should only elect war heros as presidents, is that it?
“Second, I thought we were in Iraq because Saddam posed us an imminent threat with his WMDs? No, I mean because he has supported terrorists? No, I mean because he has attacked his own people? No, I mean…aww, screw it.”
-we went to iraq for many reasons, and yes the most important reason (some say the only reason) used for the justification of going to war was that the administration thought sadaam had wmd’s - removing a brutal dictator who killed his people and stopping a country from aiding terrorism were important but somewhat secondary reasons. whether they were actually wrong about the prescence of wmds at the time we will never know (there was about 11 months to a year when sadaam refused to allow un inspectors in the country before the war started, which would be plenty of time to move or destroy any wmds). btw, did anyone hear about the 500 cannisters of mustard gas that was found in iraq about a week or so ago. saadam had promised that all of these weapons had been destroyed. in the past sadaam used about 10 to 15 cannisters to kill 5000 of his own people - imagine what 500 cannisters could do. its not a nuke or anything, but does the potential carnage that could be caused by these weapons qualify them as wmds?
“Last, no, the program in the article didn’t infringe on my personal freedoms, but the administration asking the NYT not to run the article and then likening the article to treason was pretty much infringing on the freedom of the press.”
-whether you guys like it or not, freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not absolute. there are restraints that come into play when public safety and national security are involved. freedom of the press? this was nothing more than an attempt to harm the bush admnistration at all cost. nyt are hypocrites that critizies bush no matter what he does (i.e. calling him out for NOT doing exactly what they are now criticizing him for actually doing)
By Chilao
June 29, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
It IS always ‘dem der uder folk’ who are thinking/worshipping incorrectly. LOL
By Archie
June 29, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
Chuck you know these agnostics and atheists on the board aren’t going to read all that cut and paste so why do you do it? You have been told that it is rude and yet you say you’re a christian. Do you understand that your actions don’t match what you say you are? Give us a link Chuck and I guarantee you that someone will read the stuff at that website but since people are posting at work during dead time it doesn’t make sense to do what you’re doing unless you are not as old as you portray yourself. Chuck you might interesting things to say and other useful information but when you cut and paste it takes away from that.
By Kyle
June 29, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
Chuck - we get it, according to your beliefs homosexuality is a sin. that’s fine. but who are you to judge another person? isn’t that god’s job. who are you to impose your beliefs on another? if you are right then everything will work itself out in the end. let it go - this is no place for preaching
By Aelred Dean
June 29, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
I am grateful for Chuck as he is giving a clear picture of Christanic Fundamentalists agenda: it is to have a theocacy based on their belief system and to punish those who disagree with that belief system. To that end I ask what is the difference between Islamic Fundamentalism and Christianic Fundamentalism. There may be theological differences, but their agendas are equal. To force their will upon all others and to punish those who don’t want to follow their cultish practices. And Chuck cannot deny that he doesn’t believe that homosexual men and women should be put to death as he quotes from the Old Testament stating that he believes they should be murdered for the sake of his limited and false beliefs.
The problem with literalism, such as Chuck’s position, is that literalists tend to pick and choose what they believe is sin and ignore all other so called sins in order to justify their breaking the laws or tribal customs of people long ago.
As stated in a privious posting that individuals act badly towards one another when they believe they are defending God. The problem with that is they believe God needs to be defended which indicates to me they do not believe in an all powerful God. Fundamentalists have created a God of their own imagination…in other words, they are a cult which worships of God of their creation or an idol of their own creation. Can’t they see who silly it is to defend God? If God is all powerful then God doesn’t need defending as God can take care of godself without any problem.
The religious right’s agenda throughout the nation consists of a variety of programs aimed at weakening public education, dismantling public programs and undermining the wall that separates church and state. (The same agenda of Islamic Terrorists…by the way).
The religious right supports taking money away from public schools to use for private and religious school tuition. Not only are vouchers a threat to church-state separation, the ultimate goal for many in the religious right is to weaken public schools to the point where privatization is the only option left.
The religious right attempts to censor information from public school textbooks that they deem insufficiently patriotic or Christian. Many groups also work to insert religious ideology into student texts in sujects like biology, social studies, and health.
Religious fundamentalists are united by fear. Whether they are Christian, Muslim, or Jew, fear is the common denominator. They fear change, modernization and loss of influence. They fear that the young will abandon the churches, mosques and synagogues for physical and material gratification. They fear the influence of mass media and its ability to subvert the young with song, dance, fashion, alcohol, drugs, sex and freedom. They especially fear education if it undermines the teachings of their religion. They fear a future they can’t control, or even comprehend.
A movement cannot, however, willfully and openly admit its fears; to do so would be an admission of weakness and despair. Instead a movement must develop a positive political or theological proposition and agenda. The emergence of religious fundamentalism may be driven by fear, but each religion must adopt its unique version of a revealed Truth to justify participation. These Truths cannot be temporal in nature; they must be based on the inerrant sanctity of God’s word.
Religion has been created by men, never women, and invariably as a result of divine intervention and mystical guidance. Inherent in most religious doctrine is inplicit fear of eternal damnation; in Christianty even a child is born into this world in a state of original sin - a mechanism to instill immediate fear of damnation, unless corrective action is taken.
But most important is the belief that the divine word of any particular religion is the one and only truth, subject to no compromise. Hence fundamentalist Jews know, without doubt, that they are God’s Chosen People. Christians fundamentalists know, without doubt, that when Armageddon arrives, true Christian believers will be saved and non-Christians condemned. Fundamentalist Muslims know, without doubt, that Allah will reward only their faith and not that of the infidels. The danger in each of these cases is that eternal salvation requires more than leading a good and humane life, it demands certain achievements during one’s life - conquering land, converting non-believers, or destroying infidels.
Thank you, Chuck, for revealing the Christianic Fundamentalists agenda.
By lozen
June 29, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
So, Chuck when can we look forward to you cut-n-pasting pages and pages about idolators, adulterers, male prositutes, (I guess the people who wrote those passages wanted to keep the female prostitutes) thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers? Or is it just the homosexuals you’re obsessed with ;-)? Seems to be, doesn’t it? Anyway, if the greedy are going to hell, I think everyone who lives in the U.S. today is on the way! I think if your book should be right, heaven will be a very lonely place. But you won’t get a chance to find out because you have got to be sinning all over the place while you’re ranting and raving about the sins of others. Don’t have much time to check yourself out now do you?
By lozen
June 29, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
Looks like Chuck is going to ignore anyone who asks him to stop the cut-n-paste just like he ignores anyone who disagrees with his particular set of rules and regs for religion.
By Brian Curtis
June 29, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
Kyle: To address your points briefly (which is all I have time for):
The New York Times, in running this article, exposed nothing and robbed the U.S. of NO tool for fighting terrorism. The fact that international financial transactions are being tracked to find terrorists is already common knowledge. Discussing its partners adds no “astonishing new revelations” to the matter. So this specific instance didn’t even have to invoke freedom of the press as a test against national security, because the national security impact was ZERO.
Secondly: You’re operating from the wrong default position.. the assumption that anything the government does should be kept hidden UNLESS the newspaper can prove it’s harmless. If that were the case, how would we expose government crime and corruption? How would we hold them accountable to their bosses—us, the American people! It doesn’t matter if the specific program was ‘breaking any laws’—what matters is our right to know what the government’s doing.
It’s the government’s responsibility to establish proof that something SHOULDN’T be reported, not the other way around.
I think you’re missing the purpose of having a free press in a democracy. It’s not to “suppor the war effort.” That’s a weak dodge from the fascist side of the aisle, trying to stifle any questioning or dissent. It’s the purpose of journalism to investigate, expose, and explain what the government is up to at all times. If that makes us less safe—too bad. We were promised freedom, not safety.
Next: Our purpose in Iraq. So now it’s about replacing a dictatorship with a democracy, huh? That’s funny, I seem to recall a lot of scaremongering and lies about “imminent threats,” WMDs, ties to 9/11, and so on. Funny how “spreading democracy” wasn’t the goal until all the others crapped out… and even funnier how comfy we are with propping up, dealing with, and installing dictators everywhere else around the globe.
The so-called “discovery” of expired and degraded cans of poison that Santorum and Hannity have been screeching about all week doesn’t constitute a threat to the U.S. by any stretch of the imagination. The only way that stuff could be dangerous is if you got ahold of some and drank it. There were no WMDs, but Bush & Co. claimed there were and they knew where. They LIED. Case closed.
Next again: Soldiers. Yes, they sign up to do their duty, knowing they may be sent to defend their country. And when they’re sent for some OTHER purpose entirely—-well, whose fault is that? Just because you’re in the military doesn’t mean every order you get will be legitimate, and it doesn’t mean every command-level decision will be an honorable one. The soldiers are stuck folllowing orders, and if the orders come from a moron, their exposure to danger and injury is a waste of lives. Sad, but true.
Non-soldiers certainly can command our military, but this particular batch doesn’t seem to understand just how significant and serious military action can be. And we already know this country doesn’t want a war hero as commander-in-chief; if they did, Kerry would’ve won.
By Aelred Dean
June 29, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
Lozen: you are encountering Christianic Fundamentalism full force with Chuck. You are seeing them for what they truly are even though they claim to be opposite of their actions.
By Mara
June 29, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
HUZZAH!! to the Arkansas Supreme Court -
Arkansas cannot ban homosexuals from becoming foster parents because there is no link between their sexual orientation and a child’s well-being, the state’s high court ruled Thursday saying the ban was “an attempt to legislate for the General Assembly with respect to public morality.”
“There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual,” Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote in the opinion.
In addition, the court said, the testimony of a Child Welfare Agency Review Board member demonstrated that “the driving force between adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board’s views of morality and its bias against homosexuals.”
By Brian Curtis
June 29, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
John: You’ve got to see this cartoon.
http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/bigotry.html
So simple, and yet it captures the issue so perfectly.
By lozen
June 29, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
“Christianic Fundamentalism” is one thing. But when deemingly more moderate and sane christians make claims like “catholicism is not christian” and truly believe that, it shows what happens to any human being when they become true believers. The root of christianity is religious totalitarianism. And it’s always interesting that true believers, for the most part, are also the ones most easily fooled by politicians too. Teach people not to question their religion and they learn not to question their gov’ment. And that’s why religion and government were one and the same for so long. And why it can never, ever be allowed to happen again.
By Kathryn
June 29, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Damm activist judges ruining this country yet again!!!!
By lozen
June 29, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Mara, thanks for posting that! That’s great news.
By Julia
June 29, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
lozen-I wasn’t aware that YOU were the expert on Catholicism or Christianity. My apologies.
However, as a Christian I have to speak up when I see someone call something Christian when it’s not. Doesn’t mean I want to chop someone’s head off if they disagree. I’m just stating what I believe. But isn’t that everyone on the blog does-states what they believe.
Just because a religion uses the name of Christ (as many of them do) doesn’t make it Christian. If any religion contradicts the bible then it’s not Christian. Period. People such as yourself have been fooled into believing it is…but it isn’t. The Reformers knew it and shouted it from the roof tops.
Which religion besides Islam have been known to burn bibles? You got it-the Roman Catholic Church.
By Kyle
June 29, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Brian;
-as far as the nyt story goes, i guess we will just have to disagree on that one cause we both have clearly different views on the situation (i think new info was contain the teh report, you don’t)
-for the purpose of a free press in a democracy, i totaly agree with what you said. the press should be able to hold the gov’t in check and let the people know what’s going on. i do think, as a default position the press should be able to print what they want, but in this particular case i believe the administration had an argument that the info would do greater harm than good if leaked to the public.
-with respect to the reason for iraq, i said that the main reason for going was the wmds - no argument there. however, i do think there were other legitimate reasons that supported the need to go to war. it appears as though the administration was wrong about wmds, but i don’t understand how you make the jump to calling them liars. have you ever been wrong about something you actually thought was true? certianly you weren’t lying. as for the cans of mustard gas, i was under the impression that they had not been able to identify how old they were yet - how do you know they are “expired and degraded?”
By lozen
June 29, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
That should be “seemingly” not “deemingly” and it should read all the Abrahamic religions (not just christianity).
By Billy
June 29, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
ok, soliders SIGN UP VOLUNTARILY for the military and they know that they will be deployed to protect the country - they were not forced into the situation, although i have endless respect for them for doing so. but are you telling me that just b/c bush or cheney didn’t fight in a war, that they can’t lead our country during a war. from now on we should only elect war heros as presidents, is that it?
I know they sign up voluntarily. That’s not the point. The point is that it is easy to play cowboy/world police when you yourself are not in harm’s way. And of course I don’t think we should just elect war heroes to be president. But I think we really should be cautious about electing those who made active efforts to avoid service yet believe the military is their own personal cudgel with which to beat the rest of the world into submission.
There is only one thing that can ever really excuse an invasion, apart from responding to an actual attack: that he had the explicit intent to attack us as well as the means to do so, and all diplomatic options were exhausted. While the consensus in the intelligence community may have been, and I stress may, that he did indeed possess WMDs, it would have been pure suicide to attempt to use them. And I still see nothing that would lead me to believe he had the means to actually carry out an attack with them. Furthermore, we did not give the diplomatic options a good chance.
Finally, the NYT is one of those publications that is constantly attacked as a bastion of the liberal media. If you read the Op-Ed pages, though, and do so with an unbiased mind, you’ll see that the paper is actually far more to the right than Faux News and talk radio would have you believe.
By GOB
June 29, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
People such as yourself have been fooled into believing it is…but it isn’t.
It certainly is nice of you to show those of us who have been fooled the correct way to think…
By Rick
June 29, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Since so many people are posting bible verses, take a look at this one:
Galations 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Chuck - there are real issues in this world that could benefit from your time and services. The gay issue isn’t one of them.
By Zack
June 29, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
Jason—
It’s unfortunate that you would take shots at Christian fundamentalism. Of course, I’d expect you to do so because you seem to have anger toward God. Do you know what Christian fundamentalism is? I don’t think you do. If you’d take the time to seek the truth, you’d learn—faster than you might believe—that reason and wisdom, two of our God-given faculties, support Christian fundamentalism entirely. This is the devil’s world, and therefore Christian fundamentalism is attacked left and right. The devil influences these events, as he knows who God really is. Notice how Islamic fundamentalism, which DOES support acts like 9/11, is spoken well of, even by our “Christian” president (please note the quotation marks). When Jesus died on the cross, He not only atoned for our sins, but He also gave us a means to have victory over these sins…including homosexuality. I encourage you to go to Him, as He is the only one who can help you or anyone else. It’s really sad that today’s “Christian” (again, please note the quotation marks) church has overlooked the significance of the Crucifixion and has chosen instead to focus on humanism, self-help, and psychology, by the likes of Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and many others. My, what a mistake.
By lozen
June 29, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
Julia, I am far from an expert, but I have been studying religion for close to 40 years now. I studied from an unbiased point of view for a lot of that time. I was an agnostic back in the beginning of my research and I wanted to believe. I envied people who just believed and never questioned it! If I had ever read, seen or experienced anything in those 40 years that came close to proving that the god of the bible exists (Yahweh), a jewish carpenter who lived and died 2000+ years ago can save me from my sins, the bible is literal truth, or humans change for the better when they become christians, I wouldn’t be an atheist now. Catholics believe Jesus was god, died for our sins, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven where he sits on the right hand of god and creates many mansions for those who believe in him. That makes them christians.
By lozen
June 29, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Oh yes Zack; you are a perfect example of god given reason and wisdom! You’re the one that believes some red guy with horns and a forked tail is running around in the world making people attack you! Geez!
By Mara
June 29, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Kyle - a soldier’s job isn’t to blindly follow orders. They are bound by the Army manual to refuse to obey orders considered illegal. According to this statement from West Point Cadets Against the War, it seems that the legality of the war itself is in question…not to mention the honor and honesty of those who got us into it.
the statement -
Instilled by the Cadet Honor System with a fundamental, longstanding respect for truth, we graduates of the United States Military Academy believe that honor is a basic attribute of character….We stand appalled by the deceitful behavior of the government of the United States and, in particular, its widely known malefactors. Lying, cheating, stealing, delivering evasive statements and quibbling not only has demeaned these deceivers and the United States of America, but has placed vast numbers of innocent people in deadly peril. We will not serve the lies. The war in Iraq was launched illegally. It has since killed tens of thousands of innocents, causing incalculable damage to Iraq and the Iraqi people, as well as the reputation of the United States of America. We will not serve the lies.
When we West Point graduates took our commissioning oath of office one past June morning, we swore to protect our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The deceitful connivances of the current administration have resulted in a war catastrophic to our nation’s interests: politically, economically, militarily, and morally. We now stand to protect our nation from these deceivers. We will not serve their lies. We seek justice for all victims of this illegal war, both servicemen and servicewomen, and the citizens of Iraq. To our purpose we invoke the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence whereby we too “mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, & our sacred Honor”.
By Jack
June 29, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
HUZZAH!! & Tooter too. Gee. I thought Catholics were Christian. They don’t spend as much time discussing the bible at mass as do other religions but mass is about the celebration of Christ. We did discuss the bible and Jesus in Sunday school. I may be right, I may be crazy, but I just might be the lunatic you’re looking for…
By Jack
June 29, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
Yeah Mara. In Vietnam,if you didn’t follow orders you somehow got shot.
By Jack
June 29, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Mara. The VC would put grenades in the diapers of toddlers and send them walking toward us. Our orders were to yell stop in their native language and if they didn’t, we were to shoot them. We were in a village when this happened and she wouldn’t stop. I refused to shoot her so someone else did. She did have a grenade in her drawers and it did blow up. My punishment for not following orders was to put bodies in body bags when they came in for the next 2 weeks. I can still see her walking toward us in my nightmares.
By Billy
June 29, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
That doesn’t seem like a very effective method of delivery for explosives. I mean, a grenade is just set on a timer from the time the handle goes, right? There’s no way to remotely detonate the thing.
By lozen
June 29, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
Hummm Jack. That Nam story sounds familiar; do you have red hair by any chance?
By ernest the atheist
June 29, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
Somebody t’other day was wondering how many wives Abraham had. Here’s yer answer: According to the Bible, the patriarch Abraham (or Ibrahim, in Arabic) had eight sons by three wives: one (Ishmael) by his wife’s servant Hagar, one (Isaac) by his wife Sarah, and six by another wife Keturah. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Bahá’u’lláh, and other prominent figures all claim to be descendants of Abraham through one of these sons
By kimberly
June 29, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
Jack, thanks for using your pain to illustrate why I belive WAR IS BAD, and should only be used as a last resort, and then only to the extent absolutely necessary to encourage diplomatic resolution, an effort which must begin when conflict begins and never relent, even for a moment, lest someone think it’s a good idea to shed more blood and cause nightmares forever. God bless you for not shooting the baby yourself… or maybe He already has. {:->
Good Gawd Y’all! What is it good for?
By Jack
June 29, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
That’s correct Billy. No Lozen, my hair is salt & pepper.
By Toad
June 29, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
At the rate Abraham reproduced, we’re all probably his descendents.
By Mara
June 29, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
and your point about obeying illegal orders, Jack?
“We did it in Vietnam, so you have to do it in Iraq”?
By Jack
June 29, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Thank you Sweet Thing. Now you know why I am an opinionated SOB. (and stubborn as hell)
By Jason
June 29, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Zack-
I dont need a lesson in theology. I was raised in an evangelical church. I went to church every sunday morning, sunday night, and wednesday night. I have probably read more of and am better versed in the bible than many of the “christians” that post on here. I consider myself a born again christian.
I obviously read and understand the bible in a different way than most evangelical christians. Homosexuality is something that I fiercely struggled with in my teenage years. Given the household that I grew up in I was absolutely convinced that I was on the path to living a life that would be detestable in the eyes of God. I prayed, sought counseling, talked to my parents, talked to my pastor and REALLY tried to “overcome” this “affliction.” After prayer and genuinely asking god with an open heart to lead me down his path, god showed me that I wasn’t living a despicable life but that I was living my life the way that I was created.
Now maybe we pray to a different God because he obviously tells us different things……
By Mara
June 29, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
actually, Jack, the post from the WPCAW was related to this from Billy They’re just sending soldiers who are legally bound to follow orders to go do their bidding. and Kyle *-ok, soliders SIGN UP VOLUNTARILY for the military and they know that they will be deployed to protect the country - *
It had more to do with whether soldiers should even be fighting in an illegal war or if they are honor-bound to refuse to deploy. Cited in the Nuremberg Charter, which set forth the three most serious crimes (crimes against the peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity) the US Army Field Manual 27-10, art. 28, incorporates the prohibition against these three crimes. I don’t know about war crimes or crimes against humanity, but we are definitly breaking the bit about crimes against peace…
By Kyle
June 29, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
mara - i’m not implying a soldier should follow orders blindly, or that he/she be forced to carryout illegal orders. but with all due respect, i couldn’t disagree more with alomst every point made in the cadets’ statement. just b/c west point graduates say it, doesn’t necessarily mean its true. sure you can find some soldiers that question the legality of the war, but for every solider that speaks out against the war i would argue that there are 10 soldiers who agree with the war and respect our president.
By Jack
June 29, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
I’m not condoning it Mara. It is just a part of combat that I can never forget. It is not easy fighting an enemy when the good guys look the same as the bad ones and the Muslims aren’t afraid to die. They are into martyrdom. To them, all is fair in love and war.
Jack is signing off now. Can’t cry at work it wouldn’t look good.
By B-boy
June 29, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
So, I may be the 502 post on this blog. What have we solved? Nothing.
Perhaps if our country and state were engaged in real issues that affect our daily lives, we could effect real change. Would gay marriage affect my daily live? Yes! My partner and my childern would be protect like other families. But in the absence of being able to marry him. I would like to see our country/state work on issues like better education, clean air and water, preservation of green space, access to healthcare for all, etc.
Something that impacts and improves the lives of us all. NOT A WEDGE ISSUE THAT DIVIDES AND DOES NOTHING FOR THE COMMON GOOD!
By Julia
June 29, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
This is for Chuck, Randy and Zack (because no one else cares, wants to know or will believe anything on the subject):
The Pope claims the place and names that belong to God alone (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, III para. 18). He claims he is “The Holy Father”. This is the unique name of God the Father. He claims he is “The Head of the Church”. This title belongs to Christ alone. He claims he is “The Vicar of Christ”. This is the office of the Holy Spirit alone.
The Pope even takes the very name of God. The New York Catechism calls the Pope, “the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God Himself on earth.” THE TRINITY OF GOD IS USURPED IN ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
By Julia
June 29, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
For Chuck/Randy/Zack:
The Bible states, “There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time” (1 Timothy 2:5,6).
1.Rome claims that in her masses she can repeat the sacrifice of the cross and change the wafer and wine into the very body and very blood of Christ. She claims that she perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross (Eucharisticum Mysterium, Intro. C, 1). Again, “In the sacrifice of the Mass our Lord is immolated” [killed as a victim] (Ibid, C, 2).
Christ cried on the cross, “It is finished” John 19:30.
Hebrews 9:25,26 “Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
Hebrews 10:12 “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”
2.Rome has elevated Mary to the place of mediation. John Paul II states that “in Mary is effected the reconciliation of God with humanity” (On Reconciliation and Penance. St. Paul Editions, p. 139).
No Christian can accept “The Cult of the Blessed Virgin” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, VIII para. 66). It is idolatrous and an insult to our Lord Jesus Christ.
By Julia
June 29, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
Chuck, Randy and Zack:
John Paul II states “It would be foolish and presumptuous … to claim to receive forgiveness while doing without the sacrament” of penance (On Reconciliation and Penance p.115).
He further insists that the individual confession to a priest to receive absolution from him “constitutes the only ordinary way in which the faithful who are conscious of serious sin are reconciled to God” (Ibid, p.132).
The Bible shows us that the way to true remission of sins is clearly contrary to that of the way of Popes, earthly priests, absolutions, and penances:
Ezra 10:11 “Make confession unto the Lord God.”
Psalm 32:5 “I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.”
Matthew 11:28 “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
The Lord Jesus never put any earthly priest or Pope between Himself and the sinner. THE REMISSION OF SINS IS USURPED BY ROMAN CATHOLICISM
By GOB
June 29, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
Uh-oh…Chuck might be in for a battle of cut and paste supremacy…
Julia - That certainly seems like a fair and objective look at the facts…
By Julia
June 29, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
Chuck/Randy/Zack:
Rome has put her curse on the Bible way of salvation. “If any man says that it is by the righteousness of Christ itself that men are formally justified – let him be accursed” (Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 10).
“Sins must be expiated. This must be done in this earth through the sorrows, miseries, and trials of this life and above all through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments of purifying punishments” (Indulgentiarum Doctrina, I para. 2).
Rome thereby removes all assurances a sinner may hope to receive of their eternal salvation. However, the Bible paints for us a very different picture in which “the vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives.”
1 Corinthians 1:30 “Jesus Christ is made unto us … righteousness.”
Romans 5:18 “By the obedience of one (Our Lord Himself) shall many be made righteous.”
1 John 1:7 “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”
Purgatory is not found in the Bible. There is no future wrath for justified sinners.
Romans 5:9 “Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.”
You can be saved now and have full assurance of faith in the certainty that you know you have eternal life. You require no priest but Christ alone (Hebrews 4:15). You require no sacrifice but Christ alone (1 John 1:7). You require no mediator but Christ alone (1 Timothy 2:5). The Pope’s “bad news” points you to Purgatory – a non-existent place! The Lord Jesus Christ’s good news (or gospel) points you to Paradise by simple faith in Himself. Good news indeed!
Remember what Peter said in Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Be warned! Rome’s Catholicism is not Christian.
THE ASSURANCE OF SALVATION IS USURPED BY ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
By GOB
June 29, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Julia - Please dont take this as some kind of personal attack…You are straying awfully close to the Chuck, Randy, Zack style of christianity in a lot of your posts from the last few days. Maybe this is on purpose, and if so, more power to you.
Again, not a personal attack, just an observation…
By lozen
June 29, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
Thanks Ernest. Moses, according to J. Daniel Hays, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies and Theology at Ouachita Baptist University, probably practiced polygamy and his Cushite wife was black. That’s what upset Miriam and Aaron so much! His first wife, Zipporah was the daughter of a Midianite priest who worshipped Baal! And in the end Moses gives the command to kill all the Midianites! Did that include his own wife, his two Midianite sons, and all her family? http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/mosesprivate.htm
There is so much polygamy in the bible, it’s hard to justify the idea that Yahweh wants monogamy.
By Julia
June 29, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
Chuck, Randy and Zack:
On this key issue alone Catholicism fails the test of being Christian. But Roman Catholicism also teaches the following doctrines that negatively impact or deny the biblical teaching on salvation:
Justification as the infusing of righteousness based on good works, not the imputation of righteousness as a judicial decree of God.
The Mass “as truly propitiatory” and, in some sense, truly re-sacrificing Christ.
The seven Catholic sacraments as infusing grace for purposes of sanctification and salvation. (But if the Sacrament of Holy Orders confers supernatural power on Roman Catholic bishops, priests and deacons to “serve as a teacher as Christ Himself,” how is it that Roman Catholic bishops, priests and deacons can so consistently oppose the key teaching of Scripture?)
Baptism, penance, suffering in purgatory, indulgences etc., as having the power to remit or forgive sin or its punishment.
Catholicism alone as the one true Church. No one can deny that given the above teachings relating to salvation, that Catholicism offers a different gospel than the one clearly stated in the Bible.
Is Roman Catholicism Christian? In a nutshell, it would seem that there are so many ways in which Catholicism is not biblical that it is logically impossible to classify it as a genuine Christian religion.
By Billy
June 29, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
but for every solider that speaks out against the war i would argue that there are 10 soldiers who agree with the war and respect our president.
Probably so, but apparently 2/3 or so of our armed forces believe that our going after Saddam was in retaliation for his role in 9/11. What does that say?
By OBSERVER
June 29, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
Julia is hanging out with a fine fine group now.
By lozen
June 29, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
I’m beginning to wonder if that’s really Julia posting. That stuff is so crazy. Julia didn’t seem like that kind of person.
By Julia
June 29, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
Jack-please know that I’m NOT saying that you aren’t a Christian by any means. If you’ve found Christ and asked Him into your life and for forgiveness then of course you’re a Christian. But this church teaches things that are not in the bible and are actually opposite of what the bible teaches on how to be saved. I’m sorry if I offended you in any way. It wasn’t my intent.
Actually, maybe we just need to end the discussion on this subject. (And with it my cut and pastes….Everyone can clap and say “YAY” now.)
;)
(I’m sorry I committed the sin of making everyone use the scroll button on their mouse a few times….Proceed to business as usual.)
Thanks God tomorrow’s joke day.
By Billy
June 29, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
His first wife, Zipporah was the daughter of a Midianite priest who worshipped Baal!
That’s it? Just “Baal”? As in “bocce”?
I’m beginning to wonder if that’s really Julia posting. That stuff is so crazy. Julia didn’t seem like that kind of person.
You and me both. She really didn’t seem like this…
By Billy
June 29, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
What happened to Boscoe? I’d like to hear what he has to say on the subject of Catholicism not being Christian…
By Robert
June 29, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
As a Christian who believes in the truth of the Bible, I have to make one very important observation that my fellow Christians seem to be missing. Our response to this issue and other similar issues makes us look like absolute fools to non-Christians, which does nothing at all to promote the message of Christ to the world. Not one time did Jesus judge anyone for his or her sin—anyone except the religious leaders. He despised them because of their judgment and hypocrisy. Now I am not arguing for or against same sex marriage, but simply pointing out that handing out condemnation to the world is: 1. absolutely the opposite of what Christ did; 2. making Christians look like fools; and 3. showing the world the wrong Jesus and thereby making HIM look very unattractive to the very people we believe need Him.
By Billy
June 29, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this
Thank you Robert!
By Gary Harrison
June 30, 2006 07:33 AM | Link to this
Same sex WHAT?!? Same sex marriages only exist in the perverted minds of homosexuals and those sympathizing with them (who are also recompensed as if they were homosexuals - see Psalms 50. In the context of the Bible they are abomination (detestable, stinking and headed for a one-way trip into the Lake of Fire). NO exceptions. God NEVER changes and he states his feelings on homosexuality well in Romans Chapter 1, Leviticus, I Corinthians, etc. HE never changes. So go ahead Zack and whoever, worship YOUR god who is a product of your own defiled mind - you will see that there is another Gospel, another Jesus and another Spirit - you have him/it. You can talk to that false “god” about homosexuality now or when you meet him in Hell. One last shot - to raise a child in a homosexual “marriage” screws him/her up for eternity - the child has NO choice because of inappropriate modeling. Now, all you homos and homo-sympathizers out there can feel free to attack me as homophobic. I ain’t but do it if it makes you feel better - however, your attacks will not make me wrong because there is NO support in the Old or New Testament for homosexuality; in fact they were condemned to being stoned to death. (Ain’t that right all you Muslims? In fact your argument is not with me - at the name of Jesus EVERY knee will bow - believe THAT and live your life accordingly.
By craig
June 30, 2006 07:53 AM | Link to this
Thank you Robert. I was trying to think how to express those thoughts - you did it better than I could.
The real tragedy of all this is that supposedly Shaunti, and Chuck, and others on here, have been given great news - that we don’t need to fear death anymore. Instead of telling everyone about that in a spirit of love, as Jesus commanded, Shaunti stomps her feet and shakes her fist and demands her “freedoms”. Chuck cuts and pastes long articles by researchers who can’t seem to tell the truth. And now we have Gary thundering from on high about other people’s sins.
How much better it would be if Christians did what Jesus told them to do - just simply love people. How much better it would be if the hotel owners in Shaunti’s example simply loved the gay couple they were presented with, and showed them by example that Christians really are different.
How sad that today’s Christians think the way you win people is by condemnation, and shouting, and implementation of laws to ensure that their lives are difficult.
By Billy
June 30, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this
Gary, Chuck, everyone — I want to know where Jesus condemns homosexuality. I don’t want to know what Paul said. Nor do I care what sort of auditory hallucination some old guy had in the desert 5000 years ago. I want to know where Jesus — God, manifested in flesh — said anything about it.
By Billy
June 30, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this
God NEVER changes
Well, sure he does. (Channeling Chuck & Julia here…)
CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:
“I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy.” (Jer. 13:14) “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.”
“The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.” (James 5:11) “For his mercy endureth forever.” (1 Chron. 16:34) “The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works.” (Ps. 145:9)
“God is love.” (1 John 4:16)Of course God changes. Or at least man’s interpretation of who/what they think God is/believes changes. You are just the latest who thinks he has it all figured out. You don’t.
By Homophobic Christian
June 30, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this
I am a straight male, but I often wonder why Christians feel as if they can dictate how everyone else should live their life? From what I see, Christians today are the opposite of what the new testament taught and that is to be loving, compassionate, and forgiving.
All I see is hate toward anyone who isnt Christian. That is a sad state of affairs.
We are not in the 1700’s anymore. There are many different people in this world who will always be different than you. Deal with it, God made us this way…right?
By Randy
June 30, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this
Yesterday there was some discussion on Catholics not being Christian. I think that most are Christians, however, anyone in any Christian religion who thinks that they can get to heaven thru “works” is mistaken. Being a true Christian is truly a “spiritual awakening”, there have been pastors of churches who have gone to a Billy Graham crusade and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior and they thought they were saved for years. The same is true with Catholics, most I believe are Christian, but it must be thru God’s “Grace”. The Catholic church has I feel manipulated it’s people with a few things that give more power to the priest, namely they had to pray to God thru the priest(Martin Luther broke off from the Catholic church in 1520’s and this was one of the main reasons)and by saying to it’s people that pergatory exists and you can pray and buy people out of there(pergatory doesn’t exist, nothing about it in the bible). So in my opinion, most Catholics are good Christian people, but just as in every Christian religion one needs a true conversion.
By GOB
June 30, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this
pergatory doesn’t exist, nothing about it in the bible
I agree with this line of thinking. If something is not mentioned in the bible, it doesnt exsist. Airplanes, TV, Telephones, DNA…All fake. Those damn heathens are just trying to trick everyone.
Luckily, my name does appear in the bible, so I can take some comfort in knowing that I actually exsist…
By Billy
June 30, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this
If any religion contradicts the bible then it’s not Christian.
And if the Bible contradicts itself? ooOOOooh…
By Joe F
June 30, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
Actually this is not even a religous issue if you think about. You don’t have to pray and go to church every Sunday to realize that being homosexual is just plain wrong and not natural. Just look at the overwhelming support of gay marriage bans across the country.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
Now, all you homos and homo-sympathizers out there can feel free to attack me as homophobic. I ain’t but do it if it makes you feel better - however, your attacks will not make me wrong because there is NO support in the Old or New Testament for homosexuality
My gosh, what would make us think you were homophobic? I frequently refer to people I like as perverted abominations.
God NEVER changes
Except, apparently, for developing a sudden liking for pork and shellfish, and no longer needing all those pesky sacrifices slaughtered and burned for him.
In the context of the Bible they are abomination (detestable, stinking and headed for a one-way trip into the Lake of Fire).
You keep using that word…I do not think it means what you think it means.
Jack - you are a real hero, never think differently.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
Actually this is not even a religous issue if you think about. You don’t have to pray and go to church every Sunday to realize that being homosexual is just plain wrong and not natural
Here we go again with the “not natural” nonsense. Since thinking doesn’t seem to be your strong suit, let me makes things very simple for you. “Natural” means “occuring in Nature”. Since homosexual and bisexual behavior are observeable regularly among many species of many different varieties, it is, in fact, “Natural”. Bzzzt. Thanks for playing. Back to grade school.
Just look at the overwhelming support of gay marriage bans across the country.
Just look at the overwhelming support for slavery in the ninteenth century. Just look at the overwhelming support for segregation in the twentieth. Yes, prejudice is always popular because it appeals to the lowest common denominator, to the rabble. Guess which denominator YOU are!
By Mara
June 30, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
Joe F - yeah, of course popular opinion is always right, too. And most certainly we should base our understanding of civil rights on what the majority think is proper. Wouldn’t want the minorities to get rights the rest of us have, now would we?
now as to whether the issue is “religious” in nature…I believe it was Billy or 72John asking for non-religious reasons to disallow SSM, and dang it…nobody had any logical reasons…just opinion and personal distaste for the mere idea of gay sex.
By lozen
June 30, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
Ha, ha, ha 72John. Yes, prejudice is always popular because it appeals to the lowest common denominator, to the rabble. Guess which denominator YOU are! You the master at putting down stupid people. This was as good as a joke for a Friday!
By Mara
June 30, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Jack, I’m with John on this…you are a hero and we love you. XXOO :^)
By Christopher
June 30, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
Swap the word African American for gay. Swap inter-racial for same sex and you will see why Shaunti Feldhahn’s argument doesn’t have any merit.
By Frank Taint
June 30, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
If homosexuality is so wrong and unnatural then why did God create homosexuals? And yes, God did create homosexuals. If you dont know that homosexuals have been on this earth since day one, then you are clueless. Whats so hard about letting people live their own life and being happy with that? You only live once, you should be able to do whatever makes you happy as long as it does not harm anyone else.
By M. Luther
June 30, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Randy, what exactly is “Christian” about praying to Mary (instead of God or Jesus), confessing sins to a priest (instead of to God), teaching that only the clergy (and “pope”)have the Holy Spirit, teaching that Jesus must be sacrificed daily in the “Mass” to appease God’s anger (thus saying what Jesus did on the cross was insufficient), teaching people to pray to dead people (“saints”), teaching that the pope in “infallible” and can be judged by no one because he makes no errors ever, teaching that only priests can interpret the bible, burning bible believers and bible translators at the stake for hundreds of years, burning bibles, banning bibles, teaching salvation through works, offering “indulgences” for the right price, teaching that if you wear a “scapular” necklace on your deathbed that Mary will get you out of “purgatory” the 1st Saturday after your death, teaching baptism as an infant takes away original sin, teaching everyone must go to purgatory to be cleansed of your sins to be made pure enough for heaven (thus doing away with Jesus’ one and only and complete sacrifice on the cross which justifies us in God’s eyes), and hundreds of other things the Catholic church teaches or has done during her history?????????????
By Kyle
June 30, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
but for every solider that speaks out against the war i would argue that there are 10 soldiers who agree with the war and respect our president.
“Probably so, but apparently 2/3 or so of our armed forces believe that our going after Saddam was in retaliation for his role in 9/11. What does that say?”
-Billy, where did this 2/3 figure come from? there were, and certianly are now, terrorist camps in iraq, and there was a logical fear that the wmds we believed were in iraq could fall into the hands of these terrorists - but i don’t remember any top ranking official claiming saddam had a direct role in 9/11. correct me if i’m wrong on this one
-besides gary and joe f’s earlier posts, does anybody have any jokes for us? looks like its gonna be a long day….
By Jack
June 30, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
I want to apologize for my rant yesterday. Had to leave work & consume mass quantities of alcohol last night. Thanks for the good words. Julia you did not offend me. Billy sorry to be an a$$. I will refrain from name calling in the future. I should be above that. I have out-of-town guests at work so I gotta go.
Everyone have a safe and happy 4th!
By Jason
June 30, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
but i don’t remember any top ranking official claiming saddam had a direct role in 9/11. correct me if i’m wrong on this one
From the Christian Science Monitor:
In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11. Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.”
By Billy
June 30, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
Hehehe…”taint”…
Billy, where did this 2/3 figure come from? there were, and certianly are now, terrorist camps in iraq, and there was a logical fear that the wmds we believed were in iraq could fall into the hands of these terrorists - but i don’t remember any top ranking official claiming saddam had a direct role in 9/11. correct me if i’m wrong on this one
I’m sorry, Kyle. You’r right. It was 85%. Zogby International.
Kyle, that fear was not logical, and I imagine that is where we have our big disagreement. You’re fearing things that could happen. In my mind the idea that something could happen does not justify the invasion of another country.
Yes, there certainly are terrorists in Iraq now. It’s a huge draw having over a hundred thousand American targets there. But before? I’m not so sure. Which terrorists? We lump them all together, but in my mind the only terrorists we should be fighting are Al Qaeda. Once we get rid of them, Osama bin Laden included, then we can talk about playing world police with sovreign nations that have never attacked us. But not before we’ve actually captured or killed the people that were responsible for attacking us.
And of course you “don’t remember any top ranking official claiming saddam had a direct role in 9/11.” They’re not so stupid as to actually say that. But Bush & Co. trotted out 9/11 all the time when justifying the war in Iraq, and they still do. They prey on the fear and ignorance of the American public. “Al Qaeda attacked us. It is a terrorist group. Saddam has given money to terrorists.” The nudge the public toward the logically fallacious conclusions that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda and therefore was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
They promote that view, but they definitely are careful not to say that because people can call them out on it. If people call them out on it now, they can say, as you did, that they’ve never actually said that.
But I think Rumsfeld did, at one point. I might try to find it if I have the time to go looking…
By Billy
June 30, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
Jack, if you read this, thanks. Let’s call it a truce.
By Chilao
June 30, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Jack - you are a real hero, never think differently.
ditto, if y’all like engaging in these free-form discussions and speaking English as well, THANK A VET.
By gman
June 30, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
C’mon, let’s be honest. No one wants to see Jeff and Biff in thier leather chaps in thier neighborhood. Even worse to see that they are actually married. Right?
Personally, I’m not against gays, though I don’t go out of my way to befriend one. There are a few gay coworkers where I am. we don’t treat them any different from anyone else, while at work. If I were to throw a party and invite co-workers, I’m sure I’d forget to give them an invite.
If that’s bigotry, than call me a bigot. I have no problem if you are happy in your same sex relationship. I personally just can’t accept seeing someone showing affection to someone of the same sex. I have to admit that anyone that’s gay should have the same rights as everyone else though. I still just don’t wanna see it.
By Billy
June 30, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Hmm…Bush himself…
From [Truthout.org](http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/091903C.shtml
One clear example of when this connection was made can be found in Bush’s own resolution to Congress, dated March 18 2003, which set forth the parameters of the looming battle. Section 2 of this resolution described the need for “necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
By TinaTeach
June 30, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Creating it to where there are civil ceremonies AND religious ceremonies is a fine idea. Many countries in Europe require a civil ceremony and then if the couple wished they may have religious ceremony. In doing this there is no confusion about what is sactioned by the state. IN FACT the civil ceremony is often required before yuo can get the religious one (Married in the eyes of the state before married in the eyes of God).
At first I was all in favor for gay marriage but now I believe that civil unions are the way to go for now. The citizen of the United States are not ready to handle the idea of gay marriage just as they were not able to handle the idea of inter-racial marriage in the 1800s (thus civil unions were used in place of marriage contracts). Perhaps in the next 50 years we will be ready for gay marriage (as a new generation arises, many polls have found that most teens are in favor of gay marraige).
There will eventually be a resolution to this and I believe no matter how long it takes it will be in favor of granting marriage right to gays.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
No one wants to see Jeff and Biff in thier leather chaps in thier neighborhood
Or “their” neighborhood either. Actually, to be correct you would say “No one wants to see Jeff and Biff in their leather chaps in his neighborhood. See, “No One” is singular. Sorry, I know grammar policing can be annoying, but since I’m about to correct one bit of ignorance, I thought I’d correct another.
Now…you don’t honestly believe that most gay men wear leather chaps around, do you? Because that’s just…you know…stupid.
Personally, I’m not against gays, though I don’t go out of my way to befriend one
Hey, I’m a “one” now. And here I thought I was just a person. Try this sentence, the next time you’re around black people: I’m not against blacks, but I don’t go out of my way to befriend one.” I bet the reaction would be really funny.
There are a few gay coworkers where I am. we don’t treat them any different from anyone else, while at work. If I were to throw a party and invite co-workers, I’m sure I’d forget to give them an invite.
Yup, you’re a prince among men!
If that’s bigotry, than call me a bigot. I have no problem if you are happy in your same sex relationship. I personally just can’t accept seeing someone showing affection to someone of the same sex. I have to admit that anyone that’s gay should have the same rights as everyone else though. I still just don’t wanna see it.
Hmm, actually I just call it juvenile, insecure ignorance. Why do some straight morons obsess over what other people are or may be doing in bed together? When I’m around my straight friends and their significant others, I don’t think “Wow, I bet they’re banging like bunnies tonight!”
Grow up. You might discover that “those people” are actually just “people”.
By Billy
June 30, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
If that’s bigotry, than call me a bigot.
Bigot.
By Robert
June 30, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
Ok, one more time to reiterate the point for those Christians who insist on continuing to mud-sling: It doesn’t really matter one bit whether we as Christians approve or disapprove of homosexuality. IT DOESN’T MATTER! I can quote Paul just as well as you can; how about Romans 3:23, which says we have ALL sinned. As I recall, that was the entire point of Christ’s life was to “save” us from that predicament. Notice that NO ONE escapes sin!
Also notice that Jesus had plenty of opportunity to remind the most despised individuals of his day (prostitutes, tax collectors, etc) of their sin, yet he did not. By my measure, Jesus had as much authority as anyone to pass judgment but refused to do so. How then am I worthy to play judge and jury?
According to Jesus’ teaching, we are to draw the world to Christ by demonstrating His love and therefore making Him irresistable. Right now even I find many Christians quite resistable, and I would argue we are the reason many people refuse to have anything to do with Christianity. I know a lot more people who have rejected Christianity on the basis of having been rejected by Christians than for any other reason!
What are we accomplishing with our judgment? It doesn’t take a biblical scholar to see that the one who judges subjects himself to judgment. While you’re sitting on your high horse of pride and morality, remember that the proud will be humbled, and Jesus did not come to save the “righteous”.
By Jason
June 30, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
gman-
Personally, I think that is all that we can ask for. I know that it’s not realistic to think that everyone out there should embrace my lifestyle. All I can ask for is that people respect me and let me live my life. I don’t flaunt my lifestyle. When my BF and I are among more conservative groups, like co-workers, casual aquaintences(sp?), my family, etc we don’t “flaunt” it in their faces. In exchange for that respect, I ask people to respect me.
I can appreciate that while you don’t personally want to see it, you embrace the idea of equal rights. For that, I thank you. ;-)
By Mara
June 30, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
Billy, I thought this bit from the Zogby poll was interesting also - “While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.””
We know that hyper-muslim al Qaeda had very little use for Hussein and vice versa…so one wonders, where ever did they get the idea that Iraq was an al Quaeda protector?! Hmmmm. I wonder…
By Steve
June 30, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
Why shouldn’t gays get married. They have just as much a right to be miserable as the rest of us.
By chuck
June 30, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
I’m sorry, but there are some really deceived people on this blog…and no, I am not one of them. Here are some basic facts for people who claim to be Christians:
1) It is the obligation of every Christian to CONFRONT SIN. JESUS DID THAT all the time. Every time He forgave someone of their sins He admonished them to GO AND SIN NO MORE.
2)As a Christian we have DUAL CITIZENSHIP. We are citizens of both heaven AND earth. Because we are Christians, we have an OBLIGATION to the world in which we CURRENTLY live to make it the best we can. Certainly we should be taking care of widows and orphans. We should give to help the poor. We should be above board in all of our business dealings and we should avoid even the appearance of evil. That does not mean that we have to be door mats. It also does not mean that we should JUST love sinners, we should also be about helping them to turn AWAY from sin and TOWARD Christ. Does that mean that we always have to pound away at them? No, but erroneous statements should be challenged for what they are…ERRONEOUS. I certainly don’t want my future grandchildren growing up in the world envisioned by the morally depraved perverts that are posting on this blog. I will use every weapon at my disposal to combat the pure evil that some of these people represent.
3) In spite of what some of these “Christians” say, we are commanded by scripture to “defend the faith”. I Timothy Chapter 1:
2 To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk.
We are to INSTRUCT those who oppose the teachings of scripture.
II Timothy 2:
25 Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
II TIMOTHY 3:
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 4 1 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
This is the short version I will be glad to post more about this if there are Christians out there who want to KNOW what our role in the earth should be.
By Chilao
June 30, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
I still just don’t wanna see it.
does that include two women? just curious.
By Georgia
June 30, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
I do not understand….If love is love, who cares if you are gay or straight. Does gay people being married effect my family?….NO, Does closed minded people effect my family….YES. Do only straight people deserve to find love and happiness in a marriage? i do not think so. I am a straight married female and I support gay marriage. This is 2006 people, get a clue, life is all about change. Get a life people!!!!! I voted YES YES YES to gay Marriage, everyone deserves to have that right!!!!!
By Billy
June 30, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
This is the short version I will be glad to post more about this if there are Christians out there who want to KNOW what our role in the earth should be.
Flat, as it is…
By cw
June 30, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
If one approaches the debate about gay marriage objectively, one might reach a less emotional conclusion. I have a sequence of questions and discussion on the issue.
a. If yes, then marriage could only be between a fertile male and a fertile female who want children. All other marriages would then be cancelled and forbidden. b. If no, then there must be other reasons for marriage.
An objective review of the debate, leads one to conclude that restricting marriage only to a man and a woman is illogical and without merit.
By chuck
June 30, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Billy as to the Zogby poll, you are a disengenuous in the way you presented the data…Much like the APA when they present data from studies of homosexuality. Here is the ACTUAL information from the study:
The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”
Deal with it. I actually DO go to the source.
By Mara
June 30, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
Robert, isn’t judging your neighbor one of the perks of being a Christian? From everything I’ve observed about them, the whole point is to prove that your church, god, and way of life is holier than anyone else’s church, god, or way of life. After all, if you can’t be nasty to those who don’t worship like you…what’s the point?
(okay, I’m just pokin’ fun, but still…)
you seem to be the kind of Christian that might actually make people want to be part of a church. And I liked that part about Jesus did not come to save the “righteous”.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
As a Christian we have DUAL CITIZENSHIP. We are citizens of both heaven AND earth
Hahaha - there’s this website out there that sells passports, licenses, etc., all issued by The Kingdom of Heaven, so that “christians” like Schmuck can have their dual citizenship recognized in “legal” form.
How much do y’all want to bet that Chuck drives around with a “Kingdom of Heaven” driver’s license that he just insists is valid.
This is the short version I will be glad to post more about this if there are Christians out there who want to KNOW what our role in the earth should be.
yeah, ask Chuck - your Uberchristifuhrer. He will be happy to train you in the ways of judgement, condemnation, self-mortification, flagellation, hatred masquerading as “love”, deliberate misinterpretation, rebuking, beating, kicking, punching, bible-banging and just being a downright nasty, unpleasant human being.
He’s like…evil Yoda!
By Billy
June 30, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
Tina, the fact of the matter is that there already is gay marriage. If a religious institution wants to marry a gay couple, it can do so. The couple just aren’t eligible for any of the civil benefits that come with marriage. Freedom of religion prevents the government from denying people their right to a religious service. The government can only deny a civil service. Since determining who gets a civil service should have no religious factors, gays should be allowed the civil right to marry.
That is why so many are against gay marriage. If the government says it’s OK from a civil standpoint, the couple can easily find a church that says it’s OK from a religious standpoint.
By Jennifer
June 30, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
I don’t claim to know all of the Bible or God’s plan, but I try to live my life as a Christian. I am not perfect and make mistakes everyday. What I do believe is many people have have bad experiences with Church’s or Christians who maybe started with the best intentions, but created their own “rules” and began imposing them others around them. Someone jokingly referred to sacrifices in an earlier post…those were Old Testament law that the Jewish people lived by in order to be accepted in Heaven. Jesus made the ulitmate sacrifice so that thru him we may enter Heaven….in other words the Old Testament “rules” were over ridden when Jesus arrived and showed us how to live. Check out 1 Corinthians 7:1&2. It refers to marriage as man and woman….and there are several other references. This doens’t mean that I hate anyone who is gay. They are people too, but I do believe that it wasn’t intended for them to marry. Personally, they (as with anyone) have to live and die with the choices that they make. HOWEVER; being the mother of three children…one that is a teen, I see how media and society influence their reasoning. Foul langauge…degrading women….money and possesions are everything….being gay is cool. Look at the music videos….TV programming….commercials…..clothing. This country was founded on Christianity….now we don’t even want to acknowledge Christmas….it might offend someone, but we can show scantily dressed dancing women…imply EVERYONE is having sex with anyone….women are for one use only…..and being gay is cute and funny….respect is a thing of the past and the list goes on. None of those things is the way the God intends for us to live our lives. Life is supposed to be lived for Him….not for our desires and wants. Not an easy thing to do if anyone has tried….and I am as guilty as the next person…
By Jennifer
June 30, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
I don’t claim to know all of the Bible or God’s plan, but I try to live my life as a Christian. I am not perfect and make mistakes everyday. What I do believe is many people have have bad experiences with Church’s or Christians who maybe started with the best intentions, but created their own “rules” and began imposing them others around them. Someone jokingly referred to sacrifices in an earlier post…those were Old Testament law that the Jewish people lived by in order to be accepted in Heaven. Jesus made the ulitmate sacrifice so that thru him we may enter Heaven….in other words the Old Testament “rules” were over ridden when Jesus arrived and showed us how to live. Check out 1 Corinthians 7:1&2. It refers to marriage as man and woman….and there are several other references. This doens’t mean that I hate anyone who is gay. They are people too, but I do believe that it wasn’t intended for them to marry. Personally, they (as with anyone) have to live and die with the choices that they make. HOWEVER; being the mother of three children…one that is a teen, I see how media and society influence their reasoning. Foul langauge…degrading women….money and possesions are everything….being gay is cool. Look at the music videos….TV programming….commercials…..clothing. This country was founded on Christianity….now we don’t even want to acknowledge Christmas….it might offend someone, but we can show scantily dressed dancing women…imply EVERYONE is having sex with anyone….women are for one use only…..and being gay is cute and funny….respect is a thing of the past and the list goes on. None of those things is the way the God intends for us to live our lives. Life is supposed to be lived for Him….not for our desires and wants. Not an easy thing to do if anyone has tried….and I am as guilty as the next person…
By Georgia
June 30, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
“I still just don’t wanna see it”, Come on wake up!!!! Does it effect you other than you not wanting to see it…. You know what I do not want to see….Illegal immigrants coming over to the US and my tax $$ paying for their houses, cars, food and their choice to have children …I work hard to have the things that I have and I am a 100% born US citizen, I deserve the right to tell them NO you are not using my US dollars . These “homo’s” as has been said, are US citizens that deserve to have the rights that I have, because they pay their taxes. If those rights are a LEGAL marriage than by all means, do it!!! What gives you, any church, the president or the Supreme Court the right to tell them that they can not have the same rights as a straight couple?
By Sean Borja
June 30, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
I grew up in the south, where one is expected to subscribe with solemn diligence to some form of myth worship. It amazed me to discover that the rest of the country was not obsessed with building a church on every street block when I became old enough to travel. I have no intention to bash religion, as I too have a religion of my own. I believe in the uniqueness of being me and being human.
At issue is the obsession of many to conform all matters of life into a myth-based ideology. This has no impact on myself when this understanding is reserved for the direction of ones own self and not cast upon others as an absolute truth and edict by which all must comply.
I am disgusted by legislation, court rulings and social apathy to what role religion plays in my own and others lives. The laws set to disconnect ourselves from each other is an outrage and must never be tolerated by human society. Like Jim Crow laws, these contemporary regulations are shockingly prejudicial. Can you actually find comfort removing a person of their rights as a human, simply because they are different than yourself? If you were alive before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, would you now allow this to happen to another person?
If you say yes, you must look at what direction your moral compass is pointing. You are wrong and arrogant.
By Renee
June 30, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
I see nothing has changed over the past few days. Stuck my head in for a minute and I swear we had this conversation a week or two ago, maybe even every week.
John, thank you for commenting on “beffriending one”. What a ridiculous comment.
Jennifer. this country was not founded on Christianity but even if it was, that does make all citizens of this country Christians. Okay, Corinthians may speak on the “definition of marriage” (I can’t or don’t want to research to confirm or deny, and don’t have the first hand knowledge) but even if that is the case, that doesn’t make it a reality. You really have to remember your beliefs are just that….YOUR BELIEFS. Many do not subscribe to them nor should they have to. I don’t really care, personally, how you or anyone else interprets the way “God” says I should live my life. Keep your God, your beliefs, and apply them to your life and family as you deem necessary. Don’t worry about my family, or the next persons. I’m sure you have enough sin in your home/family to deal with, you shouldn’t waste time on anyone else.
By GOB
June 30, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
I still just don’t wanna see it.
does that include two women? just curious.
No, that is usually ok…afterall, it isnt mentioned in the bible…
By Chilao
June 30, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
Secular Saddam Hussein was openly hostile to any and all religious institutions within Iraq the whole time he was dictator. Now it is interesting he, under trial, was attempting to play on the religious trump-card(which most Iragis probably just laughed at “yea, right Saddam, you have suddenly found religion?”).
By Billy
June 30, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
Chuck, the 77% dos nothing except support the fact that the military has been misled about Saddam’s involvement with Al Qaeda.
By ????
June 30, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
Heavenly Father,
We come before You today to ask Your Forgiveness and seek Your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, ”Woe to those who call evil good,” but that’s exactly what we have done. We have lost our Spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values. We confess that; we have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it pluralism; We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism; We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle; We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery; We have neglected the needy and called it self preservation; We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare; We have killed our unborn and called it choice; We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable; We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem; We have abused power and called it political savvy; We have coveted our neighbor’s possessions and called it ambition; We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression; We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us, O God, and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless the men and women of our country. Grant them your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct them to the center of Your Will.
I ask in in the name of your Son, The Living Savior, Jesus Christ
With the Lord’s help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called one nation under God.
PRAYER IS POWERFUL!!!
By A.J.
June 30, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Am I the only one who remembers that President Bush a conservative christian, along the same lines as Nancy, denied an stay of execution for Larry Keith Robison a diagnosed mentally ill man who was convicted or murder and ordered to be executed by the state of Texas?? It’s really funny how it’s ok when a conservative wants to do something cause they feel that they have right on their side but if they decide that another group is doing something totally unrelated(ie. Michael Schiavo’s legally granted RIGHT to end artificial life support for his wife who was brain dead) then that group is establishing “a legal precedent that it’s ok to put handicapped people to death.” What did the President, as governor, do when he didn’t stay Mr. Robison’s execution? Which by the way should have been stayed as mentally ill defendants are considered incompetent to stand trial if agreed upon by medical professionals that they are in fact mentally ill. Sorry I came into this discussion a little late but Nancy’s comment literally drove me to respond. We all deserve to be respected for who we are and provided the same rights because we are citizens of this country, not because we believe the same thing that others do. Think people, don’t follow! We are NOT sheep, we are thinking, reasoning individuals. Use the brain that you were given, always question authority when it appears that a group is not being treated fairly and rights are being denied based on religious values!
By Renee
June 30, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
Jennifer. this country was not founded on Christianity but even if it was, that does make all citizens of this country Christians
Should be “does that make”. Typing too fast, making grammatical errors.
By chuck
June 30, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
Billy, I am so sorry that you can’t comprehend simple little concepts. What’s even worse than your lack of intellectual capacity is your delusion of grandeur that comes from you thinking you are smarter than the President and more importantly that you are smarter than the guys over there ACTUALLY FIGHTING the war on terrorism. They KNOW who they are fighting. I was just talking to a state department official who has been in Iraq since 3 months after the initial conflict. He told me that they had evidence of Al Queda’s involvement from the very beginning. There are a lot of things that those so-called protectors of “our right to know” just aren’t telling us. Al Queada was in Iraq before American soldiers touched the ground in Iraq. There were a number of terror training camps that left all kinds of materials behind as they fled our troops. There were things found in Sadaam’s personal papers that indicated direct links to Al Queada. You are one of those deluded kool-aid drinkers that believes that the Government is out to get you. I suppose the CIA killed Kennedy and that the New World order is just around the corner. What a lunatic.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
those were Old Testament law that the Jewish people lived by in order to be accepted in Heaven
Except for the fact that Judaism doesn’t adhere to any hard-and-fast view of the afterlife. Some believe that souls are reincarnated, some believe that souls WILL be reincarnated eventually, some believe in a Heaven-like destination, and others in no afterlife at all.
Judaism is more rooted in the here-and-now, and not the hearafter.
This country was founded on Christianity….now we don’t even want to acknowledge Christmas
No, it wasn’t, and…are you kidding? Seems like I saw quite a few Christmas trees, manger scenes, etc. etc. etc. last December. And November and part of October, now that you mention it.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
What a lunatic
Take comfort in the fact that when a lunatic calls you a lunatic, you’re probably quite sane.
By MW
June 30, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
I’ve seen various aspects of gay marriage debated on ajc.com many times. Each and every time I post the question to those opposed to it: spcifically name how your marriage will be threatened or devalued by the legalization of gay marriage? Never, and I do mean never, has anyone ever resppnded to that question with any reason or rationale that will hold water. I think the reason these people are opposed to gay marriage is “just because”.
I think people need to focus on tehir own relationships and keep their noses out of everyone else’s business. Who cares if two people of the same sex marry? I sure don’t.
By Mara
June 30, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
AJ - there’s a reason that congregations are refered to as a “flock”…not to mention all the allegory about lost sheep and good shepherds.
By Jason
June 30, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
Chuck, I dont claim to be a christian, I am am a christian, and I don’t need to be lectured by you on how to be a better christian. You just go on living your idea of a christian life where dinosaurs lived with humans, where the world is only 10,000 years old, where in the old days the earth was a hyper-baric chamber that allowed humans to live hundreds of years, and where you fail miserably to demostrate Christ’s love. And I’ll go on living mine.
By Brian Curtis
June 30, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
I was going to post a joke for Friday, but I see that Chuck’s already here.
Mission Accomplished!
By Brian Curtis
June 30, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
John, did you catch that cartoon I linked to earlier in the week? What did you think?
By GOB
June 30, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
I had a joke about an ark, a really old guy, and dinosaur eggs, but I forgot the punchline…Man, that is too bad…
By The72John
June 30, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Brian, the cartoon was perfect. Absolutely perfect.
By Billy
June 30, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Listen up, cocksuck Chuck. I don’t know what it is about gays that gets you all riled up. I don’t know whuy you feel homosexuality deserves so much more of our attention that rape and murder. Or drugs. Or any number of things that actually affect people. I swear, we talk about gays and you start foaming at the mouth. I have no other option but to think you’re a closet case.
Is that it, Chuck? Do you really just want to feel the roughness of another man’s stubble against your thigh? When you read posts by the rest of us guys here do you just wonder what we taste like? Do you like for your wife to put on a strap-on, bend you over the kitchen counter, and make you call her “Lance”? You just want to ffel it in your hair, don’t you?
Chuck, you truly are the worst of us.
I am reminded of a great bumper sticker I once saw…
“Dear God, please protect me from your followers.”
Chuck, I am smarter than the President. I am smarter than the majority of our troops. I am smarter than most people. I don’t often talk about it, though, because I consider myself better than that. But let’s start. Who says I’m smarter? The ETS, the people that do the SAT. Let’s see…W got 566 verbal and 640 math, which my 710 math score tells me is 1206. My 760 verbal shows that I have the ability to clearly state, “I scoredmuch higher on the SAT than the President. While that alone does not prove that I am more intelligent than he is, is is fairly damning evidence when combined with the fact that he cannot say the word ‘nuclear’ without tripping over his own ignorance.”
Chuch, just go back to your bible-thumping, gay bashing, and unceremonious fellating of the crooks in this administration. But take it somewhere else, please. We have no need for it here.
By Aelred Dean
June 30, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
What I find interesting is that this site is to disucss same-sex marriage and religious freedoms, however, some use this site as a soapbox to post their views on everything…while thinking all the time that their views are ordained by God. What silly little people.
The reality is that Jesus Christ, incarnate God, said nothing against homosexuality in the Gospel narratives. If the fundamentalists believe that Jesus Christ is also the second person of the Godhead, then Jesus could have said something making his word the final word; but Jesus didn’t.
However, Jesus in Matthew’s gospel alluded to the fact that some men and women are born homosexual for the sake of the kingdom. So according to Jesus…there are such individuals as Holy Homosexuals.
Too many are quoting from the Old Testament levitical law condemning homosexuality; however, they violate the same laws by eating shrimp, allowing people with acne into worship services…or people with vision problems…they also violate the same Levitical laws by wearing clothing of mixed fibers or even having a toilet in the same place they live. What is happening that the fundamentalists claim that they are only following the written word…but in reality they are picking and choosing what to believe and condemn. They justify their own actions by saying that they are not under the law, but condemn people by the same law. That gives them an out and doesn’t hold them responsible for their actions.
People grow up! This is America and not Jesus-Land. We are govern by laws and not by theology…and in particular, the theological interpretations of a radical group of Christanic Fundamentalists.
All tax paying Americans should have equal rights under the law. There shouldn’t be special rights for heterosexuals, but equal rights for all Americans.
By Billy
June 30, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this
Yes, Chuck, I know I made a couple of typos in my post. BFD.
I have to run for a few minutes. I’ll be back to see what inane drivel you’ve posted in thirty minutes or so. Toodle, closet case.
By lozen
June 30, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
???? esp. those prayers you copy from some internet site!
By Chilao
June 30, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
BC- your cartoon yesterday was hilarious and has keep me real busy, forwarding to friends, who have loved it. LOL
Lance? the better question is the feminine name. LMAO (call me twisted)
By The72John
June 30, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Billy, Chuck is a vile human being, that is the only explanation for him. He is also wilfully ignorant of…everything.
Just look at his posts…
Large, national organizations of objective scientists are biased sources of information, but a tiny faction of fringe fundamentalists who run a group dedicated to slandering gays produce valid, unbiased information.
Every official committee investigation, every source, every bit of information generally available, all evidence points to absolutely no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but Chuck “knows a guy” who “knows things we don’t” and therefore, his info is valid and we’re all “kool-aid drinkers” because we don’t accept it.
The man is mentally and logically deficient, unable to argue anything without resorting to cutting-and-pasting someone elses work, or falling back on pat responses to all topics, yet anyone who he disagrees with he attacks as stupid.
Add in a personality reminiscent of Ghengis Khans and…well.
By Homer Simpson
June 30, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
Do you like for your wife to put on a strap-on, bend you over the kitchen counter, and make you call her “Lance”?
They ruined all our best names like Bruce and Lance and Julian. Those were the toughest names we had!
By The72John
June 30, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment
Technically, our Forefathers would have been children of The Enlightenment, so that’s basically appropriate.
By Chilao
June 30, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
do you know Ghengis Khan was heavy on honor? meaning, if he attacked your village/fort, and you tried to go out and make a deal, essentially being a traitor, he would kill you. However, if you were captured while giving your best to defend, he would probably take you on his side as an honorable warrior.
By Alan Jones
June 30, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
Taking religion out of this equation, I believe it is desirable to make laws that encourage behavior that is optimal and good for society and civilization.
When it comes to the “family” unit, which is the foundation of civilization, I agree that there are many types that are practiced by Americans today. I submit that loving families of any type are good for those members of that family. However, the most desirable type of family unit from the standpoint of stability and child-reaing has been and will always be the life-long exclusive union of one man and one woman in marriage. This arrangement offers both the strengths of the masculine and the feminine.
That doesn’t mean that single parent households or other family types can’t succeed too. I know they do. However, it is my contention that there is no better arrangement than having a child grow to adulthood with a loving father and a loving mother who also love each other. Granted, many marriages end in divorce. Many other non-marriage relationships also fail, and some succeed. Whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual isn’t the real issue. The true issue is that civilization is strengthened when children are raised by parents of both genders.
I do not imply in any way that single parents or gay couples don’t love their children and provide good homes. I know that many do so all the time. My point is merely that the preferred situation in a “perfect” world is one man and one woman as a family unit for life. Our laws should encourage that desired goal. Whether the marriage is conducted in front of a judge or a minister or priest is irrelevant.
I agree that the nation’s laws do need to change to protect those citizens who, for whatever reason, can’t or don’t choose to live within the traditional family type. For example, a life partner of a gay person should not be excluded from visiting or gaining information about their partner who is sick in a hospital. That is wrong. There are many other issues of that type that must be addressed.
There must, however, remain a clear distinction between what citizens are allowed to do versus what is most valuable for society for them to do. My contention is that is is best for society for marriage to remain an institution between one man and one woman for life.
By Tom
June 30, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
As I read these entries, I’m not exactly sure why we post our opinions other than to get them off our chests and for some to exert some “intellectual force” within ourselves to everyone else. However, that being said, there can be no resolution to this problem. Reason being that homosexuality is and always will be a faith issue, not an issue of law. It is something that God Himself has condemned several times in His word, The Holy Bible in both the old AND new testaments s sin. I’ve read those popsts that say that the Bible never mentions homosexuality. Obviously those persons have never bothered to pick up said Bible and read it. It’s there in black and white. Not only does it mention it, it condemns homsexuality as sin. So you can’t argue the fact that it’s in there because you can go to any local wal-mart and buy a small copy of the Holy Bible and find it in there. Now back to the faith issue. The only reason it is a faith issue is BECAUSE it is condemned by our Lord in His word. I’m sure if the Bible did indeed have nothing to say about it, nobody would question anything. However, the fact of the matter is that this will always and forever be a human debate. But that’s as far as it goes. there is in fact no debate at all. God settled that when He condemned homosexuality. It must also be pointed out that HOMOSEXUALITY is condemned, NOT the homosexual. God loves the homosexual as He loves anyone else on the face of this earth, BECAUSE He created us. He did NOT create a homosexual but a human being who, for whatever reason they may or may not understand, has CHOSEN to be homosexual. Now that may not make sense to some, but the truth of the matter is sin IS a choice and homosexuality IS a sin so in essence homosexuality is chosen, not born with. So, therefore this “debate” among humans will go on until Christ comes back to gather His own in the Rapture. Only then will we all know and believe the truth of God. Again, it takes faith to believe in God, it takes faith to believe in God AND believe what He said is His word, it takes faith to believe that the Holy Bible is the true God insired word of God, it takes faith to let Jesus Christ take control of your life and surrender all to Him. In a word…it takes FAITH! I am proud to say tht I discovered that faith many years ago and Jesus is the best thing that has ever happened to me. Jesus Christ is my Lord, my saviour, and my friend. I must admit that I am not perfect and have a very long way to go in my relationship with Him, but I am continuing to grow in that. Therefore, I know and believe that God’s Word, IN IT’S ENTIRETY, is truth. And that my friends is where the faith issue lies.
By Flibberdgibbit
June 30, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
If the hordes of Pleasantville haven’t enough societal backpeddling to keep them occupied, they ought to be calling for a constitutional ban on Superman.
I hate to spoil it for those who’ve not yet seen it, but in Hollywood’s latest attempt to recognize the reality of the modern American “family”, Lois Lane is an unwed (career-oriented) mother to a boy with two daddies.
The only real threat to the traditional family is this seriously misguided quest for the mythical “traditional family”. You know; the one where the father drinks to numb the self-loathing of his homoerotic thoughts, then metes-out his conflict by beating his wife and belittling his kids who never complain, because to do so is not consistent with the image of the staid “traditional family”.
How’s that for truth, justice, and the true (closeted) American way?
By Billy
June 30, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
Glad you caught the reference, Homer!
By Billy
June 30, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Tom, wher in the New Testament does God say anything about homosexuality? I mean, Jebus was there, so I think he’s the only one that could say anything and actually have it be considered as coming form God. Paul’s ramblings mean nothing. Show me where God said it…
By The72John
June 30, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
Whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual isn’t the real issue. The true issue is that civilization is strengthened when children are raised by parents of both genders
Perhaps you missed the earlier post where this was identified as “Religious Conservative Red Herring #354”.
No where in the discussion of extending the civil, legal rights of marriage to same-sex couples does the question of children enter the equation. No where. Period. It is about receiving the same tax benefits, the right not to testify against one’s spouse, the right to pass on one’s Social Security benefits, etc. etc. etc. Little things that heterosexual, childless, married couples take for granted.
So, you can see where your argument that gay marriage somehow has anything to do with the traditional child-rearing unit is totally specious.
By lozen
June 30, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
*As I read these entries, I’m not exactly sure why we post our opinions other than to get them off our chests and for some to exert some “intellectual force” within ourselves to everyone else. However, that being said, there can be no resolution to this problem. Reason being that divorce is and always will be a faith issue, not an issue of law. It is something that God Himself has condemned several times in His word, The Holy Bible in both the old AND new testaments as sin. I’ve read those popsts that say that the Bible never mentions divorce. Do we want to enact laws that prevent those sinners/divorced people from marrying or from having equal civil rights with others? Haven’t heard a word about that. What about keeping the sabbath holy? Do we want to limit the civil rights of those who work on the sabbath? Haven’t heard anything about that either. What makes homosexuality (for those of you who consider it againts god’s word) so different from all other sins?
By GOB
June 30, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
He did NOT create a homosexual but a human being who, for whatever reason they may or may not understand, has CHOSEN to be homosexual. Now that may not make sense to some, but the truth of the matter is sin IS a choice and homosexuality IS a sin so in essence homosexuality is chosen, not born with.
For anyone needing a refresher in circular reasoning, please refer to the above paragraph.
By Gay Steel Worker
June 30, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
Hot Stuff..Coming through!!
By Homer Simpson
June 30, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
I mean, Jebus was there, so I think he’s the only one that could say anything and actually have it be considered as coming form God.
I dont even believe in Jebus!
By lozen
June 30, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
F, “The only real threat to the traditional family is this seriously misguided quest for the mythical “traditional family.” Truer words were never spoken. It’s like, do none of you fundamentalists ever study history, sociology, psychology, religion? Do you ever study anything? Do you ever read anything? I guess you don’t have to because you think you have all the answers to everything already, huh?
By Sean Borja
June 30, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Persons before 1964 could do almost anything to an african- american because laws had been created to isolate and restrict the civil rights of these persons. When the civil rights act of 1964 was being drafted, people scared of accepting african-americans as humans free to express, and capture the dreams, resources and entitlement as other americans offered the same tired excuses as many of the posts on this blog.
It is sad that those who choose myth worship as the model by which the world makes sense to themselves, often have a a proclivity towards applying their own dogma upon other humans. Many americans believed that they had a righteous reason to lynch, segregate and abuse in order to protect their family values, so the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was met with hostile opposition. Especially by Christian voices. Remember the Klu Klux Klan?
It is unbelievable that our country operated with so much prejudice of another for being different than the ruling majority. Certainly, you must feel saddened that this act had not occured sooner so that Jim Crow laws would have not been legally and socially acceptable for nearly 100 years. Furthermore, I doubt anyone would accept that injustice and inhumanity could ever happen again.
But, it is. Sadly for the same excuses and moral value rhetoric as before. Change is good for society. Please look at yourself and evaluate your intent to keep humans separated without equal civil rights as yourself by law. Are you really that arrogant?
By The72John
June 30, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Therefore, I know and believe that God’s Word, IN IT’S ENTIRETY, is truth. And that my friends is where the faith issue lies.
That’s great. You people just can’t help yourselves, can you? The dogma and judgement just spews forth in a putrid shower of word vomit.
I think the Bible is pure fiction, and given that it contradicts itself multiple times within its own pages, and given that various copies have vastly differed from each other at various points in history, I have to say that anyone who thinks that it is true in it’s entirety suffers from a failure to appreciate logic.
I mean, if there are two conflicting items in a book that is suggested to be inerrant, then that’s what we like to call a “paradox”. The two conditions are mutually exclusive. Therefore, the bible can not be inerrant.
Given that God, by definition, should be perfect, then by extension his word should be perfect. The Bible, as previously demonstrated, is not perfect, therefore it is not God’s word.
And the fundamentalists of the world vanish in a puff of logic.
Wishfull thinking, I know.
By Tom
June 30, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
Billy,
One being in Romans 1: 24-27(there are more) And by the way, Paul’s words are VERY important, because they are ulitimately Gods words, Paul is just the vessel in which He chose to speak to us, His creation. However, homosexuality is strictly and expressly forbidden in the Old testament in Levitcus 18:22. That being said, you seem to have a very angry streak in you. Your words are not uplifting to others here, but are moreso said to degrade anyone who disagrees with you. Jesus Christ can heal those wounds within you no matter what they are. Just wanted you to know that, my friend.
By Billy
June 30, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
I am proud to say tht I discovered that faith many years ago and Jesus is the best thing that has ever happened to me. Jesus Christ is my Lord, my saviour, and my friend. I must admit that I am not perfect and have a very long way to go in my relationship with Him, but I am continuing to grow in that. Therefore, I know and believe that God’s Word, IN IT’S ENTIRETY, is truth. And that my friends is where the faith issue lies.
I am proud to say I discovered porn many years ago and masturbation is the best thing that has ever happened to me. Masturbation is my friend, my lover, and my confidant. I must admit that I have a very long way to go in my relationship with self-flagellation, but I am continuing to grow in that. Therefore, I know and believe that Ron Jeremy, in his unwashed entirety, is the Hedgehog. And that my friends is where the porn issue lies.
Seriously, your post is crap. You start off well. Homosexuality is a faith issue, but when Christianists start injecting their faith into our legal system, then it becomes an legal issue. Especially given that the First Amendment is intended to protect us from your faith. That’s where you lose it.
Why would someone choose to be homosexual? Why? They don’t get enought crap in their lives already? They need to be ridiculed in school to an extra degree?
By Robot Santa
June 30, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
Ho. Ho. Ho.
Ho. Ho. Ho.
By Aelred Dean
June 30, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Someone answer this question: how will allowing same-sex marriage harm society. Please do not give me verses in the bible how it is wrong (because those verses in the bible can be shown to mean many things and not one limited perspective) as that doesn’t address the reality of how it will harm society. Give me actual evidential proof how allowing same-sex marriage harm socity.
By chuck
June 30, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
UHHH…Billy the topic is same sex marriage. I notice you didn’t address the ACTUAL post except to tell us how smart you are 1206…That wouldn’t even get you into UGA BTW. What are you, in high school? Still quoting your SAT scores? What a baby. I’m bettin there are a whole lot of west point grads over there who scored higher than a 1206. No offense but that was really infantile. What do have to show for all of this intelligence? Have you run billion dollar companies? Have you been governor of one of the largest states in the country? Have you ever done anything but sit at a computer and whine? I don’t think your job as a bag boy at Winn Dixie qualifies as “leader of the free world material”…but thanks for playing.
By GOB
June 30, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
Paul’s words are VERY important, because they are ulitimately Gods words, Paul is just the vessel in which He chose to speak to us, His creation.
Other than Paul telling us this in his writings, is there any evidence that your statement is true?
If I were to say that god came to in a blinding light while i was driving home, and that now he is speaking through me, I doubt you would believe me. What did Paul do that was any different? He essentially hijacked christianity and made it into what he wanted it to be.
And that doesnt even go into the fact that almost all ligitimate biblical scholars believe that several of the Pauline letters werent even written by Paul, which by definition, makes them forgeries. But who knows, maybe they are actually inerrant forgeries…
By Robot Santa
June 30, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
However, homosexuality is strictly and expressly forbidden in the Old testament in Levitcus 18:22. That being said, you seem to have a very angry streak in you. Your words are not uplifting to others here, but are moreso said to degrade anyone who disagrees with you. Jesus Christ can heal those wounds within you no matter what they are. Just wanted you to know that, my friend.
Yeah, and Leviticus is certainly definitive, given the vast number of other things forbidden in it that no one pays attention to anymore.
Oh, I know, I know - Jesus got rid of all those OTHER laws, just not the gay one, even though he never actually said anything about it.
Do you people think before you speak? And seriously - quit your prosletyizing before someone shoves it back down your godd@mned throat.
By lozen
June 30, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Tom - Homosexuality is strictly and expressly forbidden in Leviticus? So is eating shellfish, you arrogant person. I bet you eat shrimp! So is wearing polyester (which I’m sure you’re fond of) with cotton. So is touching pig skin or eating pork. I bet you eat lots of bacon and pork chops and hotdogs, don’t ya? Probably played football too, duh. And you, ignorant sir, are presenting yourself as an example of how jesus heals those wounds within you! Pleeeeeze.
By Billy
June 30, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Tom, you are missing the point. It does not matter what was written on some 5000 year-old parchment. That is your religion. It should have no bearing on our country’s laws. So says a far more recent document written by far more intelligent men in a language that is not dead and does not eed to be translated.
Yes, I’m angry. Have you read some of Chuck’s posts? You can’t think of any reason I might be angry? And get this — I’m straight! That’s right! Married with a child! My rights aren’t even in question here; I can have all the nasty, freaky, raid-the-fridge-for-accessories sex I want! I can film it and post it on the internet! I can bring other people in! I can do all sorts of stuff and it’s legal for me! I can even have anal sex with my wife, and because we’re of the opposite sex, it’s all good! Mwahahahaha!
You think I’m angry; how angry do you think John and others must be when you are supporting denying him his right to love who he wants?
By GOB
June 30, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
Billy - Dont you know this blog is about uplifting others??
And Robot Santa…All I can say is well done.
By Billy
June 30, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
Chuck, can you even read?
Who says I’m smarter? The ETS, the people that do the SAT. Let’s see… W *got 566 verbal and 640 math, which my 710 math score tells me is 1206. My 760 verbal shows that I have the ability to clearly state, “I scored much higher on the SAT than the President. While that alone does not prove that I am more intelligent than he is, it is fairly damning evidence when combined with the fact that he cannot say the word ‘nuclear’ without tripping over his own ignorance.”
Billy - 1 Chuck - 0
By Moe Szyslak
June 30, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
I’ll do anything you say! Anything!
By lozen
June 30, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
I really hate to say this but I think even Chuck is smarter than our president. Chuck, you don’t have to be smart to bankrupt a billion dollar company or be governor of one of the largest states in the country when your daddy is rich and influential and used to be with the CIA. Why, you can even be president!
By In The Name of Religion
June 30, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
I counsel a center for women who have been raped and battered. A young woman came into our center, age greater than 18, although she did still live at home. Her parents found out she was seeing another women. Her parents drugged her, chained her in the basement, and arranged with the church to have her tied in the basement to a cot while every male member of the parent’s small church raped and sodomized her repeatedly until she repented for her sins, stated she loved men and would never touch another woman as long as she lived. This “lesson of love” lasted several days.
I can’t believe God smiled on this “lesson of love.”
By Robot Santa
June 30, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
UHHH…Billy the topic is same sex marriage. I notice you didn’t address the ACTUAL post except to tell us how smart you are 1206…That wouldn’t even get you into UGA BTW. What are you, in high school? Still quoting your SAT scores? What a baby
Reading comprehension is good, Chuck. I believe that 1206 was BUSH’s SAT score. Billy’s was 1470. So…if 1206 isn’t good enough to get into UGA, then how did Bush get into an Ivy League school? Could it be….DADDY’S MONEY???!!!
Have you run billion dollar companies into the ground? Have you been governor of one of the largest states in the country? and run it into the ground?
Not to mention that Bush’s political and business careers were also handed to him by his family money and influence. Maybe if he’d earned any of it himself, you might have a case. As it is, as it ALWAYS is, you don’t have anything to offer.
See Billy, Chuck needs authority to tell him what’s good and bad and right and wrong. He’s simply too limited intellectually to make these determinations for himself. President Bush is his current earthly authority because they are both similarly stupid and similarly blinded by religious fanaticism.
By Tom
June 30, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
To respond to lozen,
Since divorce was not the topic at hand, I didn’t say anything about it however since you changed my wording to fit whatever you were asking, I can say this.
Sin is sin no matter what the sin is, it is all the same to God, whether you steal pack of gum from walmart or kill the cashier, rape her, and dump her body. It’s all the same to God, there are no differences as we see them. However the Bible states in the Old testament that God, through Moses declared divorce to be permitted only because “your hearts are hard.” In the New testment, Jesus abolished this and decreed a new commandement. There is to be no divorce. In Malachi, God states “I hate divorce.”
So, I’m not sure exactly what your question or point was, but i hope that helped.
By Kyle
June 30, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
-you guys made some valid posts supporting your assertion that the administration tricked the public into thinking saddam had a direct role in 9/11. but, as many of you have pointed out to me, i thought that bush’s one and only reason for going to iraq was wmds? well, which is it? did bush only rely on the wmd argument, or did he put forth other reasons as well. also, after reading your posts, it still seems clear that no assertion was ever made that saddam had a DIRECT role in 9/11. i know i followed the news very closely leading up to the war, and i was never under this impression. did bush often talk about 9/11 and saddam in the same speech? of course he did, and i believe for good reason. removing a dictator and establishing a democracy in the middle east will do serious damage to the terrorists’ cause (this is made clear through the terrorists’ endless efforts to stop the u.s. from suceeding in iraq). although there was no direct role played by iraq in 9/11, terrorist were often given refuge and allowed to set up camps to train within iraq’s borders - as i see it, this amounts to aiding and abetting terrorists.
“homosexuality is wrong, so they shouldn’t get married” “who says homosexuality is wrong?” “god” “how do you know?” “cause it says so in the bible.” “what if the bible isn’t the word of god?” “it is” “how do you know?” “it just is” “no its not” - “yes it is” - “no its not” “shutup, homosexuality is gross” ……clearly i think we’ve made a lot of headway on this issue this week.
-WHY DID THE HAWKS DRAFT SHELDON WILLIAMS - RANDY FOYE, RANDY FOYE, RANDY FOYE - WHAT IS WRONG WITH BILLY KNIGHT? -sorry, wrong blog - its been a long week
By The72John
June 30, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Dangit, forgot to change back from the Simpsons reference.
By RF
June 30, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
your Uberchristifuhrer. ROFLMBO
Dang, what a week to be in class. Well, it’s better than listening to the rant about how horrible we all are. Amazing how educated, concerned, loving, giving people can be so misjudged by so many who, for some reason, are scared of us. I will never understand that.
By chuck
June 30, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
For the record, little billy, I said that the only part of the post you addressed was how supposedly smart you are…more evidence that you are incapable of making a coherent argument or even following the thread of arguments made. This is what I wanted you in your own meager little way, to address.
your delusion of grandeur that comes from you thinking you are smarter than the President and more importantly that you are smarter than the guys over there ACTUALLY FIGHTING the war on terrorism. They KNOW who they are fighting. I was just talking to a state department official who has been in Iraq since 3 months after the initial conflict. He told me that they had evidence of Al Queda’s involvement from the very beginning. There are a lot of things that those so-called protectors of “our right to know” just aren’t telling us. Al Queada was in Iraq before American soldiers touched the ground in Iraq. There were a number of terror training camps that left all kinds of materials behind as they fled our troops. There were things found in Sadaam’s personal papers that indicated direct links to Al Queada.
Also, since you are so very smart, being a POSSIBLE high school graduate (whereas, The President has degrees from both Yale AND Harvard) you should know that the SAT is not designed to measure intelligence. AT ALL.
For those keeping score…
Chuck: Infinity
Billy: Negative Infinity
By Jason
June 30, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
Tom-
I would also point out that both the old and new testaments have scripture references that sanction slavery. That being said, you tell me how exaclty you decided what parts of the bible you live by…….
I love how the bible has that nice little verse that says “all scripture is inspired by god.” That way you can’t say that certain scriptures are just ramblings of MEN, not Jesus, not divine and infallible incarnations of God, but MEN. That’s like TD Jakes, or Benny Hinn, or Rev. Phelps, saying that what they say is inspired by God and therefore not refutable.
By lozen
June 30, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Tom, “So, I’m not sure exactly what your question or point was….” Well, of course you aren’t Tom.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
I counsel a center for women who have been raped and battered. A young woman came into our center, age greater than 18, although she did still live at home. Her parents found out she was seeing another women. Her parents drugged her, chained her in the basement, and arranged with the church to have her tied in the basement to a cot while every male member of the parent’s small church raped and sodomized her repeatedly until she repented for her sins, stated she loved men and would never touch another woman as long as she lived. This “lesson of love” lasted several days.
Hmm…I wonder if that was Chuck’s church. Sounds like something he’d sanction. And probably happily participate in.
By lozen
June 30, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
I think there’s too much tolerance of faith, and there’s not enough respect for reason.
By GOB
June 30, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
RF - I got that teaching job for the fall, so I am joining the ranks. Thanks for the advice along the way.
By chuck
June 30, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
In the name of religion:
IF YOUR POST IS TRUE, (which I doubt, BTW) then there are some peple who need to be jailed and castrated. Anybody that would do that or even try to defend it is less than scum.
By lozen
June 30, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
RF, it’s very simple. We repress certain parts of ourselves (our dark side) and that’s what we hate in other people. Every person who hates homosexuals has the same urges, but they’ve repressed it. That’s why they’re scared of you.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
For the record, little billy, I said that the only part of the post you addressed was how supposedly smart you are…more evidence that you are incapable of making a coherent argument or even following the thread of arguments made. This is what I wanted you in your own meager little way, to address.
Hmm…look again at how Chuck tries to ignore the fact that he currently has his clubfoot in his mouth. Everyone knows who failed to read the post correctly.
Again, Bush got into Ivy League schools because Daddy paid for it, and because of his family. Not because of his brains or intellectual ability. I KNOW Chuck, I KNOW. You want to believe that he is so smart. Maybe to an imbecile like you, he actually seems to BE smart.
Don’t y’all love how when Chuck gets called out on one stupidity of his or another, he always starts claiming that other people can’t keep to topic, or saying they are incappable of making a logical argument?
He’s a predictable little son-of-a-whore, isn’t he.
By Jason
June 30, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
GOB-
YOU ARE GOING TO BE A TEACHER?!?!?! Filling our student’s heads with such disgusting liberal ideas like same-sex marriage? What a travesty!
Seriously, congratulations! We can always use teachers with more open minds.
By chuck
June 30, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
OOPS, that’s what happens when I skim instead of reading thoroughly. I see where you CLAIM a higher test score than the President (in spite of the fact that the SAT doesn’t measure intelligence), but then again, you could have said you made 1600 and it wouldn’t change the facts. For all we know, you could be a HS dropout who never took the SAT. We do know that GW IS THE PRESIDENT and that you aren’t. AND if he’s as stupid as you think he is and still was elected President not once but TWICE, I’d say he’s still a pretty smart cookie.
BTW I still don’t know ANY ADULTS who are walking around quoting their SAT scores.
By Flibberdgibbit
June 30, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
Umm, last time I read the Aramaic version of the Pentatuach, Moses divorced his wife. With his time dedicated to leading a generally whiny constituency, he didn’t have the time to be a devoted and abiding husband. I don’t think any would have characterized his as a hardened heart, but one that was wedded to a higher calling than conjugal visits would satisfy.
By RF
June 30, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
GOB- COOL!! I’m sure you’ll love it. It’ll wear you out, but it’s a wonderful profession. I’m already getting things laminated and ready for the fall! I had a staff development class this week. Even after 17 years, I’m still learning new “stuff”. I’m sure you’ll do great!!
By GOB
June 30, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
I actually agree with Chuck that the story about the teenage daughter seems highly unlikely to be true, unless the entire church was made up of 3 or 4 people. That sounds way too much like an urban legand to me.
By Tom
June 30, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Jason,
As I said, I live by the entire bible as best my human mind and heart can. However, slavery while not being the issue here, but as well is not admonished in the bible. God considers every human as equally having His love. We are His highest creations, even above the angels. Get that? He considers us even more important and loves us even more than the angels. If you ar referring to a statement such as “I am a slave to God” that simply means one has given control of themselves to God. You can also be a slave to sin, as well. Personally, I’ve been there and done that. I like God’s medical plan better.
lozen..thanks for that wonderful calrification.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
He told me that they had evidence of Al Queda’s involvement from the very beginning. There are a lot of things that those so-called protectors of “our right to know” just aren’t telling us. Al Queada was in Iraq before American soldiers touched the ground in Iraq. There were a number of terror training camps that left all kinds of materials behind as they fled our troops. There were things found in Sadaam’s personal papers that indicated direct links to Al Queada
Yeah, people - because CHUCK tells us that he TALKED to a guy, it MUST be true.
Pay no attention to what EVERY OTHER SOURCE, not to mention reason, tells you, CHUCK TALKED to a GUY. Don’t y’all get that? He TALKED to a guy who KNOWS, so we should LISTEN to him.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a tool.
Go pray some more Chuckie. Maybe your wife will bang you with the strap-on tonight and you can pretend she’s a man. Or pretend you’re a man…whichever.
By chuck
June 30, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Hey, Lozen is a psychiatrist now.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
IF YOUR POST IS TRUE, (which I doubt, BTW)
Yeah, keep covering it up, Chuck. The cops will catch you soon enough.
then there are some peple who need to be jailed and castrated
You and your male children would be a great start. Then we could sterilize your daughter. That would make the world just a little better.
By lozen
June 30, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
tom, i certainly hope you never had sex with your wife while she was having her period because Levitcus says: 19] Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
By chuck
June 30, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
72john, why don’t you put on some of those leather chaps and go visit little billy. I’m sure you and he would have a great time.
By lozen
June 30, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
Tom, #19 came before #22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Which means Yahweh thought it was more important for a man not to have sex with a woman having her period than to not lie with another man, apparently.???
By Billy
June 30, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Chuck, some guy saying they have some evidence tells me nothing at all. Why in the name of a supposed god would the administration not reveal that evidence? Is it because after the yellowcake and Downing Street incidents they know we’ll be able to see through it?
Cuhck, I don’t know why we even bother here. You just spout your same crap relentlessly, further driving me from my Christian upbringing. I’m so sick of you self-righteous BS…I’m done for the day.
I really don’t know what there is to say, except this: You really should be more careful about what you post on the net.
By Flibberdgibbit
June 30, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
Lozen speaks about something labeled “projection” by Freud’s daughter, Anna>
Projection is an ego-defense mechanism of attributing to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions.
Projection reduces anxiety in the way that it allows the expression of the impulse or desire without letting the ego recognize it.
Examples of someone projecting are the obligatory hell-fire preachers that condemn behavior in others whcih they, themselves, are guilty of committing or - at least - contemplating.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
We do know that GW IS THE PRESIDENT and that you aren’t.
Yeah, because being President is the ultimate “decider” of intelligence. This is a logically silly statement, if I ever heard one.
Billy can’t be smarter than Bush because Bush is the President.
Let me try another name - Stephen Hawking can’t be smarter than Bush because Bush is the President…
No…no…that just doesn’t work for me. Sorry!
By lozen
June 30, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
Tom, Leviticus 19:3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God. So, do you fear your mother and father Tom? I must believe you have never worked on the sabbath since that is forbidden. It’s even one of the 10 commandments so that one is very, very important apparently.
By GOB
June 30, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
Thanks Jason and RF…
By chuck
June 30, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
BTW 72, after reading the incest study by Dr. Cameron, I’m wondering, which one of your parents molested you…your Mommy or your Daddy.
By Chilao
June 30, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
I really hate to say this but I think even Chuck is smarter than our president.
I cannot think that stating anyone is smarter than our President is really saying very much about the smarter person, is it? I mean, really, how much would it take to be smarter than our Prez?
(sorry, could not resist…LMAO)
By Billy
June 30, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
Chuck, I don’t. I believe it was you that said I thought I was smarter than the President. I was just offering that as evidence.
What other evidence do you need that the man’s a moron? Here are a few
By lozen
June 30, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
And in reading Leviticus I see this statement over and over. It seems to refute the idea that catholic priests can’t forgive sins (make an atonement) for someone. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.
By Flibberdgibbit
June 30, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
I think Luke 14:26 (the King James version) speaks volumes!
By RF
June 30, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
lozen- there may be some truth to that notion. I swuanee, with all the attention we’re getting in the pulpits these days, you have to wonder at the obsession with us. I can’t for the life of me figure out what we did that riled them up so. I heard a very well-known preacher on TV the other day, and it was amazing how many time he tied homosexuality into his sermon. You’d think the “serpent” in Genesis wasn’t Satan, it was actually the first homosexual. I never knew until I heard that sermon that we were the root of all evil. LOL
By chuck
June 30, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
Billy all of those things have been on the new periodically. They don’t get the same coverage as body counts. Maybe if you read a newspaper even the Liberal AJC rag has printed little tiny articles about these thing. Go to the archives.
By lozen
June 30, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
Tom, what is uncircumcized fruit? I’m sure you understand this verse since you are so familiar with Leviticus but I just don’t get it. 23] And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
BTW 72, after reading the incest study by Dr. Cameron, I’m wondering, which one of your parents molested you…your Mommy or your Daddy
Which of your children do you molest, Chuck? Or is it both? I don’t know what you fundie fanatics will get up to, there was so much incest and rape in the Old Testament.
Of course, since both the Old Testament and Dr. Mengle’s…oops, Cameron’s…study are fiction, I guess you might deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Nah…you’ve got the personality of a child abuser and a rapist all in one twisted little mind.
By lozen
June 30, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
27] Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. What does that mean Tom?
By Billy
June 30, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
Chuck, I don’t. I believe it was you that said I thought I was smarter than the President. I was just offering that as evidence.
I meant that I don’t go around quoting my SAT score…
By Tom
June 30, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
It amazes me the depths that people will go to in order to make their point. This post was never about divorce or sex. It was and still is about the same sex marriage debate. C’mon people, don’t you have anything better to do than spout off at the opposing party about whatever off-the-subject thing you want? To my knowledge, I have not resorted to name calling or even the slightest hint of agitation. Some on this post are here for only one reason, they WANT to learn about God and just don’t want to admit it. At any rate, I will stick to the topic at hand if there is to be any more post from me today. Thank you to the ones who post and respond with respect to the individual.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
Billy all of those things have been on the new periodically. They don’t get the same coverage as body counts. Maybe if you read a newspaper even the Liberal AJC rag has printed little tiny articles about these thing. Go to the archives.
But…but…I thought that…
There are a lot of things that those so-called protectors of “our right to know” just aren’t telling us
So…which is it, Chuckles…have all these things been printed, or we just not being told?
Notice how the arch-conservative attempts to invoke the “liberal” menace in his rebuttal
By Bryant
June 30, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
What gays and lesbians really want is the same legal protection and status that married couples want. Gays and Lesbians deserve the same legal rights in terms of property, finances, insurance, and taxes that straight, married ouples have. Civil union is all they really want. the marriage ceremony is a religious right sanctioned by the church. It is the church’s right to decide wether or not to allow the union of a man or a woman or whomever. We talk about seperation of church and state but yet we want the state to intervene in this matter. Heterosexuals have made a disgrace out of marriage but now want to “protect” it. Give Gays and Lesbians their legal rights that are afforded to eveyone under the constitution. That is what they deserve just like any minority group. Stop your hatred and ignorance. Stop hiding behind religion and using it as a weapon for your convenience.
By chuck
June 30, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
Here is one article that appeared over 2 years ago. Look for the rest yourself.
Saddam’s Files New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
One thing we’ve learned about Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is that the former dictator was a diligent record keeper. Coalition forces have found—literally—millions of documents. These papers are still being sorted, translated and absorbed, but they are already turning up new facts about Saddam’s links to terrorism.
We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever—that “secular” Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn’t mix. But John Ashcroft’s press conference yesterday reminds us that the terror threat remains, and it seems especially irresponsible for journalists not to be open to new evidence. If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn’t it have also missed Saddam’s terror links?
One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam’s son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime’s dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda “summit” in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.
It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents. But our sources tell us there is no questioning the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters. The chain of control is impeccable. The documents were captured by the U.S. military and have been in U.S. hands ever since.
As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded.
That’s not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, six days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers’ safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.
After a brief detention, our friends the Qataris inexplicably released Shakir, and on October 21 he flew to Amman, Jordan. The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad.
One of the mysteries of postwar Iraq is why the Bush Administration and our $40-billion-a-year intelligence services haven’t devoted more resources to probing the links between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda. In his new book, “The Connection,” Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard puts together all of the many strands of intriguing evidence that the two did do business together. There’s no single “smoking gun,” but there sure is a lot of smoke.
The reason to care goes beyond the prewar justification for toppling Saddam and relates directly to our current security. U.S. officials believe that American civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq recently by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who is closely linked to al Qaeda and was given high-level medical treatment and sanctuary by Saddam’s government. The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam’s files might show us how they linked up in the first place.
By chuck
June 30, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
Allright. Here is ONE MORE:
Hi, I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.
Why won’t the Bush administration tell us the truth about terrorism? That is the subject of this evening’s “Talking Points Memo.”
President Bush continues to believe that the fight in Iraq will eventually make Americans safer. And I think he’s right, but I also think he doesn’t make a strong enough case. Let’s keep it real simple so even the far left fanatics can understand it.
Does any clear thinking person believe that Usama bin Laden would not use a nuclear weapon to kill millions of Americans if he could? Does anyone say he would not do that? If you know someone who doesn’t believe that, get away from them fast. Bin Laden would use anything he could to kill as many American civilians as possible.
Here’s another question for you. How much do you know about Salman Pak (search)? Today on NPR Radio (search), the host of a New York morning program didn’t seem to know much about it. Do you?
Salman Pak is located 15 miles southwest of Baghdad. It was here that Saddam Hussein trained terrorists. Both Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arabs learned how to hijack airlines, make and plant bombs, and stage assassinations, among other things. According to Saba Khodada (ph), a terrorist instructor at Salman Pak who worked for Saddam, the camp was run by an international terrorist called “the ghost”, who has yet to be identified. When the Marines raided the camp last spring, they found vats of industrial chemicals, manuals on how to fool U.N. weapons inspectors, and mass graves. They also found a passenger jet.
Here’s another question for you. How much do you know about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? He’s a 37-year-old Jordanian terrorist who was wounded in Afghanistan while fighting for the Taliban. He was shipped to Baghdad, where his leg was amputated. He has direct ties to al Qaeda and is believed to have executed American Nicholas Berg.
So let’s connect some dots here. Bin Laden will murder any way he can. That’s a given. Saddam was training terrorists and helped top Al Qaeda-linked guy Zarqawi, who continues to kill Americans. That’s what President Bush should have told the nation last night because those facts are solid and have a direct meaning to us all.
We are now fighting terrorism as a divided nation. That’s not going to cut it. Bin Laden actually predicted America would falter in the face of his violence and sees us as decadent and cowardly.
While it is true that Iraq has been somewhat mishandled by the Bush administration, it’s also true that this battlefield is necessary and vital. All Americans should wake up and wise up. Terror is terror. We must defeat it totally. Retreat is not an option.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
Some on this post are here for only one reason, they WANT to learn about God and just don’t want to admit it. At any rate, I will stick to the topic at hand if there is to be any more post from me today. Thank you to the ones who post and respond with respect to the individual.
Hey, you f-ucking moron, (how’s that for agitation and name-calling, a*******hole) perhaps if you removed your head from your a$$ and realized that we aren’t heard to learn about God and that we are actually rather p!ssed off at god-damned religious f-uckhead like yourself who think that when people reject their bullsh!t it’s because they secretly yearn to join you pathetic cult, then you MIGHT be qualified to join the conversation.
Now that’s abuse. Motherf-ucker.
By Kyle
June 30, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
-just thought i should stick up for W since everyone is calling him a dumba$$ (i admit, he’s an easy target) - did you guys know that bush had a better gpa than john kerry? that doesn’t speak to highly of kerry now does it? i guess south park was right; we were choosing between a giant dooche and a turd sandwhich
-in honor of joke day, and keeping in the spirit of billy’s post - here’s a funny saying i heard the other day: maturbation is like procrastination, they’re both fun as hell until you realize you just f#^$ed yourself
By chuck
June 30, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this
First article Wall Street Journal
Second Article Fox News
By lozen
June 30, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Oh, Tom I hope you’re observing the lord’s holy convocations. Where do you make your offerings to the lord Tom? Got an altar in your back yard?
[4] These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. [5] In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD’s passover. [6] And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. [7] In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. [8] But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.
It’s only a few verses away from the one about men lying down with other men, Tom so I know you are observing the laws set forth for you in Leviticus!
By Randy
June 30, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
I guess in being honest, I for one as a Christian, don’t really believe most homosexuals really want to get married in the sense of live with one person all their life and be faithful to that person. We see the statistics on how many partners that homosexuals have on a yearly basis, we see the gay pride march(especially the ones in California)and see how hedonistic they are and we really don’t want to expose our children to that anymore than we have to. We certainly don’t want to make that kind of behavior seem legimate, as letting them get married would indicate. What we really are trying to do is protect our children and the character of the USA. Let’s stick with what has made us strong as a nation and homosexuality isn’t one of those things. In fact homosexuality makes us look weak in the eyes of many counties(muslim), but we want everyone to have freedom, so we will suffer with it.
By Tom
June 30, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
The72John
Thank you. That was very nice of you to say.
May God bless you.
Always remember what Jesus did on the cross for you, my friend.
BTW…children DO read this so for their sake, I would ask you to be more careful in your choice of words. But, at any rate, I respect your opinion as a fellow human being.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Or as the 9/11 commission writes:
Commission Report: Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect. They were based on a confusion of Shakir’s identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar.)
By Tom
June 30, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Have mercy, lozen. well, at least you are reading it. That’s a good start.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
First article - Wall Street OpinionJournal.
By lozen
June 30, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
You want to know what’s amazing to me Tom? You can quote Leviticus to support your hatred for gay people but when someone quotes leviticus back to you to show how foolish the whole thing is you don’t even know what’s going on. You expect gay people to hear that one stupid thing in leviticus but you’ve never read Leviticus Tom. You certainly aren’t doing what Leviticus says you should do. You are just parroting what some fundie preacher told you. You probably can’t read very well anyway. You (and all your fundie friends) are just stupid Tom. I just can’t think of a better word for you.
By The72John
June 30, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
Always remember what Jesus did on the cross for you, my friend.
Moron, perhaps you missed the part where I called your cult-religion mythology. Or…maybe you just don’t understand the meaning of the word.
In fact homosexuality makes us look weak in the eyes of many counties(muslim), but we want everyone to have freedom, so we will suffer with it
Gosh, Randy - why are you posting. Don’t you have some poor people to victimize?
By lozen
June 30, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
Yes Tom I am reading it and seeing how incredibly stupid it is to expect people in the 21st century to pay any attention to what it says we should or should not do. (And BTW, I know Tom is really Randy)
By Bryant
June 30, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
Randy, Tell me you aren’t that ignorant to quote unrealistic statistics. Whatis the divorce rate in America? How many husbands cheat on their wives and vice versa? Look weak to the world? Some of the greatest military leaders in the world were homosexuals. All of a sudden we care what muslim terorist think about our country? Try your ignorance biggotry somewhere else. Like I said earlier, stop hiding behind your religion when it is convenient. You should realy try and teach your children love and tolerance instead of hatred.
By Tom
June 30, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
iozen,
my, aren’t we angry today. I need not read the entire book of Leviticus right this very minute to post on here. And you are free to think or beleive whatever you want to about me, christians, or God himself. I do not judge any of that ultimately, God does. And I do not hate gays or anyone else. That is your perception. REad the black and white words as you scroll up this page, It’s not in any of my posts. I have known many homosexuals, and like I posted earlier, God, hates the sin, not the sinner therefore I must take that example and hate the sin of homosexuality (aas well as sin in iteself, whatever it may manifest itself in) however, I love the sinner, as Christ commanded us. I too am a sinner, in many ways. Sorry, that you don’t understand that.
By stewart
June 30, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
ok im a 15 year old kid and i just wanted to let all of yall know that you are being really imature. I mean yall are making fun of someone who is quoting the bible and if you dont belive in the bible ok thats your decision but were not goin to make fun of you.
Stewart
By Randy
June 30, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
Tom, You can try with 72John and Iozen, but don’t expect a warm reception. His homosexuality dominates 72John’s thinking and Iozen probably had a life changing moment at some point the wrong way(we find Jesus, Iozen found Satan, and doesn’t even know it).
By Tom
June 30, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
The72John
nope, got that. ignored it. It wasn’t worth responding to. It’s your opinion and you have freedom to accept or reject Christ. I may know it isn’t the truth however, I still respect your right to say it. Just like when you or lozen called me “moron” or other things, you have a right to your opinion but I know it’s not true. Call me crazy but I do have a strong sense of self confidence…comes from Jesus!
By lozen
June 30, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
Tom, you need not read the entire book of leviticus at any time for any reason because it’s just not saying anything woth knowing. But you will continue to try to justify your fear and ignorance and prejudice by quoting it, won’t you Tom? I must take that example and hate the sin of homosexuality (aas well as sin in iteself, whatever it may manifest itself in) however, I love the sinner, as Christ commanded us. And I must take that example and hate the sin of eating shellfish or pork Tom. I am going to start carrying my sign saying “Stop touching that pigskin or you’re going to HELL” at UGA football games. It will just be because I love football players and want them to know god!
By RF
June 30, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this
stewart- did you pass English, son? Your grammar needs some serious help! You’d have to read this blog regularly to know that the attack goes both ways. People here respect anyone’s religion. It’s when that religion is thrown in one’s face and purported to be the only real one that some here get a bit agitated. No religion has, or should have, the right to control this country as many today would like. It can’t happen and keep the constitution intact. People just want “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as stated in the Declaration of Independence. No federal document to date outlines what happiness is or should be, at least not yet. Many would like to legislatively force that definition any way they can, and denying homosexuals constitutional rights gives them the foothold they need to eventually amend the Constitution in other ways, eventually leading to the outlawing of any lifestyle not in accordance with currently accepted “christian” definition. Read 1984 by George Orwell and you’ll see where we’re headed if that happens.
By candide
July 3, 2006 08:18 AM | Link to this
If you listen to the frenzied nonsense of Christian evangelicals, Mormons, and Muslims you would have to conclude that religious freedom is a liberty we cannot afford. Religion is too dangerous.