Woman to Woman

By Spacedoggie

July 11, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

Go Shaunti Feldhahn! I couldn’t have said it better.

By Stephen

July 11, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

“the whole point of a judicial branch is for judges to put aside personal opinions and determine whether laws are constitutional. Period.”

And that’s exactly what they did —- nothing more, nothing less. They determined the application of the law was unconstitutional, and that;s it. Period. So what;s the problem?

By Copyleft

July 11, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

Ironically, Shaunti has touched on one important truth, doubtless by accident: The function of the Courts is to determine the constitutionality of laws, nothing more.

Of course, she fails to realize what that means: that the “will of the people” is completely IRRELEVANT to carrying out that duty. A justice citing “what the majority of Californians want” is failing in his/her duty.

Any time you hear an argument that judges have “no right to override the will of the people,” you know you’re dealing with someone profoundly ignorant of our Constitution. Of COURSE they have such a right; in fact, it’s their duty to override the popular will whenever it conflicts with Constitutional freedoms.

By USinUK

July 11, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

Commendably, gay marriage supporters usually argue “live and let live” and don’t want legalization of their unions to hurt anyone else.

what a shame that the religious right can’t do the same.

By Mara

July 11, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

If I recall correctly, the California legislature have passed two gay marriage bills and both were vetoed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger.

Also, I believe that the California Constitution includes the “full rights and respect” clause as well as acceptance of sexual orientation as a “protected class” subject to anti-discrimination protection. What we end up with is a Constitution that provides for equal rights and equal treatement for all people, including gays, being pitted against referendum-based laws explicitely stating that when it comes to civil marriage, gays are NOT entitled to the same rights and equal treatment as heterosexuals.

If Shaunti believes that the California Supreme Court should interpret/decide questions of Constitutionality…well, that’s what they did. And it’s only because she doesn’t like the outcome that it’s labled “activist”.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

This is a poll that talks about how the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but the majority also supports equal rights for gay couples.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/13/opinion/polls/main4180335.shtml

This is a similar poll from the Boston Globe that says the same thing. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/22/majorityinmasspollopposegaymarriage/

These polls seem to be very representative of most of the polls I saw, when I searched this topic this morning.

So, if the idea of compromise was ever considered, most people would favor gays having the same rights as married couples. But of course the idea of compromise to most activists means defeat.

Even in the two states that have toyed with this, the vast majorities are opposed to using the actual word “marriage”, while they completely support equal rights. So it appears to be just a matter of the word, not the issue.

But again, compromise means defeat, so gays in the vast majority of the states will really suffer from the insistence of a few radicals and a few judges that have taken on the cause by making their own laws.

Couples that have been together for 40 years will not be able to have family rights once they start dying off. How many older gay couples will never see equal rights because of this insistence that compromise is defeat? Especially when the compromise only concerns the use of a specific word.

If the gay marriage movement was replaced with an equal rights movement, this could be resolved in a couple of election cycles. But as we all know, it is much more important that the screamers get their way while the rest of the gay world is legally discriminated against.

Maybe in our lifetimes, the majority of the population will support guy marriage, but there doesn’t seem to be any more support now than there was in 2004, (See CBS Poll above). That’s probably because of the fact that most Americans just don’t like issues crammed down their throats.

That works great for the screamers. They will have a battle where they can scream and yell and call themselves victims for years. Isn’t that great.

But the question that I dare ask is: What is more important: the word, or the rights?

By mishi

July 11, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

I suppose it’s germane to note that Californians now, contra Corrigan, back same-sex marriage by a substantial margin - according to a post-ruling poll, by 51 to 42 percent. So now the egregiously misnamed Family Research Council will bow to the will of the majority, stop trying to impose its version of Christianity on the state, and end its jihad against gays?

Hmm, somehow I doubt it.

By RF

July 11, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this

I’m sure there will be another resolution put before voters in coming years in California. It will be interesting to see how the “will of the people” has changed. I suspect that if it were put to a vote right now, many states would see such a resolution defeated as I believe it would be in California. I find it very interesting that three of the majority justices were republican appointees. Could it be that interpreting the accuracy of law can actually get beyond party lines? That scares the conservatives, I’m sure!

IMO if two people, regardless of any descriptive factor, can live together and have a committed, successful relationship, then they should be allowed the legal rights and protections afforded a “married” couple. The relationship shouldn’t be limited by definition to only heterosexual couples. Considering the divorce rate right now, heterosexual couples don’t seem to be very successful at marriage anyway. It’s almost laughable to think that we would argue that they are the only ones who can be “married”.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

RF

I agree with everything you said except the blind swing at conservatives. But if you had not taken that blind swing, yours and mine would be the only two posts from today that didn’t.

The civil rights movement became law after the majority of Americans approved. The same will happen with rights for gay couples, but you are dealing with a very hot political issue by using the actual name “marriage.” This just seems like a big “Duh” to me. Change the name of gay marriage. The word “gay” had nothing to do with homosexuality untill the gay movement adopted it. They did this to allow folks to have a more positive term for gay people. Are those gay leaders all dead, now?

Didn’t California already have civil Unions, something the rest of the country needs? Do you really think that the California ruling has helped the cause?

By Gale

July 11, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

The CA courts did the right thing to uphold constitutional equal rights. I think we would find it in most, if not all state constitutions and it is certainly in the federal constitution. The word, is not important. However, no matter what it is called, if the rights of the civil union are identical, and recoognized nationally and internationally, then gay couples and their associates, will probably use that word. For myself, I tend to use partner when refering to my partner of 16 years.

I would very much like the 1100+ rights and responsibilities automatically associated with a marriage contract. Presently, some of these may be gained with state-specific, usually separate legal contracts. If the couple moves to a new state, the contracts must be rewritten. This is NOT equal. And, of course, no federal rights come along with these.

By Carl

July 11, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

Truth, you are right — there can be no compromise on equality. And the rest of your commentary strikes to the very heart of what the California Supreme Court spoke to in their majority opinion: by calling a gay union something other than “marriage” you are immediately according it less respect than a straight union. As the Justices pointed out in their opinion, when Texas tried to open a separate law school for African Americans instead of allowing them access to the UT law school, it was denied by the courts because the new school would have lacked the history, the prestige, the connections, the stature of the UT law school; so even though it would have been a separate institution for African Americans — it would hardly have been equal. If you were given that same choice, which would you choose? You would choose the superior institution. And if, as you and the polls you cite, so many heterosexuals are alright with us gays having all the same rights accorded to married heterosexuals — what difference does the word “marriage” make to them? Those people know that by calling it something different, they can intellectually rationalize the identical (or equivalent) institution as being something less than equal to theirs — another fact pointed out by the majority opinion.

All we want is to be included in the institution of marriage and all the trappings and recognition (and pitfalls) that go along with it. We are asking to be married, not “gay married” any more than the Lovings wanted to be “interracially married” (another fact pointed out by the Justices). So please, lets be accurate and stop referring to this as “gay” marriage and refer to it properly as marriage equality.

Finally, I have yet to understand or have anyone explain logically and rationally how my marrying the man of my dreams and us buying a home in the burbs with a white picket fence and having 2.3 children and a pet could in anyway whatsoever effect their marriage.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

Gale

If the word is so unimportant, then why the big fuss? I believe that California had already granted those 1100+ rights with Civil Unions. (correct me if I am wrong)

The word may not mean much to you, but according to every poll I could find, it means a tremendous amount to most people. The movement is going to have to be accepted by the majority of the population, and that word seems to be standing in the way.

It wouldn’t fix it. But it would make the issue a matter of equal rights, and that issue, you could win. But trying to force people to believe that gay people should be able to marry people of their own sex, when no one has ever had that ability isn’t working very well. You can rationalize that stance to be ridicules, you can diminish the importance of the term, but I’m not the person deciding this. When I get to be king, come and see me. We will work it out, but until then, the way it is going you will probably not ever see those 1100+ rights.

This is just the Republican in me. I want to solve the problem, not adopt a cause. What do you want to do, and how is that working so far?

By Copyleft

July 11, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

Truth, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the solution you’re suggesting. “Separate but equal” turns out not to work.

Until TRUE equal treatment from the government, in every respect, is attained, the struggle continues.

By NYer

July 11, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

Two questions for the group:

1) How does this ruling impact people who live in other states? My recollection of the Massachusetts ruling is that it only affected people residing in Massachusetts. I believe the California ruling has no residency requirements. What happens if a gay couple resides in Georgia travels to California for the ceremony and then returns to Georgia and seeks to enforce the wedding contract? Or worse, they decide to get divorced? Or one of them dies? Has the California Supreme Court just essentially created a legal conundrum that other states will have to deal with?

2) Has anyone looked at the historical context of the word marriage? I remember reading somewhere, although the source unfortunately escapes me, that the word marriage has very religious undertones to it and that in the history of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, marriage specifically means man and woman. If anyone has or can find any research on this I would be curious to see it.

If that is correct, it would appear to me that the California Supreme Court may be treading on religion in this ruling, which would be problematic.

I take no issue with providing equal rights, and am certainly mindful of Carl’s point about separate but equal, but if the word choice matters because of its religious definition, as an issue of separation, we need to come up with a different definition.

By USinUK

July 11, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Truth, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the solution you’re suggesting. “Separate but equal” turns out not to work.

which is why I think the solution is for ALL licenses granted by the state should be “civil union” licenses. if folks want to go to the church/ashram/synagogue/meeting house of their choice and be blessed because the religious aspect of the union is important to them, then they can do that and call that ceremony whatever they want.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

Carl

Very, very good post. Everything you said was right, but the 70% of Americans that oppose gay marriage (Pardon the term, but it is what it is) didn’t read it, nor would they be interested in reading it. And that is because of the fact that the PR aspect of this is about as bad as anything I have ever seen.

Two men in tuxedos, kissing in front of a preacher may mean happiness to you and to be honest, it doesn’t bother me, but we aren’t in charge. If I were the PR guy, working for equal rights for gay couples, I would never let another picture like that out. Like it or not, it p** people off. It is in their face and they will vote your cause down, because they don’t see two happy dudes, they see what they want to see. You cannot change that by eloquent postings on a political blog and people screaming at cameras sure as hell isn’t going to change it.

The question I am asking is simple: What do you want? Do you want all the rights associated with marriage while your wedding day is still in a church, still the same people, the house, the picket fence, the kids, but instead of a piece of paper that says marriage, it says civil Union.

Or do you want what you have now? This issue has been around for twenty years. How is demanding marriage working out so far?

You win. What I am writing here means nothing. The “movement” will continue to struggle and 20 years from now, chances are, you will be much older and still fighting to be married. Everyone thought that the California ruling would open doors, but it has actually closed many doors. Not even Massachusetts is going to try it again.

People will support equal rights that would never support two men getting married. From a PR perspective, you are using the atomic bomb to promote nuclear energy. It is a disaster. And the results hurt you every day.

By TiggerFL

July 11, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

Give me a break. Shaunti if you lived in California you would fall off the edge, your opinion is so slanted it is pathetic. First, you use the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg for a quote. Why not just use a quote from the Pope. Of course the FRC is going to say something like that, they are a bunch of hypocritical, discriminating, right wing lunatics. Fear, Fear, Fear, that is all they preach and a part of that fear is to attack the gay community and grossly distort the bible, the laws and US Constitution. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that our country should revel one group of people while discriminating against another group. The “Christian” community does not hold the sole right to rule. This crap that they preach about “Family Values” and how legalizing gay marriage will lead to “decaying families”, “inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions”, “the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed”, and etc according to Dr. James Dobson of the American Family Association.

And of course your statement that “Institutions that agree with the majority of Californians and morally disagree with gay marriage can now be legally punished. For example, Christian, Jewish or Muslim properties refusing to allow gays to be married there could lose their nonprofit status.” This is so typical. The Christian community are continuously “using” gay marriage as an excuse to look victimized. I bet if there was a law passed that specifically gave the “Christian community” the same rights as the rest of all Americans, they would be the first to claim discrimination if a group did not believe in Christianity and did not want to honor this newly granted right. But since it is against their “moral belief” they are trying to play the victim and say that they can “now be legally punished”. If you take a look at our society the gay community is THE ONLY group of people in today’s society that continuously persecuted, discriminated against and denied equal rights afforded EVERY citizen of the United States because one group does not like them.

If you and everyone else who believe the hate, discrimination and hypocritical rhetoric that spews from the mouths of the “Christian Community”, then you might as well go ahead and pass Constitutional Amendments taking away EVERY non-Christian’s rights.In fact, let’s throw out our Constitution and just instate the bible as our ruling doctrine. Forget that there are millions of people in this country and through out the world who are not of the Christian faith and do not believe in its teachings. So what gives the “Christian Community” the right to persecute a group of people because they don’t stand up to their moral belief?

You know, you should really look into the mirror and realize that you are not better or worse than every other man, woman and child walking this earth. You WERE NOT given the right to judge the morality of all people and cram your “moral beliefs” down everyones throat. Every citizen of the United States should have the rights as every other as was originally written in the Constitution of the United States. Get off of your Morality High Horse and take a close look at what you and those who subscribe to the same discriminating beliefs have done to this country. If anything, you all are the ones undermining our communities, ripping apart our society and the downfall and decay of families. Morality is not about what you believe, it is about how you act and treat our fellow man, woman and child.

By USinUK

July 11, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

Nyer -

How does this ruling impact people who live in other states?

good question … I happened to see an article in Salon that linked to a CNN story on that very issue:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/09/dnt.wi.same.sex.jail.wkow

If you’re a gay couple traveling to California to wed, chances are your state won’t recognize your marriage (unless, of course, you live in New York). But the lucky folks in Wisconsin may actually face a fate worse than legal invisibility. It turns out there’s an old law on the books prohibiting couples from leaving the state to marry and then returning with a union that isn’t valid in Wisconsin. Apparently, this is a form of fraud and can lead to nine months of jail time and a fine of up to $10,000.

now, of course, the question is are bigots in other states going to mimic the law to further marginalize gays???

By Truth

July 11, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

Copyleft

How does the use of a specific word rate over the rights of 30,000,000 people?

You are right. The struggle will continue because apparently the struggle is what is important, not the actual civil rights. This isn’t like separate but equal schools. It’s one word.

As I said in another post, what I say means nothing. The struggle will continue. Radicals will continue to scream at TV cameras and people will dig in and stand their ground.

Get the civil unions issue done. Get it in all the states. Give people the rights that they deserve and then go for the window dressing of the use of a specific word. But give the American Citizens their rights as soon as we can. But by demanding semantics, it is not doing much of anything.

That is my solution. How is your solution working out so far?

By Gale

July 11, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

I hate it when the forum doesn’t see my email right and trashes a ten minute response!

Carl, you are right. The word is important. There are many legal presidents based on the marriage contract that would probably have to be re-argued in court if the contract is “civil union”.

Truth, I take it back. The word is important. And CA cannot grant all thoose rights because some of them are federal. Its that problem of still being married when a CA couple moves to a different state. Are they still married? A straight couple would still be married. What is the difference.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

USinUK

Damn, I can’t believe I am saying this, but that is really not a bad idea.

By Steve Kaup

July 11, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this

Dear Reader, Shaunti Feldhahn should take greater care to avoid adding to the “fear mongering” that religious activists want to foster in order to give force to their views. A perfect example of these attempts is her comments concerning the “legal tsunami” over sexual orientation being given the “same [legal] protection as race, religion, or gender.” It may indeed be a fearful idea to many Christians, that they could be legally forced to do something against there religious views, such as marrying a gay couple, but that is not what is happening and it is certainly not likely to happen any time soon. The government would not force a Christian Minister to marry a gay couple any more than the government would force a Jewish Rabbi to perform a cross-religious wedding. In each religious culture, there are many different rules and guidelines that are followed based upon the religious belief of that group. It is ludicrous to imply, as Shaunti has blatantly done, that our government is now going to exercise control over those guidelines simply because of the California Supreme Court’s decision to recognize same-sex marriage. It appears that those apposed to the decision are trying to insight panic by saying that the California Supreme Court’s decision has taken something away from every individual’s religious right. In reality, it has only given greater equality to the rights of same-sex individuals. The truth is that those who oppose same-sex marriage are experiencing fear, but it is not the fear of governmental control. It is the fear that they may be forced to view someone as an equal whom they previously viewed as less then themselves. This change in perspective is causing them to subconsciously feel like they are now inferior. It is time that these fear-mongers recognize the truth about their fear and quit trying to manufacture false reasons for it. In addition, maybe they should examine whether or not they truly believe that all mankind has been created equal and therefore should receive equal treatment. In any case, equality under the law is every citizen’s right, and those citizens who already posses the right to marry should not feel threatened if other citizens of a different race, religion, gender, sexual preference, or anything that makes them different are granted those same rights. Thanks, Steve Kaup

By GOB

July 11, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

As USinUK says, the only way to truly have equal protection under the law for everyone, as far as “marriages” go is to do away with them at the governmental level. That way anyone can get a license for a civil union and gain the tax advantages, as well as the medical decisions, etc., and those who believe that “marriage” is between a man and woman can then go to their church and get married.

Nothing changes for them except the title of the paper that they get at the courthouse. For gays, however, it makes a world of difference. I dont see another way to make it work, but I doubt that the religious groups would ever go for it, which means no politician is going to have the balls to vote for it, if one did decide to even write up a bill.

There are certain states that may try, but here in the south where the ban on gay marriage vote was something like 75% in favor, I dont think it will be seen in my lifetime (and I’m only 30). Sad days…

By USinUK

July 11, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

And, interestingly, Shaunti is wrong when she says that the majority of Californians are opposed to gay marriage:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9400728

For the first time ever, a statewide survey reports a majority of California voters favor gay marriage - a finding that pollsters describe as a milestone driven by younger people.

Truth is wrong, too, when he says that 70% of people oppose gay marriage:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/868/gay-marriage

In the most recent People-Press survey, which was conducted May 21-25, 49% of Americans said they oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry while 38% favored gay marriages. In July 2004, 56% opposed gay marriage, compared with 32% who supported legal marriages between gays and lesbians.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

Gale

How does civil unions work when a couple changes states? Is it the same?

By Gale

July 11, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this

For those 75% who voted against gay marriage, I want to vote on their marriage now. ::sigh::

By USinUK

July 11, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

Truth -

Damn, I can’t believe I am saying this, but that is really not a bad idea.

that’s okay … I won’t tell anyone you said that.

By Gale

July 11, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

Truth, civil unions are specific to a state.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this

USinUK

Truth is wrong, too, when he says that 70% of people oppose gay marriage:

The CBS poll said that only 30% of Americans support gay marriage. Did you read it, or did you just need to find another poll that disagrees. We could do this all day.

I could show you conservative polls that say less than 5% nationally approve or liberal polls that say that over 75% approve. But I am wrong because I quoted a different poll than you? it’s not like CBS News is the Limbaugh Letter. This kind of crap is why I usually don’t bother being civil.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

Gale

So it doesn’t transfer either? I can’t imagine the mess. What if you go to a Civil Union State and get hitched, and move to a non Civil Union State but the company you work for is in a Civil Union State and you want insurance coverage for your partner. Or what if you live in a border twon between two states with opposing laws?

Sounds like the only people getting ahead are lawyers.

What a mess.

I need to get to work.

Good luck to you all. Have a great weekend.

By USinUK

July 11, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

Truth -

I would suggest you read up on the Pew Research center - they are non-partisan and are considered THE research group for issues revolving around religion (much like Guttmacher is THE research group for issues revolving around abortion)

Also, just because 30% are for doesn’t mean that 70% are against. If you look at the Pew split, it’s 38% for and 49% against.

lastly, have the courage of your convictions to add a link.

This kind of crap is why I usually don’t bother being civil

you know, I’m going to let this statement stand on its own two feet for what it is. someone shows evidence that you are less than correct and this is how you reply.

By USinUK

July 11, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

Most Americans continue to think there should be some legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples, and 30 percent say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry - the highest number since CBS News began asking this question in 2004.

Twenty-eight percent think same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions, but more than a third - 36 percent - say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/13/opinion/polls/main4180335.shtml

good grief … that in NO WAY says 70% of people are against gay marriage.

By Mara

July 11, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

“Do you want all the rights associated with marriage…(but)instead of a piece of paper that says marriage, it says civil Union.”

How is this different than having segregated drinking fountains? The water that came out of the “whites only” fountain was no different than that coming from one labled “Blacks only”, just as the benefits and rights of a “civil union” would (theoretically) be no different than those of a “marriage”…

“seperate but equal” is seldom equal.

By rick

July 11, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

the simple fact is that republicans don’t deserve a third term. they have failed at taking care of their own nation. it’s disgusting how they have abandoned New Orleans, DISGUSTING and UNAMERICAN. Cheney and Rumsfield did succeed at what their true agenda was to invade Iraq and cut taxes for the rich. vote for John McCain at your own peril, just disgusting. Have you no shame?

By Dana

July 11, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

“It is not up to a court to determine that “existing rights accorded to gay couples aren’t enough.” It is not in a judge’s job description to ensure gay couples “equal respect and protection.”

Actually, determining that all laws passed afford every citizen “equal…protection” is part of the definition of a judge’s job description…it’s called the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and I believe/assume California’s constitution, which is what this case was based on, has a similar clause. And yes, if a judge determines that an existing law infringes on the constitutional rights of a gay couple, which the majority of the justices did determine in this case, then it is their duty to determine that “existing rights…aren’t enough.”

By Jack

July 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

It’s Friday let’s lighten things up some.

Q: I’ve heard that cardiovascular exercise can prolong life; is this true?
A: Your heart is only good for so many beats, and that’s it… don’t waste them on exercise. Everything wears out eventually. Speeding up your heart will not make you live longer; that’s like saying you can extend

Q: Should I cut down on meat and eat more fruits and vegetables?
A: You must grasp logistical efficiencies. What does a cow eat? Hay and corn. And what are these?

Q: Should I reduce my alcohol intake?
A: No, not at all. Wine is made from fruit. Brandy is distilled wine, that means they take the water out of the fruity bit so you get even more of the goodness that way. Beer is also made out of grain. Bottoms up!

Q: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio?

A: Well, if you have a body and you have fat, your ratio is one to one. If you have two bodies, your ratio is

Q: What are some of the advantages of participating in a regular exercise program?

A: Can’t think of a single one, sorry. My philosophy is: No Pain…Good!

Q: Aren’t fried foods bad for you?
A: YOU’RE NOT LISTENING!!! …. Foods are fried these days in vegetable oil. In fact, they’re permeated in it.

Q: Will sit-ups help prevent me from getting a little soft around the middle?

A: Definitely not! When you exercise a muscle, it gets bigger. You should only be doing sit-ups if you want a bigger stomach.

Q: Is chocolate bad for me? A: Are you crazy? HELLO Cocoa beans! Another vegetable!!! It’s the best feel-good food around!

Q: Is swimming good for your figure?
A: If swimming is good for your figure, explain whales to me.

Q: Is getting in-shape important for my lifestyle?
A: Hey! ‘Round’ is a shape!*

Well, I hope this has cleared up any misconceptions you may have had about food and diets.

And remember: Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways. Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body

AND……

For those of you who watch what you eat, here’s the final word on nutrition and health.

It’s a relief to know the truth after all those conflicting nutritional studies.

By Copyleft

July 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

Truth, your solution is actually a reasonable one. Unfortunately, the majority will never go for it. If the government no longer sanctioned their union as an “official MARRIAGE,” they’d feel they had to give something up to appease the gays. The Chucks of the world would never stand for it.

Which is why we have courts: to protect the rights of unpopular minorities, no matter what the majority wants.

By Dana

July 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

“If the word is so unimportant, then why the big fuss? I believe that California had already granted those 1100+ rights with Civil Unions. (correct me if I am wrong)”

Yes, you are wrong, because many of those 1100+ are federal rights and benefits, which do not recognize state-level civil unions.

By Copyleft

July 11, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

the simple fact is that republicans don’t deserve a third term.

Rick, no matter how much I agree with you (and I do, I do!), I’ve got to ask: How is this relevant to the topic?

By Aint'DatDaTruth

July 11, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this

you know, I’m going to let this statement stand on its own two feet for what it is

Like even MORE evidence was needed.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

USinUK

I had written hundreds of lines today, but you pick out one stinking number that is not even relavant to what I am talking about. Have you been taking lessons from the Big Joke?

It’s bullsh*t. You come here to fight conservatives. Your first post made that very clear. I come here to discuss an issue and actually engage in some great discussion, but you go out of your way to find ONE stinking number. I’m sick of it. You are no better and obviously no smarter than that half wit that you support, no matter how idiotic his stances are.

It is almost impossible to make any sort of point here without expecting the same old crap coming from the two of you.

Don’t preach to me about what I do when proven wrong, Ms supporter of mayor Nagen who STILL says that he did nothing wrong.

You can stick your sanctimonious preaching where the sun don’t shine.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this

The Big Joke

You owe me five bucks.

Opening up several pages so you can continue posting after 5 is hardly something that takes intelligence.

By John Bisceglia

July 11, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

It is immoral and unjust to expect gays and lesbians to pay taxes to a government that denies our families civil marriage. Period.

Marriage Inequality hurts families. It hurts children. It hurts grandparents. It hurts communities.

The GLTB comminuty does not exist in a vacuum. We are integrated into schools, churches, local politics, nursing homes, etc., etc. When OUR families suffer due to Marriage Inequality, YOU (heterosexuals) also suffer, socially and financially.

Watch “Freeheld” or “Tying the Knot”; if you still want to deny gays civil marriage, go right ahead, but do NOT expect myself or ANY other gay person to pay taxes to a society that treats us as “less than human”.

By woodie

July 11, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

Well somebody got it right but for the wrong reason. The judges aren’t allowed to reinterpret the meaning of ‘marriage’. They are suppose to uphold the constitution. Marriage means a man and a women. A ‘union’ between gay people is not a marriage. Either write these people a new law or drop the whole thing. I don’t understand why gay people want to attach themselves to ‘marriage’. They can just live together and leave everyone else alone. At least they aren’t being executed like in Muslim countries.

By Philip Chandler

July 11, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

I am appalled by the analysis written by Shaunti Feldhahn. Firstly, she cites from a representative of the “Family Research Council” — this is a vehemently anti-gay organization that has mounted an aggressive campaign to overturn the court’s decision through direct amendment of the California state constitution in November. One glance at the Website of this organization (www.frc.org) should suffice to convince the reader that this organization is overt in its raw hatred of gay Americans.

Secondly, Feldhahn misrepresents the result of the court’s decision that gay men and lesbians constitute a “suspect class” for the purposes of equal protection analysis. This does indeed mean that laws that discriminate against gay Californians have to survive “strict scrutiny” when challenged on constitutional grounds — but nothing in this holding can or will force any church to marry gay people against its will, nor does this holding mandate that personal prejudice can or will be punished by civil or criminal sanctions. In reaching the conclusion that gay Californians constitute a “suspect class,” the court has set the bar very high with respect to testing the validity of STATE ACTION that adversely impacts gay Californians. Churches and other religious institutions remain perfectly free to continue to spout their hateful dogma, and remain perfectly free to refuse to marry gay couples without any fear of punishment by the government. As the US Supreme Court observed in Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984) with reference to racism and the US Constitution, “The Constitution cannot control such prejudices, but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”

This is exactly the state of the law in California with respect to gay people and the manner in which the state may and may not treat them. The state cannot, for example, remove a child from the custody of a gay parent on the theory that the child will suffer harm at the hands of society when teased or unfairly treated by heterosexual peers for having a gay parent (this is analogous to the fact pattern explicated and presented to the US Supreme Court in Palmore). THE STATE must justify discriminatory action against gay Californians under the demands of “strict scrutiny” — Feldhahn apparently intentionally misrepresents the impact of this holding to drum up fears that churches will be forced to violate their own moral codes by marrying gay couples.

It is amusing to note the manner in which people such as Feldhahn write about “egregious, arrogant, and far-reaching judicial actions” when presented with cases in which Feldhahn’s type loses on the merits, yet praise the actions of courts that commit equally far-reaching actions that meet with the approval of Feldhahn’s type. The current US Supreme Court is extremely conservative and has handed down decisions that have severely curtailed the right of persons facing the death penalty to challenge the constitutionality of their trials and sentences by appealing to the federal courts for writs of habeas corpus. In Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996), the Court acted with indecent haste to hear and decide a case in which an extremely serious issue was at stake (causing four Justices to object, given that the Court decided to take this case as the Court’s term came to its end for the year); the Court subsequently held that the so-called “Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act” (AEDPA) was constitutional, thereby limiting the number of habeas petitions that death row (and other) prisoners may file to only one in most cases (a result described by some legal scholars as the sacking of one of the most basic premises of American law established since (and including) the signing of the Declaration of Magna Carta).

In short, when an arch-conservative such as Antonin Scalia hands down a decision that has far-reaching consequences and that is decried by more liberal Americans, Feldhahn falls all over herself to praise such decisions. Yet when a moderate such as Anthony Kennedy hands down a decision that has equally far-reaching consequences (e.g. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), abolishing the death penalty for prisoners who are minors when they commit capital crimes), Feldhahn’s type becomes apoplectic with sputtering indignation.

Something that Feldhahn would do well to remember is the following: the fact that a large majority of citizens may disapprove of gay marriages matters not one whit when a court of law is tasked with determining whether a prohibition against such marriages is constitutional. The California Supreme Court’s task was simple: to examine the law, to examine the state constitution, and to determine whether the law in question comported with strictures imposed on legislative acts by the Constitution of the State of California. This is precisely what the court did. Even the justices in the minority conceded the breadth of the scholarship that was reflected in the majority’s opinion.

For this, I sincerely thank the court.

PHILIP CHANDLER

By JokesOn

July 11, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

truth,

You owe me five bucks.

Opening up several pages so you can continue posting after 5 is hardly something that takes intelligence.

Bzzz. That is easy, but to infinitely post is to what I was referring. I forgot….I need to spell out every detail for you. I said to keep posting (not a finite meaning there) after five.

If you knew how packets worked you would understand. If you ran your own webpage/server, you would know how packets worked. therefore you lied about another thing (running your webpage/server).

Plus, your “easy” out of finite number of times rests on the knowledge I gave you during the “bot” ignorance.

By Gale

July 11, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this

Woodie: I don’t understand why gay people want to attach themselves to ‘marriage’. They can just live together and leave everyone else alone. Because gays do not have simple things like the inheritence rights of straight couples.

By rick

July 11, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

copyleft.

i am a 49 year old gay man from california living in gwinnett for 9 years with my partner of 12 years. we married in canada 2 years ago to celebrate our 10th anniversary.

republicans have used gay marriage as a wedge issue to win elections to help destroy this country. defeating republicans is my goal in life right now.

have you ever had someone basicly march to your front door in America and tell you we are restricting your rights based on our opinion of you.

i repeat “Have you no shame”….

let’s not be fooled by Shanti, she’d use it as wedge issue to promote her values over yours or mine in a minute.

she impowers the wrong people with her voice, column, opinion.

i don’t even recognize this country anymore.

By JokesOn

July 11, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this

pssst….Brian W

Can you hear me?

By Dana

July 11, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

“Well somebody got it right but for the wrong reason. The judges aren’t allowed to reinterpret the meaning of ‘marriage’. They are suppose to uphold the constitution. Marriage means a man and a women. A ‘union’ between gay people is not a marriage”

Concerning the civil, legal status of marriage, it is defined by each state in the statutes passed by their legislature. And a court absolutely has the right to find that the existing civil, legal definition of marriage as defined by that state’s legislature has the effect of denying rights to some people, just as they have the right to find that any other law passed by the legislature infringes on some person or group’s rights.

By Archie

July 11, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

The California Supreme Court did act properly overturning the bill against gay marriage. They had the legal right to do so and they did just that. The law is not about the will of the people all the time the law is the law and the majority does not always rule. Marriage is a contract and it’s not just about who loves who, in fact, it always has been about order and money. A spouse automatically has certain rights and privileges upon the death of the other spouse. A spouse also has the right to make medical decisions when the other person is unable to make those decisions for themselves. If someone has stayed with a person 55 years doing all the things,sexual and non-sexual that spouses I think they should be able to marry thus giving all the rights that come with a marriage contract. If marriage were just about love you would not need prenuptial agreeements but prejudice runs so strong in this country that people simply just won’t say what the real problem is. The real problem is that some people don’t like the idea of a man being sexually involved with another man. I specifically said man because lesbianism doesn’t bother people as much.

By Mark G

July 11, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

Liar. My dear, no law will punish the church, synagogue or any other place of worship for failing to recognize the rights of anybody. If that were true, the Roman Catholic Church’s position on women and birth control would have eliminated their position in America. To me it appears that you have deliberately given yourself (and others) wrong. That is inflammatory information. Shame on you my dear. You should be required to think harder.

By Mark G

July 11, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

Liar. My dear, no law will punish the church, synagogue or any other place of worship for failing to recognize the rights of anybody. If that were true, the Roman Catholic Church’s position on women and birth control would have eliminated their position in America. To me it appears that you have deliberately given yourself (and others) wrong. That is inflammatory information. Shame on you my dear. You should be required to think harder.

By woodie

July 11, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

Hey Gale. I don’t understand ‘inheritance’ rights for gay couples. They just need to write a will. Otherwise their estate goes to family. If they have children no worries. Two people living together don’t need to worry about inheritance. They aren’t married. They are two people of the same sex living together. Why do they want to be saddled with ‘marriage’? You want your ‘roomie’ to inherit your estate? That sounds illegal and wrong on every level.

By Dana Bius

July 11, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this

“I don’t understand why gay people want to attach themselves to ‘marriage’. They can just live together and leave everyone else alone.”

Because without obtaining the legal status called “marriage,” not civil union, not domestic partnership, but “marriage,” they can’t give or bequeath their estates to each other federal gift or estate tax free, they can’t file a joint federal estate tax return, they can’t collect each other’s Social Security when one dies, they can’t assume that any state rights they do have will transfer if they move to another state…etc., etc. etc. These are all things that straight couples take for granted they will get if they marry. Now, if you want to change all those laws that give all those benefits to married couples so that instead of referring to one’s “spouse,” they read “spouse or civilly-unioned parter,” or some such nonsense, and guarantee that every state will recognize another state’s civil unions, then a civil union will be the same as marriage. Until then, it isn’t.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

mara

*How is this different than having segregated drinking fountains? *

How is segregated drinking fountains different than the wording of a legal document?

I want the same thing you do, except i am really interested in fixing this.

No one wants the simple compromise of Civil Unions over the term of marriage. This is why I am a Republican. I want to fix the problem. The problem is human rights, but it is well hidden under the semantics of the term “marriage”.

Everyone is trying to make my approach, the same thing as separate but equal, but that is nonsense. The reason why the Republican Integrationusts fought “separate but equal” is that “separate but equal” was not equal at all.

Separate but equal was thousands of ways that was not going to be equal.

In a civil union, when most people would be going to get the marriage license, gay people could fill out almost identical papers and the legal ramifications would be settled. They would be done.. They could go to a church and have a wedding, if they wanted. They would have the same rights, which I would think would be the key, not the name at the top of the form.

The only question is: is that name at the top of the form worth denying up to 10% (a complete guess, I guess that is required now) of our population.

This “struggle” shouldn’t be a struggle. As I said to someone else. The approach that is now being unsuccessfully used is like trying to promote Nuclear Energy by showing people pictures of Hiroshima. The entire idea of human rights is hidden under the extremely emotionally charged subject of marriage.

Get rid of that emotionally charged aspect of this and people will gain equal rights: what I thought was the actual goal.

Whatever, people want the struggle and not the goal, apparently.

By Gandalf, the Grey

July 11, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

Marriage is one man and one woman, no matter what the Kalifornia supreme court says.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

The Big Joke

You owe me five bucks.

By Gandalf, the Grey

July 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this

WHAT NEXT! MEN AND DOGS? Woman and horses? Children and men? GOOD LORD STOP ALREADY! While ISLAM rides us down like dogs you silly people are worrying about gay marriage? Silly people!

By Woodie

July 11, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this

I am actually just here to ruin a good discussion. I can’t stand for a specific poster to have a civil discussion so this is what I do because I am just too dumb and not nearly enough of a man to take him on in a fair debate.

Don’t put too much stock in what I say.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

rick

Congratulations on your union. I wish you the best.

Were you talking about all Republicans?

By JokesOn

July 11, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this

You owe me five bucks.

You still have trouble with reading comprehension, huh?

Again, although I know this is your absolute denial rearing its head again: I wonder if you are smart enough to know how to keep posting after five.

If you knew how…where is the proof on last nights page?

By Dana

July 11, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this

“Hey Gale. I don’t understand ‘inheritance’ rights for gay couples. They just need to write a will. Otherwise their estate goes to family. If they have children no worries. Two people living together don’t need to worry about inheritance. They aren’t married. They are two people of the same sex living together. Why do they want to be saddled with ‘marriage’? You want your ‘roomie’ to inherit your estate? That sounds illegal and wrong on every level.”

Well, for one thing, spouses in most states have protected inheritance rights that go beyond just what one spouse chooses or doesn’t choose to leave another in a will, like a year’s allowance that protects a spouse from being left penniless if the deceased spouse had a lot of debts and creditors are going to eat up the estate. For another, what could possibly be illegal or wrong about someone choosing who they want to inherit their estate? That’s the whole purpose of allowing people to do wills. I could decide that I want to leave my estate to my mailman and there’s nothing illegal or wrong about that unless I’m not mentally competent to make that decision. Finally, there’s a whole h*ll of a lot more to the rights and benefits marriage confers than just inheritance rights, and many of them can’t be gained by any means other than being married.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

The Big Joke

You owe me five bucks.

it’s no surprise that you are not enough of a man to back up your bet.

But you owe me five bucks.

By woodie

July 11, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this

It’s very clear what needs to happen to make same-sex unions work like marriage. They need a constitutional amendment that says that. The legal system gets itself tangled up in too much ambiguity. I personally could care less what same-sex people want to do. But without the constitutional amendment we can talk all we want but never resolve the problem. And if you can’t get your constitutional amendment, then your are going to have to accept things as they are. California has always been a bit weird. No wonder lawyers make so much money. The books are all cooked.

By Truth

July 11, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this

The big joke

Prove it last night? So now that’s part of the bet?

I told you how to keep posting after five. To do it last night, I would have had to care enough to open up the other pages. You waaaaay overestimate your importance to me. You are just a big joke to me. Don’t you understand?

You owe me five bucks. Now rant all night long, twit.

By JokesOn

July 11, 2008 5:17 PM | Link to this

*Were you talking about all Republicans? *

Probably just republicans like you that want to merge christianity and government. Repubs like you who also then froth at the mouth when proven wrong or don’t get your way.

By RF

July 13, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

But if you had not taken that blind swing, yours and mine would be the only two posts from today that didn’t

Sorry Truth, that was indeed a bit of a cheap shot. You hang around here long enough, you tend to look for conflict before it arrives. That and I spent a few days around some of my more conservative friends recently and they just could not let this issue go. It brought on some heated debates and very narrow-minded stereotypes that left me very ill with their ignorance. I didn’t expect the crowd here to agree as quickly as they did. That doesn’t happen often!

You were right about the PR angle of this. It is indeed the word “marriage” and the image of two men kissing that people have a problem with. I witnessed that first hand being around the aforementioned group. They weren’t arguing about homosexuality as much as they were the idea of them being married and publicly declaring their love. That still grosses people out and they judge the issue based solely on their feelings about that. Perhaps it would help to change the wording and the process of becoming legally wed so that the church doesn’t have to be drug into the middle of this.

By Stopthemadness

July 13, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

Truth JokesOn

Knock it off. This is not a casino.

JokesOn, it was stupid to make a bet that you never intended to honor. Truth, you were doing great on Friday until jokesOn appeared and you started with this. I understand your frustration with what USinUk wrote. I agree that she seemed to look long and hard for anything to question you on, but your response was completely inappropriate.

JokesON, we have seen Truth completely ignore you for days but you never stop attacking him, no matter how much he ignores you. 90% of the “new” posters that call truth names and post some very personal harassment against him only appear when you are also posting. You aren’t fooling anyone. It is spamming the board and we are all tired of scanning past your attacks while trying to find something to read.

USinUK, you are a smart and contributing member of this place and we all love your wit and insights, but it does seem that lately, you are more interested in taking sides in this flaming war than debating what truth is actually trying to say.

Truth. You need to control your temper. Others do not dislike you because of your political leaning. They dislike you because of that explosive temper. You saw on Friday that others are willing to discuss issues with you but they can’t talk to you if they feel that you are always on the verge of your name calling.

Make a covenant, decide to be civil, stop the finger pointing, whatever the three of you need to do, but this is ruining this forum.

By JokesOn

July 14, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

JokesOn, it was stupid to make a bet that you never intended to honor.

I would have no problem sending $5 through paypal if he showed he understood websites well enough to keep posting after five, but he did not. I tried shot-gunning him to prevent opening multiple windows as a way of cheating. He was unable to meet the challenge.

JokesON, we have seen Truth completely ignore you for days but you never stop attacking him, no matter how much he ignores you.

It is a blog. I addressed him respectfully and by using his screen name, unlike his replies which he called names and cussed. I do eventually match his insults, but always after I am sick of his childish replies.

90% of the “new” posters that call truth names and post some very personal harassment against him only appear when you are also posting. You aren’t fooling anyone.

Believe what you want, but none of those posters are me.

Make a covenant, decide to be civil, stop the finger pointing, whatever the three of you need to do, but this is ruining this forum.

I agree. Look back and you will see that people leave after Truth starts his name calling and cussing, not when I am here posting with them.

By Lewis

July 14, 2008 8:27 AM | Link to this

Truth’s suggestion of treating everyone equally by defining ALL marriage as “civil unions” is a valid one. Personally, I’d prefer for government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

But as Copyleft and others pointed out, that’s a legislative solution that the majority (including theocrats like Chuck) would fight against. That’s why the gay-marriage backers are pursuing action in the courts—because the courts are the only structure of government where the majority-rule principle does not operate.

Shaunti Feldhan acknowledges that courts are intended to focus solely on constitutionality. As such, the California court’s actions were entirely proper. The results of an election or referendum, no matter how large or small the margin of victory, have nothing to do with the proper business of a court ruling.

By USinUK

July 14, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this

StoptheMadness (and Truth) -

USinUK, you are a smart and contributing member of this place and we all love your wit and insights, but it does seem that lately, you are more interested in taking sides in this flaming war than debating what truth is actually trying to say.

First of all, thank you for the compliment. But, this is a discussion board / debating arena. We’re not here to sing kumbaya and toast s’mores. The whole W2W premise starts with 2 women who take diametrically opposing views, after all, and expects the message board to continue accordingly.

I’m sorry that you and Truth seem to think I’m picking nits about the 70% statistic Truth quoted above. However, if he is going to predicate his argument that gay marriage won’t happen in the near term because 70% of people oppose “seeing 2 men kissing” - and that statistic is vastly incorrect / misrepresentative of the truth - then, yeah, I think it’s a fair call to say “nowhangonaminnit” and challenge him on it.

But, thank you, anyway, for playing hall monitor - a voice of calm is always welcome -

By Gale

July 14, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

Does anyone want to comment on the media claims that the new story will be gay divorces? Apparently they feel the gay marriages will fail at the same “60%” rate as straight marriages and courts in states other than the state that legalized the gay marriages will be called on to settle the divorce. While the issue about the out of state divorce is valid and has already been faced, I dispute the claim that gay marriages will fail at the same rate as straight marriages; at least in the near future.

To start with, many gays currently marrying have been a couple already for many years. The wedding is not a frivolous, impulsive event. They have already faced many of the stumbling blocks that bring about divorce. Take my own divorce as an example from the days when I considered myself straight. I was married at 21 because I was raised to believe that was what people did. After about three years of trying to make it work, I realized I didn’t even want to know that guy, much less be married. So many young people marry and then grow apart. I believe mature gay couples who have been together for years are not likely to divorce for reasons like that.

By USinUK

July 14, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

Gale -

Does anyone want to comment on the media claims that the new story will be gay divorces? Apparently they feel the gay marriages will fail at the same “60%” rate as straight marriages and courts in states other than the state that legalized the gay marriages will be called on to settle the divorce.

I thought it was 48% (right around half, anyway).

At any rate, the divorce rate may stay low initially, but I’ll bet it will climb eventually to be on par with the hetero rate. why? cuz people are people and the things that kill hetero marriages (finances, family, sex, and kids) aren’t exlusive to heteros.

In fact, Matt Lucas (one half of the “Little Britain” creative team) is divorcing his partner after they’ve been married a little less than 2 years: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/artsandentertainment/tvandradio/article4167322.ece

Gays may fight tooth-and-nail for the right to marry, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not subject to the same human frailties as everyone else.

By Gale

July 14, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

I tend to agree, USinUK. Eventually, gay marriage is likely to fail at the same rate. I also thought the 60% seemed higher that I thought it was. I doubt it is any kind of story now and think the media is just searching for something to talk about.

By Lyrazel

July 14, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

Great thought provoking posts people! Little bickering and most everyone put quite a lot of thought into their comments. Wow!

My comment on this topic is simply: Americans waste too much time and government money in trying to control other peoples personal lives.

By USinUK

July 14, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

Lyra -

My comment on this topic is simply: Americans waste too much time and government money in trying to control other peoples personal lives.

I hear ya, sister.

I don’t have a problem with government licensing, though, as our “married status” does affect so many things (tax rates, insurance rates, etc) - however, as I said before, it should be civil unions across the board for everyone. If people want to go to their place of worship and be blessed to be considered “married” in the eyes of their god, then have at it.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

Stopthemadness

Thanks for having the courage to finally say something. It was a long time coming. but you see the results. Neither did anything wrong. The Big Joke is blameless and USinUK has never been wrong about anything, including looking through a couple of hundred lines of text to find a percentage that meant nothing to the conversation.

Your use of the term frustration is perfect. When you know that no matter how much you agree with the liberal mantra (All conservatives DO NOT think alike), that there will soon be a slobbering idiot, pretending to be other people, just so he can play childish games like this: Probably just republicans like you that want to merge christianity and government. Repubs like you who also then froth at the mouth when proven wrong or don’t get your way. it is very frustrating. It’s exactly like trying to talk to someone and someone else turns up music so loud that you can hardly breath.

The post wasn’t addressed to him, I have never advocated “merging” government and religion and just look at who was frothing.

USinUK came on looking for a fight. That means, to hell with the conversation, I want to find something to gripe about. She did the same thing when I mentioned that liberal push their beliefs on others and the New Orleans fight that has lasted for a couple of weeks came from her concentrating on a sideline statement I was making to another poster.

Some people come here to discuss issues. Others come here looking for disruption of civil conversations and looking to discredit anyone who has proven them wrong in the past, (I know USinUK, you have ALWAYS been right and you have never been wrong. You are perfect in every way and you walk around with a halo around your head) Anyone looking at what happened Friday can see that.

Thanks for finally speaking out, though. I know what you said about me is absolutely right. I do need to control my temper and I need to concentrate on the people who are willing to discuss issues and not pick fights. Apparently, according to those two, they are blameless and it is all my fault. They will believe that for the rest of their life. But I’m glad that others don’t agree with them.

By JokesOn

July 14, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

Truth,

It is your first comment of the day and you are calling names.

The Big Joke is blameless and USinUK has never been wrong about anything, including looking through a couple of hundred lines of text to find a percentage that meant nothing to the conversation.

By RF

July 14, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

USinUK and Gale- the fallout from the gay marriage ruling will be how states that don’t allow the marriages deal with the divorces. They’ll have to follow the letter of the law for community property, etc., but it will be interesting to see how that plays out. If a state doesn’t recognize your marriage, would they be compelled by law to grant you a divorce? The legal wrangling has only just begun on this issue, but I think it is still an important stride.

Take my own divorce as an example from the days when I considered myself straight. I was married at 21 because I was raised to believe that was what people did

I know the feeling! I think way too many young people fall into that trap. What’s sad is when they hide from the truth for many years and have to deal with not only a divorce, but children. As a society, we still make it way too hard for a person to deal with his/her sexuality honestly and openly.

By JokesOn

July 14, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

The post wasn’t addressed to him, I have never advocated “merging” government and religion and just look at who was frothing.

It is a public blog. Want to have a private conversation, trade emails.

And, yes you did advocate legislation to declare this a xian country and have argued for it a number of times.

Your bias selection of facts and warping of posts is what is frustrating. You talk out of both sides of your mouth, and then deny what you posted. You also flatly deny that we stated something that you misinterpreted, like the local government having some fault in the katrina mess. We pointed to our previous posts many times, yet you still claim we absolved them totally.

By USinUK

July 14, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

(I know USinUK, you have ALWAYS been right and you have never been wrong. You are perfect in every way and you walk around with a halo around your head)

I’m so glad you’re going to hande this maturely.

Anyone looking at what happened Friday can see that.

yes. let’s see … I pointed out that you were totally misstating a statistic and this is “what happened”:

This kind of crap is why I usually don’t bother being civil

and

It’s bullsh1t. You come here to fight conservatives. Your first post made that very clear. I come here to discuss an issue and actually engage in some great discussion, but you go out of your way to find ONE stinking number. I’m sick of it. You are no better and obviously no smarter than that half wit that you support, no matter how idiotic his stances are. … It is almost impossible to make any sort of point here without expecting the same old crap coming from the two of you. … Don’t preach to me about what I do when proven wrong, Ms supporter of mayor Nagen who STILL says that he did nothing wrong. … You can stick your sanctimonious preaching where the sun don’t shine.

I’m also sorry that you think what a shame that the religious right can’t do the same (live and let live) is spoiling for a fight … I would think that a civil libertarian like yourself would actually agree with that statement.

By Yes you are

July 14, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Only a bigot would seek to deny the rights and services he or she enjoys from the government to a group of fellow citizens simply because they are different. If you think Georgia should issue a marriage licence to any man and woman who want it, but deny it to two men or two women who want it, then YOU ARE A BIGOT. Look in the mirror. Wear the t-shirt proudly. Bigot.

Frankly, I think the states should cease issuing marriage licenses and force straight couples work it out through their churches and pay lawyers to draw up civil union contracts too. No special treatment.

By Lily Toad

July 14, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Darn! When I first saw this posting on Friday, it was not open to comments, but somehow y’all got it. The second comment was what I was going to say: The Ca justices were interpreting the Constituion! Most of the good points have already been said: Make all unions civil unions, federal rights won’t come along until marriage equality is adopted at the federal level, etc.

So, my only input that hasn’t been said, is, that some things are more important to the gay community than marriage rights. For instance, universal health care is a gay issue. If we had health care for everyone that would take away one of the benefits of marriage. Don’t forget, not all gays are partnered and single gays need protections from discrimination in employment and housing. So lets not focus just on “special rights” that heterosexuals demand just for themselves and fight for full equality in all spheres. Even gays who have partners don’t always want to marry or may be nonmonogamous, or may see marriage as mimicing straight people. Some of us want to stay gender-queer and challenge the hetero-normative model, not just join it.

By USinUK

July 14, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this

RF -

the fallout from the gay marriage ruling will be how states that don’t allow the marriages deal with the divorces. They’ll have to follow the letter of the law for community property, etc., but it will be interesting to see how that plays out. If a state doesn’t recognize your marriage, would they be compelled by law to grant you a divorce? The legal wrangling has only just begun on this issue, but I think it is still an important stride.

interesting point. but, I would think that any state offering “civil unions” would also offer “civil dissolution” (or divorce). don’t you think??

By Truth

July 14, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I’m not going to argue with you. Apparently, I am not the only one that is noticing some very obvious things. The Big Joke has proven that he will never have the character to admit that he is also the problem. How’s it going for you, so far?

I admitted that I was wrong but both of you are blowing up over it. Sort of puts the whole issue in the perfect perspective.

Whomever was StopTheMadness is obviously a regular that decided to take the time and effort to point out the obvious. The more the two of you rant, the more you prove their point. So keep going back and picking out one or two lines out of hundreds to prove your point. It’s almost as intelligent as the big joke saying that I was calling him names when I said that he claimed to be blameless.

No one forced you to take his side, no matter what that side required. But when you lay in the dirt, you get dirty.

By JokesOn

July 14, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

One area that gay marriage has already started to impact is religious foundations that get government funding, for they have to allow the marriage/union take place on that funded property. Will be interesting how that pans out.

Also, there was a recent incident where an xain couple’s photography business was (successfully) sued for refusing to shoot someones gay marriage.

Although I agree with gays being equal and having access to marriage, it will complicate the world for a while.

By Gale

July 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

Lily Toad, If I were “single”, I might agree. And as for health insurance, most single persons, straight or gay, have the same oportunities, or lack thereof. Personally, I am able to insure my partner, although the cost is ‘after tax’, not before tax as it is for me. Many companies allow insurance to domestic partners.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

RF

Thanks for your post. Don’t worry about the cheap shot. This is the patron blog of cheap shots.

The PR problem is huge. One of the main things that made Dr. King so powerful was the fact that he understood that rioting and throwing rocks and bottles at cops just wasn’t working, so he reversed that and peaceful demosrations that were greeted with the Dixiecrat’s (cheap shot) dog attacks looked very, very bad. Ghandi had used the same approach.

I know lots of gay people and i can’t say that I remember any one of them even talking about gay marriage. I know lots of heterosexual liberals and I’m not sure that i could name one that would not fight to the death over this.

Look at the board. Look at how many are sure that this is an issue about Republicans, but the vast majority of democrats in Washington also don’t support gay marriage. It is only legal in a very few countries (I believe there are three in Europe, and France nor Holland are included), but many countries are working hard to see that civil unions and other methods are being used.

Democrats change their positions with the simple reading of opinion polls. (Cheap shot, again) (That is one of the reasons why I am not a democrat) so more will come on board as they see that changing their positions will mean more votes.

But to the people that are interested in real human rights and not the fight d’jour, it will be a huge struggle. We’re here, were Qu*r, get used to it is a great slogan to make others mad, but bringing the human rights issues to the forefront is the only way to resolve this.

By USinUK

July 14, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

I admitted that I was wrong but both of you are blowing up over it. Sort of puts the whole issue in the perfect perspective.

hrmmm … I’ve reread the 10:29 post (as well as the Fri afternoon posts) but didn’t see where you admitted you were wrong … musta been in teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeny tiny font.

The more the two of you rant, the more you prove their point.

www.dictionary.com

please look up the word “rant”. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “you use that word all the time, but it doesn’t mean what you think it means”

By Gale

July 14, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

JokesOn, I think religious groups that accept public funding should have to follow all government requirements for receiving public funding. This has been my big complaint about the recent Bush and Obama push for religion-based services and for churches that take an obvious political stand. Either act like a church and do not take public funding, or follow the rules of public funding, including the religious tax exemption.

Private companies should be immune from suit for refusing business, IMO. However, I guess that issue was pivotal in the black civil rights movement in the South where restaurants refused service to blacks. I guess it is the same thing. The plaintifs should have simply found a different photographer in the case you mention. I can’t believe there are not plenty willing to do the shoot who are just as good.

By chuck

July 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

Archie,Last week you said some pretty uninformed things, that frankly shocked me a little bit. You claimed that I failed to answer these “questions” in my post:

Man all this stuff is recorded in the Bible so when did we lose our moral compass, whatever that is? Was it 7/10/2008 based on my post? Was it 1776? Was it in the 1800’s when the majority could rape minority women with impunity? Was it when Native americans were cheated out of their land? When was there ever a time when our government officials didn’t lie? When did we lose our moral compass? A better question is what the heck does that mean?

Let’s start with the last question first: I found a really good description on a website.

A defined Moral Compass leads to personal empowerment. By providing a clear route through societies increasingly complex ethical dilemmas it enables individuals to have the moral courage to stand for what is right. It does this by applying consistent defined principles to ethical problems, rather than applying “the best of intentions”, which are expressions of personal preference and not necessarily ethical. http://www.themoralcompass.co.uk/case.htm

Keeping that in mind, all of the other questions are EASILY answered, and I answered them with this statement in the next post to you:

NO, THE ACTS ARE NOT NEW. WHAT IS NEW IS THAT SEEMINGLY INTELLIGENT AND SELF-PROCLAIMED MORAL PEOPLE ACCEPT THEM AS OKAY RATHER THAN CONDEMNING THEM.

As for your insistence that Jesus was TOLERANT, I want to explain something to you about the idea of “JUDGING”:

“Don’t judge me! The Bible even says ‘Judge not lest ye be judged.” The world often takes this verse (out of its context) and uses it to accuse Christians of being “judgmental” when they speak of sin. In the context of the verse Jesus is telling His disciples not to judge one another, something the Bible condemns (see John 21:21-23, Romans 14:10, and James 4:11). He speaks of seeing a speck in a brother’s eye. In John 7:24 He said, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” If a man steals, lies, commits adultery or murder, etc., the Christian can make a (righteous) moral judgment and say that the actions were morally wrong, and that these sins will have eternal consequences. Chuck Colson said: “True tolerance is not a total lack of judgment. It’s knowing what should be tolerated - and refusing to tolerate that which shouldn’t.”

The bottom line is that there are MORAL ABSOLUTES. These don’t change because of the whims of the times.

Sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is WRONG.

Homosexuality is WRONG.

Murder is WRONG.

Stealing is WRONG.

These things don’t become right just because “times change”.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

Rick

i don’t even recognize this country anymore.

As opposed to when you were younger and gay marriage was legal here in the states?

Once you get rid of the Republicans, what will you do about all the democrats that oppose gay marriage?

By USinUK

July 14, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

Jokes -

One area that gay marriage has already started to impact is religious foundations that get government funding, for they have to allow the marriage/union take place on that funded property. Will be interesting how that pans out.

I know you’re not talking about churches - what kind of property do you mean?

By Lily Toad

July 14, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

Gale, my health care comment is directed at situations such as yours, where you are able to extend your employee benefits to your partner. If you two were married you would get the same rights as married people (as you know), which is a reason to not discriminate. My point is that no one should be dependent on their partner/spouse in order to get health insurance.

My company, which is headquartered in NY, but has locations in several states, offers domestic partner benefits. When GA passed the constitutional amendment, I was worried as to how that would affect the partner benefits. If someone want to interpret it narrowly, they could say the company was prohibited from offering partner benefits under the constitution of GA, to which I would say my company is not treating all employees equally. Fortunately that didn’t happen, but it could under all the various state laws. So I suggest taking health care away from employee benefits and provide health care to all.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

gale

You are an impressive person. You rely on facts and are willing to state all the facts. You should work for our state department.

I don’t think churches get government funding. They get tax breaks, but not direct funding.

The government forcing ideals onto companies is a slippery slope. That is why affirmative action is much more prevalent in government jobs.

By Vomitus Projectus

July 14, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

Stealing is wrong unless the Vice President’s business acquaintances are stealing from the U.S. Treasury. Then it’s just the American way. Murder is wrong, but of course, it depends on how you define murder. Dropping bombs on a country whose inhabitants did not attack your country, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, is only murder if you’re a godless Democrat. It’s “the right thing to do” if you’re a Republican. If you go to (a protestant American) church every Sunday and vote only for Republicans and praise Bush and Cheney for their splendid handling of Osama Bin Laden’s attacks on America, and the exodus of funds from the US Treasury and U.S taxpayers into the private, tax-sheltered pockets of the American aristocracy and their Saudi friends, then you are ONE RIGHTEOUS DUDE with a healthy MORAL COMPASS, right?

Some people matter. Some people don’t. Vote Republican to keep it this way.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

UsinUK

Keep it up. Keep screaming about how civil and fair minded you are. I think it is working really well.

By chuck

July 14, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

Only a bigot would seek to deny the rights and services he or she enjoys from the government to a group of fellow citizens simply because they are different. If you think Georgia should issue a marriage licence to any man and woman who want it, but deny it to two men or two women who want it, then YOU ARE A BIGOT. Look in the mirror. Wear the t-shirt proudly. Bigot.

I’ll wear that t-shirt proudly. No problem. I think however, that you should buy one for yourself also unless you agree to the following.

1) Issuing Driver’s Licenses to 12 year-olds who want one.

2) Doing away with Indian Reservations and kicking them off of that land. Why should they get land just because they are Indians?

3) Doing away with Social Security. Why should those people get a check just because they are old or disabled?

4) Doing away with ALL sex laws including sex with children. After all if ADULTS can have sex, shouldn’t kids be allowed to?

5) Doing away with affirmative action.

6) Doing away with ALL PUBLIC HOUSING, FINANCIAL AID for college, FOOD STAMPS, WELFARE….

You get the picture. Obviously, different groups get different benefits/help from the government, RIGHT OR WRONG. Get over it.

By USinUK

July 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

(ahem)

for anyone who is interested in the truth about how most Dems feel about gay marriage, may I again point you to the Pew Research center:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/868/gay-marriage

As noted, there has been virtually no decline in opposition among conservative Republicans and white evangelicals, who are much more likely than others to rate gay marriage as a very important issue in their vote. By contrast, liberal Democrats are more supportive of gay marriage than they were four years ago; fully three-quarters favor permitting gays and lesbians to wed legally (up from 63% in July 2004); 42% of liberal Democrats strongly favor gay marriage, up from 31% four years ago. But fewer than a quarter of liberal Democrats (23%) say that gay marriage will be a very important issue in their voting decision; that is slightly less than the percentage of liberal Democrats who rated gay marriage as very important in October 2004 (28%).

just sayin.

By Yes you are

July 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this

“I’ll wear that t-shirt proudly. I’ll bet you already have three in your closet.

1) Issuing Driver’s Licenses to 12 year-olds who want one. The DDS doesn’t even issue one to all 16-year-olds who want one. There are competency tests that do not ask the kids who their crush of the week is because that would be discriminatory and UN-American.

2) Doing away with Indian Reservations and kicking them off of that land. Why should they get land just because they are Indians? Yo, ‘tard: Whitey stole their land. Maybe they are entitled to some land because it belonged to their murdered forefathers before your ancestors stole it. You never studied history, did you?

3) Doing away with Social Security. Why should those people get a check just because they are old or disabled? You’d like that, wouldn’t you? Age is as “equal opportunity” as anything can possibly be. Can you say that about yourself?

4) Doing away with ALL sex laws including sex with children. After all if ADULTS can have sex, shouldn’t kids be allowed to? Stay away from my children, PERVERT! Thank GOD you don’t work with children with your obssession over other people’s private parts. Gross.

5) Doing away with affirmative action. Sure! On January 20, 2009 when Obama takes the oath of office, it will no longer be necessary. Thank you for your vote.

You get the picture. Yeah, yours is coming through in high-def. Crystal clear, but not pretty.

Obviously, different groups get different benefits/help from the government, RIGHT OR WRONG. Based on who they think about when they close their eyes and touch themselves? Don’t we have a better criteria than THAT?

Get over it. Make me, bigot.

By chuck

July 14, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

So thank you for admitting you are a bigot. You are in favor of giving OLD PEOPLE a check but not young people. You want to discriminate against children who want to drive and have sex. You are in favor of allowing poor people and Indians to live on government land and not the rest of us “Americans”. In fact, you are bigotted against everyone except GAY PEOPLE who want to get married like NORMAL people.

BTW, I am bigotted because I am against all of those things/people IN THOSE SITUATIONS.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

for anyone who is interested in the truth about how most Dems feel about gay marriage, may I again point you to the Pew Research center:

And this is the problem. I wasn’t discussing the general population. I was talking about elected lawmakers. I said:

but the vast majority of democrats in Washington also don’t support gay marriage.

So now, instead of continuing the discussion, I need to stop and tend to the hysterics of someone trying desperately to counter what they thought I had said. But, of course that person has never been wrong, so I guess I was talking about a different subject than I thought I was discussing,.

Again, she is certainly not interested in a discussion, but rifling through my posts to find something to complain about, even if she has to make it up.

This was the actual issue I mentioned, in case anyone is REALLY interested in what I was saying:

http://www.washblade.com/2006/11-17/news/national/national.cfm

Last week’s election results may be more of a mixed bag for gay rights supporters than many originally thought.

At least 13 of 50 newly elected House and Senate Democrats oppose same-sex marriage, with two of those backing constitutional amendments to ban such unions.

According to research conducted by the Washington Blade, 16 Democrats elected Nov. 7 prefer civil unions to full marriage rights.

Nine incoming Democrats of the 50 examined by the Blade were verified to support full marriage equality for gay couples. They are Sen. elect Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), and Reps. elect Ed Perlmutter (Colo.), Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy (Conn.), John Sarbanes (Md.), Keith Ellison (Minn.), Carol Shea-Porter (N.H.), Yvette Clarke (N.Y.) and Stephen Cohen (Tenn.).

Forty-two incoming Democrats oppose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Issue positions were culled from campaign statements, news reports, voter guides and interviews with gay activists across the nation. The Blade identified nine new senators and 41 representatives who won their races last week. A handful of races remained undecided at press time; the research focused exclusively on freshman Democrats.

Those nine Democrats who favor marriage equality will be at odds with Reps. elect Brad Ellsworth (Ind.) and Nicholas Lampson (Texas), who support a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Experts said the split illuminates political divisions among incoming Democrats.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

chuck

So you are once again arguing with a poster that no one has ever seen before but knows everything about you. And they are calling you names? Say it ain’t so.

By Gale

July 14, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

Well, we seem to have diverted from rational discussion into the normal mire already. It would be good if we could all press our ideas and opinions without insisting that everyone who does not agree is … I find I cannot come up with a suitible term that I am willing to use. Cretin, comes to mind. But that isn’t quite right. There are many people I don’t agree with, but it doesn’t make them horrid or subhuman. How about discussing the topic without the gross exagerations?

Lily Toad, your point is well taken and I agree; the complexities of funding universal healthcare not withstanding. Some countries appear to do this quite well and we can probably come up with something acceptable here.

Truth, thanks, but actually, I only give facts I am aware of as I am too lazy to go searching for more facts. And sometimes, the facts as I know them are wrong.

By chuck

July 14, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

Yes, once again someone claims to know who I am based on one sarcastic post. Lovely how certain these lefty loons are.

By chuck

July 14, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this

Actually though, I think “Yes You Are” is actually Kimberly trying to be clever.

By Gale

July 14, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

“but the vast majority of democrats in Washington also don’t support gay marriage.” I wonder how much of this stated position is a public stand for the purpose of the voters? (Rhetorical question.)

Regarding: a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. It would be interesting if this became the first time in American history that an ammendment was added to the constitution specifically to exclude a group of people from the rights of all other citizens. It would not make me proud of my country. The notion is counter to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

By JokesOn

July 14, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

Just back from lunch…

The Big Joke has proven that he will never have the character to admit that he is also the problem. How’s it going for you, so far?

Then explain to me why no one else into calling names and cussing other that you, and usually the first post before any “provoking” happens.

My discussions with everyone else, and USinUK also, are civil.

USinUK, *I know you’re not talking about churches - what kind of property do you mean? *

There is in this example a gazebo and boardwalk that was partially government funded to build with a church. The church wanted to deny gays the right to reserve it for a wedding. The same goes for some parks and restored buildings.

By chuck

July 14, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

No Gale, What is contrary to the Bill of Rights is to give SPECIAL RIGHTS to a group of people because of their BEHAVIOR.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

Gale

I only give facts I am aware of as I am too lazy to go searching for more facts. And sometimes, the facts as I know them are wrong.

i know what you mean. But you aren’t blessed with a proof reading like I am.

I usually just don’t have the time to look it up. The problem i have is that if a statistic or fact is actually relevant to the discussion, i will take the time. What drives me nuts is that I can mention a round number about a minor point and if I am not dead on, I get what you are seeing. It makes a simple discussion like walking through thick mud.

Human rights for everyone is important. But the approaches to obtaining those rights in this very emotional, opinionated country is critical. The vast number of countries in the world do not support gay marriage, but the stats are different when the talk is about civil unions and human rights. It is obvious that fighting doesn’t solve problems. Some countries have figured it out and because they were interested in the actual rights instaed of a name at the top of a form those countriies now offer comparable human rights.

I read a bunch about this over the weekend, but i don’t remember exect facts and figures so i will stay away from talking about that.

By RF

July 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

Sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is WRONG

Homosexuality is WRONG.

Murder is WRONG

Stealing is WRONG

chuck, this is one of those issues where morality and legality collide in a way that will never be settled in this country. Cheating, murder, and stealing are crimes which hurt others, thus interfering with the normal function of a person’s life. Those are legal issues in most societies (except for cheating which is condoned in some societies, for men at least). Homosexuality is a moral/religious issue that doesn’t harm anyone. That’s one of the reasons the line between church and state has to be so carefully monitored so that moral issues don’t become legal ones by writing laws based solely on religious principle. Most of our laws are based, in some part, on our general moral principles, which are influenced by our religious beliefs. We can’t base a law solely on that belief though without expecting at some point for it to be challenged. Laws which target specific groups and either limit or deny their rights based solely on moral/religious ideology are slowly coming to be recognized as discriminatory- take the laws against interracial marriage as an example and all the laws that kept African-Americans from voting, etc. Those existed until someone challenged them and they were struck down because they were inherently unconstitutional. People believed those laws were perfectly acceptable, right up to the Supreme Court for a while there. You can’t legislate against something unless it threatens the fundamental freedoms of another. Murder does, but homosexuality affects noone but the individuals who accept their sexual orientation as such. It’s not like you need laws to keep homosexuals in check so they don’t “spread” their orientation to unsuspecting straight folks.

You’re allowed to believe in it being wrong, and I fully support your conviction. Be careful though, how you judge others. Christ had limits to his tolerance, but they generally were much broader than the folks following him at times, and he certainly lived by the standard of “love the sinner, hate the sin.” He chose to speak to people his own disciples cautioned him not to speak to, and he touched lives by never turning someone away for a moral issue. The holy spirit convicts and changes hearts, not us.

By Chuck

July 14, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

Homophobe HO-mo-fobe (noun) One whose strong homosexual cravings are in direct opposition to one’s indoctrinated belief system and who exhibits continuing verbal outrage as a mechanism for concealing his or her own inner conflict and desires. The condition is common in societies that reject science and cling to ancient religious lore and superstitions, and rare in educated, freedom-based societies.

Synonym: Closeted, afraid Antonym: Self-assured, enlightened

By RF

July 14, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

Truth- the battle is, IMO, about the word “marriage” and its connection to the church. It is interesting how many people would support human rights but deny a group the right to marry. I think if states decided to recognize all unions of two individuals as just that, civil unions, afforded the legal rights of a traditional marriage,and let churches have the word “marriage” we could solve this problem rather quickly. Problem is, that word is too ingrained in our society and it will take a while to change that. The issue in California may, IMO, help move the focus a little more in the direction of human rights and recognizing legal unions of two people without needing the word “married”.

By Lily Toad

July 14, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I agree with this statement: What is contrary to the Bill of Rights is to give SPECIAL RIGHTS to a group of people because of their BEHAVIOR

It constantly amazes me that people who choose to have sex with a member of the opposite sex think that only they deserve SPECIAL RIGHTS to inheritance, spousal immunity, retirement benefits, special taxation, etc. Why is this?

By RF

July 14, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

No Gale, What is contrary to the Bill of Rights is to give SPECIAL RIGHTS to a group of people because of their BEHAVIOR

It’s not about SPECIAL rights, it’s about SAME rights. One problem here is that we all too often look at a group of people asking for similar legal treatment that way. They’re only asking for what hetero couples have legally. That’s not asking for special rights or any above and beyond what marriage legally gives a couple already.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this

chuck

I think it is deeper than just behavior. I don’t believe that all gay people are born gay, but i believe that many were. it was no surprise when Glen, the clarinet player in my high school band came out. I’m pretty sure Glen was gay as a fetus.

If a man is never attracted to women, but is always attracted to other men, that man was probably born gay. How a person is born is not something that should be discriminated against.

The entire issue has so many pitfalls, but i know some good people that are gay and have been in a stable relationship for years. (Which is obviously a higher standard than I hold to myself)

Republicans have always been the party that fights for the rights of others. it was the downtrodden African Americans and now it is the unborn that we are fighting for. We are portrayed as being on the wrong side of the fence on this one, but the facts say that a small percentage of democrats are actually willing to support gay marriage with a public vote. . Even Barney Frank says that it is less than 50 out of the 220+ that are in Congress.

It is just another political hammer to beat us with as is evident if you read the blog. It doesn’t matter that their leaders don’t support it. it only matters that ours don’t. Combine that with the mainstream media’s continued propaganda about the issue and we will lose many, many votes over this.

By Billy

July 14, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

Yes You Are — Umm, chuckie does work with children…

By Lily Toad

July 14, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

Republicans have always been the party that fights for the rights of others. Where were the Republicans on women’s rights? Gay rights? Immigrant rights? Endangered animal rights?

By chuck

July 14, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

RF, thank you for the thoughtful, non-vitriolic post. Unfortunately, we don’t get much of that anymore. As you know, I disagree with much of what you said.

Here’s my problem. For years we have been warning about the “slippery slope”. Well, those fears have proven to be based in reality. You said:

That’s one of the reasons the line between church and state has to be so carefully monitored so that moral issues don’t become legal ones by writing laws based solely on religious principle. Most of our laws are based, in some part, on our general moral principles, which are influenced by our religious beliefs. We can’t base a law solely on that belief though without expecting at some point for it to be challenged. Laws which target specific groups and either limit or deny their rights based solely on moral/religious ideology are slowly coming to be recognized as discriminatory- take the laws against interracial marriage as an example and all the laws that kept African-Americans from voting, etc.

These laws are not based SOLEY on religious beliefs. Laws against sodomy have been in place since colonial times. These things could have been PROTECTED by the Constitution, but they weren’t. It was universally believed that homosexuality was deviant behavior…no different from ANY OTHER deviant behavior. People knew these things happened but they knew that this kind of behavior was JUST THAT…behavior.

What most people don’t understand is that this movement toward “normalization” of the gay lifestyle is a result of INTENSIVE pressure by the left in EVERY aspect of society…ESPECIALLY the PUBLIC SCHOOLS and the media. They want to indoctrinate children to accept homosexuality as normal. When it comes down to it, people in general know that homosexuality is no more normal than pedophilia, bestiality, foot fetishes and any other form of perversion. We don’t CODIFY behavior and give it special rights.

Think about this. Freedmen and Women didn’t get the right to vote through the courts did they? They got them through a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. They understood that the Constitution as our governing document, didn’t intend those rights, but it did include a method for CHANGING the Constitution through the Amendments process. Homosexuals don’t want people to really understand that because they don’t have a snowball’s chance of passing an Amendment in their favor. The one place they do have a chance is through left wing activist judges.

I understand where you are coming from RF, but I will fight against it to the bitter end, because it’s the right thing to do.

By JokesOn

July 14, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

Where were the Republicans on women’s rights? Gay rights? Immigrant rights? Endangered animal rights?

What some people refuse to get is that in another time period, many of us would be republicans. But other time periods do not really matter, what matters is the here and now.

The current democrats are closer to the republicans of old and the current republicans are more like the fascists of old.

By Gale

July 14, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

“No Gale, What is contrary to the Bill of Rights is to give SPECIAL RIGHTS to a group of people because of their BEHAVIOR.”

It is no more about gay behavior than it is about straight behavior. I don’t believe the majority of startaights simply behave heterosexual. They ARE heterosexual. Why would anyone persist in declaring homosexuality a behavior but deny that heterosexuality follows the same rules?

RF ( I think), Comparing civil unions in the US to those in some European countries is not exactly a valid comparison. In the US, marriages and civil unions are controlled at the state level. Thus, a civil union is only recognized in the state where the contract was performed. Marriages have been granted blanket acceptance, in other states and at the federal level. If this same were true of civil unions in the US, then a civil union would work. And within a few years, everyone would probably still be calling them marriages, regardless of the legal name.

By chuck

July 14, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

Truth, As one website says (paraphrased somewhat):we are ALL born “that way” because ALL OF US are born with a sin nature and sinful desires (Ephesians 2:1-3). It is natural for them, and for all of us, to be tempted to do things that God says are wrong. In the same way, pedophiles and adulterers (alcoholics, drug addicts, etc.) don’t make a conscious decision to “choose” that self-destructive lifestyle; they simply give in to their sinful desires. However, although sin is natural for unbelievers, that doesn’t mean God wants them to remain that way. God can set them free from their sinful nature (Romans 7:23-8:2), give them new desires (Ephesians 4:22-24), and help them withstand temptations (1 Corinthians 10:13).

By Gale

July 14, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

Chuck, homosexuals don’t need a Constitutional ammendment. They have one; the 14th.

By JokesOn

July 14, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

It was universally believed that homosexuality was deviant behavior…no different from ANY OTHER deviant behavior.

And epilepsy was considered by the majority to be evil spirits possessing a person. Some things are learned and proven (50% the way there with homosexuality) to be different than we (they) all thought.

By chuck

July 14, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

Gale, I can’t believe that I have to explain this but, heterosexuality is OBVIOUSLY natural. EVEN IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD, you should understand that. The Bible says that God created them MALE and FEMALE and He defined marriage. Everyone is BORN heterosexual. You don’t have to make a choice to be heterosexual. You DO HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE (BY GIVING IN TO SINFUL DESIRES) TO BECOME A HOMOSEXUAL.

By JokesOn

July 14, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

Gale, I can’t believe that I have to explain this but, heterosexuality is OBVIOUSLY natural. EVEN IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD, you should understand that. The Bible says that God created them MALE and FEMALE and He defined marriage. Everyone is BORN heterosexual. You don’t have to make a choice to be heterosexual. You DO HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE (BY GIVING IN TO SINFUL DESIRES) TO BECOME A HOMOSEXUAL.

No reason to scream chuck.

There is plenty of evidence that all animals can be born gay. Or, do they (all other animals) chose to live a sinful life too?

By Lily Toad

July 14, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

Joke, What some people refuse to get is that in another time period, many of us would be republicans. But other time periods do not really matter, what matters is the here and now.

Are you talking about me and my response about Republicans and Women’s Rights? I know all about the party of Lincoln and Southern Democrats. I was responding to Truth’s post about Republicans ALWAYS being the party that fights for others.

By chuck

July 14, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

See ya’ll later. I’ve got to get back to work. I’ll try to check back around 5 to see the fits of apoplexy.

By Actually

July 14, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

Acutally, homosexuality IS NORMAL, for a certain percentage of the population. You can argue all day what that percentage is, but you cannot argue that homosexuality has always existed. Successful tribes, societies, populations, etc. had a place for them as soliers, protectors, and of course, the ever-enduring Priesthood. Members of a society who do not themselves reproduce provide an extra set of adult hands to build and strengthen his or her tribe or community. Childless aunts and uncles cared for children, built, engineered, farmed, traded, and battled enemies in every successful society you can name. Rome wasn’t built in a day and it certainly wasn’t defended or decorated entirely by hets.

Some societies (like Iran and Afghanistan, for example) advocate harsh penalites, including execution, for homosexual behavior. These societies do not represent the values of the United States of America. American citizens who wish to deny equal rights to homosexuals also do not represent the values of the United States of America, which is allegedly built on the principles of individual self-determination, aka, FREEDOM, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Such American citizens prefer Islamic law to our own and should be approached with caution and great suspicion, up to and including wiretapping of their personal bigoted conversations to be read verbatim on the Faux News Channel “Your E-Mails and Private Conversations” Report. In fact, there are rumors that the American Association of Hypocrites to Deny Equal Rights to Q——s (AAHDERQ) may have partnered with OBL to destroy Windows on the World, a WTC restaurant that served delicious trendy cocktails to well-heeled New Yorkers of androgynous attire. The Pilgrims sought to escape religious persecution, but their descendants have revived it.

Fortunately, in Georgia we can now carry our firearms anywhere, and eliminate members of the AAHDERQ whenever we encounter them.

By Lily Toad

July 14, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

chuck has just used the “argumentum ad exitem” — send an inflammatory post with lots of caps and references to the Bible and then exit.

By GOB

July 14, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this

The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a “make love, not war” primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals. - From National Geographic

Those damn apes, choosing the dishonor god. Who do they think they are? I mean they all know it isnt natural, yet they do it anyway. If only we could get some christian bonobos to go and be missionaries they would stop all this nonsense…

By JokesOn

July 14, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

Are you talking about me and my response about Republicans and Women’s Rights? I know all about the party of Lincoln and Southern Democrats. I was responding to Truth’s post about Republicans ALWAYS being the party that fights for others.

I was simply pointing out that neither party, if looked at throughout all of time, has been absolutely consistent on issues(while agreeing with you). To point to another time as proof to what a party stands for now is flawed.

Like Chris Rock said on CC the other night “anyone that decides their position on an issue before they even have heard it is an idiot.” He was referring to people that declare themselves absolute liberals/conservatives/repubs/democrats.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

chuck

I respect your opinion, but we look at the Bible differently.

Glen, (my previous example) was never going to mate with a woman. it has nothing to do with sin, he has a different genetic makeup than heterosexuals do.

But I am going to leave it at that. Sometime when I don’t have clients up my butt, i would love to discuss the bible with you. I am a person who reads the Old Testament almost every day. It is a how-to book for a successful civilization.

Isn’t it weird how that unknown name caller that knew everything about you just magically disappeared? LOL!!

By Gale

July 14, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

Chuck, for when you return. I will grant that heterosexuality is natural. Homosexuality is ALSO natural. It simply occurs in a smaller set of the population.

If I do not believe in god, yours or anyone else’s, why should it make any difference at all to me what it says in the Bible? The Bible is not part of the constitution of the USA. The Bible was and is, along with many, many other written works an influence to people who wrote the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and all its amendments.

For the sake of my eyes, which have threatened to roll out of their sockets since Chuck arrived, I try to ignore him. I consider it a personality flaw that I feel compelled to respond to him.

By Lily Toad

July 14, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

What is not natural is how society forces the norm of heterosexuality down everyone’s throat. Many of us who consider ourselves gay or lesbian have had sex with members of the opposite sex because of societal pressures. Speaking only for myself, when I finally had the opportunity to have sex with a woman, it was like, “Where have I been all my life?” and really felt at home in my sexuality.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad

I’m not about to try and defend every issue in regard to the Republicans. but the same Dixiecrats also opposed women’s rights. Gay rights? Where were the democrats all these years? They controlled Congress from 1952 until 1994 and I just didn’t see a lot of pro-gay laws passed by them. Clinton promised them everything and gave them very little. (What a surprise!)

Immigrant rights? What legal immigrant rights are in question? Illegal immigration is illegal. Isn’t it?

Animal rights? that’s another week of discussions.

By NotJokesOnJustaSniper

July 14, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

Sometime when I don’t have clients up my butt,

Should we add Male Prostitute to the life accomplishments?

By Gale

July 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad, I think “forcing heterosexuality down our throats” is a bit extreme. But I agree with your sentiment. Everywhere we look, the relationships are straight. Yet, witness the few days of Gay Pride, and people are shouting about gays flouting their lifestyle. Really, Atlanta is one of the largest gay populations in the country, if not the world. Yet, many people never realize they are surrounded by homosexuals. Normally, gays don’t hold hands or kiss in public. Straights often do this.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this

gale

The Bible was and is, along with many, many other written works an influence to people who wrote the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and all its amendments.

i’m glad a Republican didn’t say that.

By NotJokesOnJustaSniper

July 14, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

i just couldn’t help myself. Control of my little emotions is not my strong point.

By Gale

July 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

I remember Bill Clinton promising to repeal the ban on gays in the military. I remember several of the joint cheifs threatening to resign over the issue. DADT was a compromise that has never worked. The only thing I fault Bill for was not having the b*lls to tell the generals to go ahead and quit. It wasn’t as if there were no competent generals available to take their places.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

NotJokesOnJustaSniper

i’m just glad that it is finally becoming more and more clear who is the real problem in this blog.

Thanks for that, NotJokesOn.

By Lily Toad

July 14, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this

Truth, and I’m not about to defend the Democrats, either. I’d prefer a progressive party, but if I were you I’d avoid making statements about Republicans always standing up for people’s rights.

By NYer

July 14, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad,

I am glad you are happy with your sexuality.

I must point out though, that there is a difference between what is natural and what is normal. It may be natural to a person to be homosexual. However, if 95% of people do a certain thing one way, and 5% of people do it a different way, the 5%, by definition, are abnormal.

Taking the emotion out of it - I’m left handed. Only 9% of the world is lefty. I’m abnormal. But being left-hand dominant was and is totally natural. There’s nothing wrong with me.

My point is that there is nothing wrong with naturally occuring abnormalities. They occur in nature all the time - they just aren’t “normal” regardless of how much one would like them to be.

The overwhelming majority of people are straight. That is why heterosexuality is the “norm” and homosexuality is not. Lastly, the fact that something is normal and commonplace does not mean it is forced down everyone’s throat.

By Gale

July 14, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

Truth, I might also say in our modern time, that “Calvin and Hobbes” is influential to legislators. It is a simple fact that people are a composite of what they read and hear.

For example, I agree with Lily Toad about many gays experiencing straight sex because as children, that was what they saw as normal. It just so happens, that for a gay person, there is something always “not right” about heterosexual sex. One usually cannot define it until one experiences the “right” kind of sex. It is something heterosexuals don’t encounter because heterosexual sex is “right” for them.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

Gale

I don’t think that straights sucking faces has ever been accepted as the behavior of people with any class. The term “get a room” didn’t happen because of gays.

I used to play music at Callaway Gardens and there are few things I would like to forget as much as watching some of those old coots, going at it on the dance floor. At one point, we actually made a sign our lead singer would hold up that said: Get A Room. The audience loved it.

But I do know what you are saying. But remember, most guys would love to watch two lesbians going at it, if they are both attractive.

My question is: do straight women like to watch two men? (OK, Maybe this is heading down the wrong path)

By JokesOn

July 14, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this

Gale,

The Bible was and is, along with many, many other written works an influence to people who wrote the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and all its amendments.

That is not easily backed up by facts. Look up the founders beliefs and you will find nearly all of them were deists, that did not believe the bible was the word of god; much less the last word.

All of those concepts also predate christianity. To say the most recent incarnation of a tenet was the influence is easily debatable.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this

Gale

The only thing I fault Bill for was not having the blls to tell the generals to go ahead and quit.*

Making excuses for politicians that make promises and break them is not good. I’m still waiting on that Universal Health Care they promised. I could buy a Porsche for what I pay for my health care. John Kerry promised the same thing with a Republican Congress. Pelosi promised us cheap gas if the dems were allowed to control Congress. LOL!! I think we all know what a lie that was.

Bill knew how big his b*lls were when he lied about his promises. I’m not about to give him one inch of a break. Don’t make the promises that you know you can’t deliver. But more than anything, don’t vote for the SOB that you KNOW is lying to you.

(Sorry. Had to preach a little. Can I get an Amen?)

By RF

July 14, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

Chuck- even the founding fathers apparently believed that homosexuality was a “behavior”, implying that it is a chosen state. I used to believe that too and fought what was an inborn trait in myself. I spent years praying, feeling guilty, hiding, and seeking every avenue I could find to be freed from it. Believe me, if it were as simple as praying for deliverance, I would be the poster child for it. It just ain’t as simple as that I’m afraid. It’s easy to see it as a chosen behavior when one is on the outside looking in on it. I spent years in a marriage that was a front and a sin for its lack of truth. I hurt a young woman dearly who didn’t deserve to be put through that just so I could continue to fight what I knew and had always known. I think if it were a choice, then everyone would have to make it. Sexuality just isn’t a chosen thing all the time. I think it may be a function of genetic coding that occasionally goes against nature. Man is a complex being and his genetic coding has many more variables than any other animal. Other animals weed out the genetically imperfect eventually. Man doesn’t, so we have some inborn traits that don’t fit the “norm” but are still there. Homosexuality gets lumped with all other “deviant behaviors” which is why gay rights issues create such dissent in our society. It isn’t deviant, it’s just a variation and just isn’t as simple as being a chosen behavior that one can just switch. Laws have been in place against sodomy for a long time, but that doesn’t make them constitutionally sound. You can legislate the physical act all you want, but the sexual orientation is still present.

Thanks for not taking my earlier post in any but a respectful debating tone. It’s hard sometimes to get a point across without sounding angry and that is rarely my intent. I have many friends with the same conviction you have about homosexuality and I respect their right to that belief, given that they’ve never felt the way I do and realize it. Some of them have come to understand that it is something that isn’t chosen, but many have refused to even speak to me once they’ve found out. Might as well be a leper in their eyes. I have to watch myself because I tend to judge most christians by the behavior of those very judgmental folks.

Truth- in actuality, both parties at their worst have fought against human rights at one time or another. I think you’re reaching a bit to say the republicans are the only ones concerned with fairness in human rights. Our past is littered with human rights abuses supported by both parties. There are currently people on both sides of the political fence who support or oppose gay rights issues. Human rights issues don’t often fall solely to one party or the other. That’s why I stay in the middle so I can vote on individual issues not connected to party lines.

By Gale

July 14, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

Truth, I can’t speak for straight women. I think men like to watch lesbians because they fantasize themselves into the the scene. That comment is based on things I have read. I don’t think most women do that because women tend to relate more to the relationship than to the sex. I think it is part of the same reason men tend to think of homosexuality in terms of men with men, and why it appears to bother them so much. Some men (generalization alert) don’t really think women can have sex without a man. Lesbians, to them, are just affectionate roomies.

That is a generalization, BTW. My experience is limited.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad

No. I’m probably always going to defend Republicans.

Somebody has to.

To tell you the truth, I don’t like any of them. The last really smart one that seemed to understand what was going on was Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Sometime when you have a chance, read what he said about the Military Industrial Complex.

By chuck

July 14, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

NYer, very well said.

So “Yes You Are” AKA “Actually”, AKA “Kimmie”. I would say that you have proven yourself to be the vilest form of bigot now that you are advocating KILLING Christians by shooting them down in the street.

Fortunately, in Georgia we can now carry our firearms anywhere, and eliminate members of the AAHDERQ whenever we encounter them.

That puts you right up there with Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.

You really should be ashamed of yourself.

By RF

July 14, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

But more than anything, don’t vote for the SOB that you KNOW is lying to you

Well that about sums up 99.9% of politicians out there at one point or another!! Why vote at all then? LOL

They make promises to get votes and sometimes genuinely intend to do what they’ve promised. Political wheeling and dealing being what is makes the genuine promises difficult to fulfill at best. The problem is telling who really intends to even try to fulfill their promises. Sadly, that isn’t many that I know of in recent years.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this

Gale

Well of course. Lesbians are just killing time until the right man comes along. LOL!! The fantasy is that the guy walks in and the two women look up and say in a very sexy voice: ‘bout time. That’s really the way it happens, isn’t it?

My mom who is 82 came down for a visit last year. My hood is extremely diverse. We were setting on the front porch and two women walked by holding hands. These were a couple of the two least attractive people I have ever seen in my entire life.

I was waiting on some grand words of wisdom from Mom and sure enough. She just quietly said: I’m just glad they found each other.

By chuck

July 14, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this

RF,

I hurt a young woman dearly who didn’t deserve to be put through that just so I could continue to fight what I knew and had always known. I think if it were a choice, then everyone would have to make it. Sexuality just isn’t a chosen thing all the time. I think it may be a function of genetic coding that occasionally goes against nature. Man is a complex being and his genetic coding has many more variables than any other animal.

What is the WORST that would have happened if you had remained in your marriage? You would have been sacrificing YOUR desires for those of your wife. Would you not do the same thing in a homosexual relationship? I always TRY to put the desires of my wife and children ahead of my own. That’s what husbands and fathers do. Your argument is that you would have been living a lie. How do you know that those desires wouldn’t have ebbed over time as you resisted them? I don’t know about you but here on the dark side of 50 sex is still there but it isn’t nearly as important in our relationship as it was 25 years ago.

All sin can be traced back to really just ONE SIN…selfishness. The sins that I commit, are committed because I want my way. That is really what the Bible is talking about when it talks about sin. I still have that moment of lust come when I see a beautiful woman. If I chose to give in that desire, I would be putting MY WANTS above the needs of my family and the commandments of my God. That is where the choice comes in RF. You may or may not be able to change the DESIRE, but you CAN CONTROL WHAT YOU DO WITH THAT DESIRE.

That’s the point I am trying to make.

By Truth

July 14, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this

RF

Some may have good intentions, but some are very obvious. Some idiot running for Congress is touting replacing gasoline with wind and solar power. I am not putting a sail on my Nissan.

Like I said, John Kerry promised universal health care with a Republican Congress. Say what you want, but that is not an honorable man. Pelosi promising cheap gas? Do you really think that she thought she could deliver that?

The only political bumper sticker I have ever had on any car was one that said: Hold ALL politicians responsible. I got a lot of thumbs up for that, but I think that Republicans just thought I was talking about Democrats and Democrats thought I was talking about Republicans.

Have a good night, everyone.

By RF

July 14, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this

She just quietly said: I’m just glad they found each other ROFL!!

Truth- my sweet southern mom would precede that comment with, “well bless their hearts” so as not to sound impolite! She didn’t believe people really were homosexual until we went downtown to watch my dad in a company softball tournament. One day at Piedmont park exposed that poor woman to diversity she NEVER saw in the Alabama hills. It was a hoot just watching her. Since then, though, she’s come a long way. She truly believes now that what’s important is that a person is happy with whoever and that gender isn’t the most important consideration.

By Gale

July 15, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

JokesOn, I didn’t say the founders believed the Bible was the “word of God”, only that it, along with other writings, formed their intelectual basis of thought. For example, Greek was often still included in a classical education in that period, was it not?

Truth, “don’t vote for the SOBs I know are lying”? I believe the all ly. It is in the nature of politicians to ly to obtain votes.

Well, further responses will have to wait. Business calls and I have no more time to read or reply.

By USinUK

July 15, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this

And this is the problem. I wasn’t discussing the general population. I was talking about elected lawmakers. I said: but the vast majority of democrats in Washington also don’t support gay marriage.

So now, instead of continuing the discussion, I need to stop and tend to the hysterics of someone trying desperately to counter what they thought I had said. But, of course that person has never been wrong, so I guess I was talking about a different subject than I thought I was discussing,.

good Christmas, quit clutching your pearls. I misunderstood what you said and thought you meant Dems overall.

By USinUK

July 15, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

I always TRY to put the desires of my wife and children ahead of my own. That’s what husbands and fathers do. Your argument is that you would have been living a lie. How do you know that those desires wouldn’t have ebbed over time as you resisted them? I don’t know about you but here on the dark side of 50 sex is still there but it isn’t nearly as important in our relationship as it was 25 years ago.

fwiw, here’s my £0.02 (from second-hand experience)

my mom’s first husband was gay - he hurt her more by living a lie with her than by leaving her. you’re right that, as a husband and father, you put your needs second - but what we’re talking about here doesn’t have to do with needs per se as actually being honest about who you are. as you know, part of being married is having that one person you can totally be yourself with, warts and all, as the saying goes. that’s the convenant - that you’re giving yourself body and soul to the other person.

if you are a gay man or woman who is pretending to be a happy hetero hubby/wife then the lie, itself, is breaking the covenant you’ve made. that’s why the catholic church has no problem anulling those marriages - because they believe the convenant was never made in the first place.

it’s not about the sex - it’s about the lie.

By RF

July 15, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

If I chose to give in that desire, I would be putting MY WANTS above the needs of my family and the commandments of my God. That is where the choice comes in RF. You may or may not be able to change the DESIRE, but you CAN CONTROL WHAT YOU DO WITH THAT DESIRE

Absolutely. And that’s exactly what I did. There’s a lot I can’t get into in this forum, but let me see if I can sum it up for you. I did just what you said and I did it well. I was 100% committed to my marriage and to keeping her happy. She wasn’t stupid and realized very early on that there was something that we weren’t talking about that was like the unwanted guest at the party that everyone tries to ignore. And there’s a big difference between putting another person first and lying. I think God absolutely expects us to sacrifice our selfish desires for another. Marriages don’t last otherwise. That wasn’t the problem for us. I was good at that. I made other husbands we knew look bad. Her friends were jealous of her for what a great caring and giving husband she had. Her needs were absolutely paramount. My strongest spiritual gift is service, and I was good at sacrificing my needs for hers. You have to get past sex, Chuck. It wasn’t about that, believe it or not. Sex wanes in any relationship over time. It’s about intimacy, which goes much deeper. At first, it worked just like you said. But, relationships require honesty and trust, and she told me after the fact that she knew there was something that just wasn’t right. As we grew and the trust and intimacy became more important than the physical act of sex, it became harder and harder to lie to her. I could easily deny the desire- self-control wasn’t the problem. When we finally sat down and realized that it just wasn’t working, she was the one who brought the issue up- I don’t think I was ready to admit even to myself yet. Women have great instincts and she listened to hers. No matter how hard I worked to hide it, she knew. And once we finally got everything into the open, she was relieved. She had spent those years wondering if it was something she was doing or not doing. We discussed remaining married and fighting the truth, and tried for a while. But you can’t live a lie and she, as my partner and friend in life, couldn’t justify making me do that. As she said, it wasn’t fair to her to expect that or to me to have to do that just so we could look happy in front of our friends and our church. I had never explored my sexuality—ever. There were no past experiences or traumas that I was hiding. It was just a knowledge that I fought and even hated at times for the pariah it made me in the world I lived in then. She said it hurt her worse to see me live like that, which in the end was only hurting our relationship more. The truth actually brought us closer, believe it or not, and we couldn’t live the pretend life and be happy. As she said, it wasn’t selfish to admit the truth. It was selfish to use her and for her to use me to live up to a social standard that made us feel better because we fit in with the crowd. Too many people hide in church so that they can feel acceptable. We parted very sadly and yet closer because neither one was lying or pretending. We were summarily kicked out of our church, me for obvious reasons and her for divorcing me. We lost friends, we lost a church, but we gained so much in trust and honesty that it was worth it for us. We’ve remained friends for years and still love each other as that.

It wasn’t a mad dash then to the sex parties and wild living that you might think. You know that sex is only one aspect of a relationship. It was never just that, thankfully. I’m not a person who is driven solely by physical desire. People have to understand that the dynamics of relationships are the same for homosexuals as they are for heterosexuals. The only difference is the person you share that with and you can’t have full intimacy until you find that person. You’re looking for a life partner, friend, confidante, and soul-mate. For me, that just wasn’t a woman. My relationship with God got a lot better once I was honest with him about everything. I know you can’t believe that, but it’s true. The only choice we saw that made sense was to be honest. God already knows the truth and he’ll let you choose to live your life as you feel led. Living a lie isn’t glorifying him or allowing him to live through you and minister to others. What kind of witness was I as a liar? It’s just that- a lie, and it wasn’t proving anything to live it. I’m not deliriously happy now- life is a balance of joy and sorrow. It’s not any easier on this side, but it’s a lot more honest and that makes life worth living.

LONG-winded response, but I hope it helps you understand where I’m coming from.

By NYer

July 15, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

RF -

I am genuinely touched by your story and the wisdom you and your ex-wife displayed in dealing with the challenges that your sexuality presented. I am sorry you had to lose things in your life such as friends and a church. Now that you have overcome those losses, I hope that your self-honesty has provided a deeper and greater feeling of happiness. It certainly appears that is the case. Good for you.

By NYer

July 15, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

NYer, very well said.

Thank you, Chuck.

By Gale

July 15, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

USinUK 9:00 it’s not about the sex - it’s about the lie. That is exactly on the mark. That was the reason for my second divorce. I really, really thought it was love. But *something wasn’t right. After years of consideration I knew what wasn’t right. We divorced because I knew it was a lie to stay with him. I was never unfaithful. I din’t stop loving him. But I could not be a wife to him. (Chuck, it’s just too bad if you don’t understand that.)

RF, not as elequent as your story, but I can relate totally.

By Truth

July 15, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

USinUK

The point is that you went through my posts to others and looked for something to “get me” with. This was becoming more and more the norm. It usually doesn’t matter if it is relevant to the discussion or not.

I don’t want to argue with you. You are one of my favorite posters here. I miss talking to you, But we couldn’t talk because you insisted on getting in the middle of a fight that I was trying to avoid.

He is never more than a sideline sniper, but with the two of you tag teaming, I couldn’t get a sentence written that one of you wasn’t riffling through it to find anything to go after me with. You are right that anything is fair game, but every frigging day?

Nobody respects his opinions. look at the conclusions he draws: I sarcastically said that he was blameless and he said I was calling him names. He challenged me to explain how posts are presented after five, I do it and it makes him mad so he starts calling me a liar about having three websites. (My kid, who knew more about computers when he was nine than he will ever know, sets all that crap up for me.) And this is the guy that you would apparently support no matter how rude or vile he became.

Now you can jiminy christmas all you want, but I am not the only one that noticed.

I would rather drop it and discuss issues. How about you?

By Newzwyre

July 15, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

I’ve heard more than one person say that homosexuality is “unnnatural” because it produces no offspring. Interesting study came out recently (no pun intended) that disputes this. The homosexual may not produce offspring, but his sisters, maternal aunts and nieces etc. are far more fecund and fertile than the female relations of heterosexual males.

The genetic marker for homosexuality in men is one of the triggers for higher female fertility. It’s been an evolutionary advantage to have some population of homosexuals in your family.

a synopsis of the study can be found here — http://www.thinkgene.com/study-shows-male-homosexuality-can-be-explained-through-a-specific-model-of-darwinian-evolution/

By USinUK

July 15, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

Truth -

The point is that you went through my posts to others and looked for something to “get me” with.

Despite what you think, I wasn’t trying to “get” you - you and I disagree a lot, but I enjoy the debate (it’s like a good mental exercise). I just don’t like it when ANYone - not just you but anyone - makes an assertion a) without backing it up or b) backs it up by misrepresenting statistics to say something they don’t.

I wasn’t hunting something down, but between Shaunti’s statement that “most Californians don’t agree with gay marriage” and your “70% of people are against it”, I just felt like reality was getting set aside … as the saying goes, “you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.”

maybe it’s because I work in a very black-and-white job that analyzes economic statistics all day that makes me a stickler

bygones?

By RF

July 15, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

Like I said, John Kerry promised universal health care with a Republican Congress. Say what you want, but that is not an honorable man. Pelosi promising cheap gas? Do you really think that she thought she could deliver that

That’s exactly why I didn’t vote for Kerry. He spoke out of both sides of his mouth, and neither side was saying anything worth hearing! LOL

Pelosi has been a big disappointment. Unfortunately, only one state had anything to do with her being there, and I don’t know her record well enough to judge her beyond her failed promises to date as majority leader. I don’t believe anyone who promises any quick fix to energy.

Some idiot running for Congress is touting replacing gasoline with wind and solar power. I am not putting a sail on my Nissan LOL

I’m not looking for solar panels for my Honda either, but I do like the fact that energy and alternative energy specifically have become a top issue. I’m still waiting for a safe, viable alternative to oil. Not one yet, but I do believe there will be in the next ten years. I’m keeping a bedsheet and a broomstick handy just in case. I have a sunroof, so all I need is to teach one of the boys to turn the sail!

I, quite frankly, don’t fully trust any of the politicians right now. My theory is that they know how we feel and after all the mad dashing around to figure out how to win votes is over, we may actually see some policies in place that will answer some of the issues. Unrest and unhappiness with the system over time tends to result in some positive change. It takes time and quite a bit of fighting back and forth, but we get there.

By Gale

July 15, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

Newzwyre So homosexuality may actually be contributing to the population explosion instead of helping to keep population down? oh my!

By USinUK

July 15, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

Some idiot running for Congress is touting replacing gasoline with wind and solar power. I am not putting a sail on my Nissan

Truth -

What if the “wind power” isn’t a sail but a discreet wind turbine that charges your battery as you drive - or that stays at your home and you plug into a cell to charge your car. What if the “solar power” is solar cell you keep in your driveway to plug your car into to charge the battery.

Folks are trying to break away from Big Oil Dependency and should be applauded for thinking creatively - not derided … don’t you think?

By GOB

July 15, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

Chuck - even if someone’s desire did wan over time, and they remained married, they would still be living a lie, especially if they never came out to their spouse. That is a pretty big thing to keep a secret. In the best light, it is a lie of ommission.

It seems like a major contridiction to me to lie to your spouse every so that you can please god (which is why christians are so against gay marriage, divorce, abortion, etc - they displease god). Maybe I am missing something, but it seems like a much more fair thing, for both parties, to not live a lie.

If a man is gay, and fighting that everyday, he is not going to be as good of a husband as he should be. That isnt fair to the wife, and let’s face it, this life is pretty short, so why make yourself and someone else miserable?

By Newzwyre

July 15, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

Gale - indeed it may! But — just because the maternal relations of homosexuals tend to be more fertile, it doesn’t mean that they choose to have larger families than those without the gene.

It’s an interesting question though, because the populations with the largest families seem to be the same societies that shun and/or murder their homosexual members.

By Lily Toad

July 15, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

RF, thanks for sharing your story. Maybe some who rail against homosexuality can learn from our experiences that we want the same thing — intimacy in a loving relationship — and that’s it not just about the sex.

By Truth

July 15, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

RF

Nice post. Sorry about your problems. I do have one question. What church threw your wife out for getting a divorce. It seems that in these days that their attendance would be about 4 people. (Not questioning your veracity, I would just like to know)

I make no bones about it. National politics is a bunch of liars. And I vote Republican simply because to me, they seem to lie slightly less.

If you do a little research on Pelosi, you will see that she is about as bad as it gets. She claims to support unions, but had union reps thrown off her vineyards. She claims to be for the little guy so she and her husband built a big golf course that was supposed to include so many “common people” memberships. Never happened. That same golf course is sited regularly for dumping ag-chemicals into the ground water. So much for her environmental stances.

I know it is a partisan book, but PLEASE pick up “Do As I Say, (Not As I Do)”. The revelations are staggering.

Have you ever driven through Louisiana or Texas and seen an complete dump of a house that has a small truck farm along the road, where it is obvious that these people were getting the bad side of life, but noticed an oil well pumping like crazy right beside their house? That’s because Occidental Oil came through back in the thirties and bought up all the mineral rights. Now those people get a few pennies (literally) for the oil under their land. That was Joe Kennedy. That was where the Kennedys get a lot of their money.

Pick up the book. It was very enlightening.

By Gale

July 15, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

Newzwyre, Interesting point about large family populations and their stand on homosexuality. The poblem with getting decent statistics and surveys about homosexuality and its effects on a variety of life facets is that many people provide misinformation when it comes to controversial topics.

One of my favorite issues is drug testing. Do they adequately test special populations where an identified physical difference is known? Eg, women, children, vegetarians, etc.

By Lily Toad

July 15, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

Hmm. my parents had four children (including one gay male) and only one grandchild. Of course this is only antecdotal evidence, but at least in my family that super-fertile theory doesn’t hold. Although, maybe we’re fertile, just choose not to conceive or give birth.

By Lily Toad

July 15, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

Gale, please expand your comment on drug testing. How do vegetarians test differently?

By RF

July 15, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this

Truth- It was a small, but very respected baptist church founded by a larger baptist church in the county- began as a mission church of the larger one. The church became increasingly fundamental, led by the deacons who went way overboard in literal interpretation of the Bible. In the end, they wouldn’t let women teach classes with men in them or have any decision-making role in the church. Oddly enough, many of the women supported them. It got really weird after we were kicked out I’ve been told. The pastor himself often disagreed with them about their cold manner, but they just became more and more obsessed with following the Bible to a T. The contradictions in the book itself I think eventually undid them. The church didn’t survive many years after our exit— they ran off all but a few diehards who couldn’t afford to pay the bills, so it closed up. I’ve run into the pastor since and he apologized for how the church treated us. He didn’t approve of the actions, but had little authority overall to change them.

I’ve read about Occidental and the early oil moguls. They were seedy guys but made it big by taking compassion and fairness out of the equation. Joe Kennedy was a cold SOB but his ambition made him a fortune. They were no different than any businessman now. We see the top execs in most corporations robbing the poor in a different way today. They run a company in the ground and walk away with a fortune, leaving pension funds, retirees, and employees out in the cold. Same principle of selfishness really. That’s not unique to politicians.

By Newzwyre

July 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad - since you do have a gay brother, you most likely have the genes to be very fertile. In developed nations where family planning and contraception are easily accessible, fertility doesn’t necessarily track with birth rates.

and I too would be interested in how vegetarians differ in drug testing. I would assume that their drug use is no different from the population as a whole. Though, since the stereo-type of vegetarians is that of “back to nature”-spiritual-hippie types, maybe they would test positive more often :)

By Truth

July 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

USinUK

I understand all of the possibilities. I understand that I won’t be putting a sail on my Nissan.

Converting our homes to an off-the-grid system would be a fairly simple task, even with today’s crude supplemental systems combined with a lot of insulation. That could happen soon, but the problem is that we have LOTS of coal and that is what powers most of the country’s electrical grids. You live in Europe and you know how well nuclear is working over there, particularly for France. (We are in the dark ages, here)

So we already have a non-petroleum based system for producing electricity. I don’t know how much of the country has oil or natural gas burning generators, but I can’t imagine it would be a lot. Can you imagine their light bill with oil being this high?

The problem is with electric cars. They do generate a very dangerous electrical field and they are built out of Styrofoam. There are a few hybreds like the Prious that is showing a lot of promise in reducing oil consumption, but they still use oil.

I went to Architecture School in the early 70s and we just loved to build models of the cities of the 21st century. They were shinning testaments to the civility and culture of the new mankind. (Didn’t really work out, but that’s another issue)

I remember a particular girl that must be a millionaire by now, that insisted on always separating the freight haulers from the passenger cars. She had the crazy idea that people would not buy little super efficient cars as long as they were on the same roads as 40 ton trucks. i’m afraid that she was right.

To fix our problems with transportation, it is going to take enormous infrastructure changes in ways that isn’t even being thought about, yet. Yes, we need to get started, but somehow, this has been brought into the political arena where nothing ever gets done except media moguls making billions.

Politics is ruining us. I am still floored that care for the environment is actually a political issue. I will fall back onto my same old mantra of “How many Boy Scouts are Republicans” and nobody cares about the environment like a Boy Scout. Hunters, incredibly ardent gun owners, care about the environment. But the media keeps telling us that liberals love the environment and conservatives don’t.

It isn’t the liberals. it isn’t the conservatives. it is the people that continue to make money off the conflicts, real or imagined, between the two.

Can I get an Amen?

By USinUK

July 15, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

Newzy and Lily -

I don’t know about the connection of gay men with the fecundity of female relatives, but I thought this was interesting:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1209914,00.html

it looks like the more boys a woman has, the increased likelihood that the younger ones will be gay.

now, if you combine the two, a gay man with a very fecund sister who has 3 or 4 kids, all boys … interesting concept!

By AnotherThought

July 15, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

That’s not unique to politicians

Or the Kennedys. In fact that approach to business is the (alledgedly) GOP way.

and the current on-going banking issues are a direct result of the regulators, under the current administration, not doing their job and looking the other way when loans were poorly made.

By Mara

July 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

Truth - Amen, bruddah.

I went to Architecture School in the early 70s and we just loved to build models of the cities of the 21st century.

anybody else still waiting on the flying car we were promised?! :^)

By Truth

July 15, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

RF

I can’t disagree with what you said about modern business. I left Bank of America (I hate that they use that name) after 14 years because they insisted on holding my primary clients checks for 10 days, even though they had successfully cashed literally hundreds of their checks in the past. I am now with SunTrust, who is still a bank, but I am treated with respect and after the first month, they haven’t held a single check.

I could write 10,000 words on how slimy Bank of America is, but if you just google “Problems with Bank of America, you will see millions of words about it. They crippled my business for the last three years I was with them.

By USinUK

July 15, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

Politics is ruining us. I am still floored that care for the environment is actually a political issue. I will fall back onto my same old mantra of “How many Boy Scouts are Republicans” and nobody cares about the environment like a Boy Scout. Hunters, incredibly ardent gun owners, care about the environment. But the media keeps telling us that liberals love the environment and conservatives don’t.

and that’s something we agree on … as long as there is this polarization (red v. blue, R v. D, etc), there can be no solution. I thought it was great that the Dems started reaching out to the hunters and outdoorsmen in the West over the last few years (which is why they’re making inroads in traditionally “red” states) - they’re talking to them about their hunting/fishing/whatever habitats and how deforestation and drilling will ruin them. Politics and bedfellows.

as for the boyscouts … sadly, Cub Den #847 will never be able to vote, no matter how environmental they are. Heck, even most Eagle Scouts aren’t quite old enough to vote (but they’re at least closer).

as for getting off the grid, the hub and I are looking into a home wind turbine (they look to be FAR more efficient than solar and less expensive to install). yes, we have more nukes here and in France, but there is still the problem of nuclear waste … where do it go? no one here wants it … what do we do? blast it into space and hope it doesn’t decide to reenter??

as for cars - the coolest thing I heard about is the possibility of using magnetic fields to move cars and trucks on the highway - essentially, you get into a magnetic chain - all cars and trucks are automatically evenly spaced, you can turn your car off for the journey, and (best of all), no gridlock. I can’t remember how you enter/exit, but - especially for long-haul trips - it seemed like a great idea.

By Truth

July 15, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

RF

I was raised in an independent Bible church. We always thought the Baptists were a little crazy. (My grandfather was a FreeWill Baptist minister. We didn’t go to his church) If you want to see how I was Baptized, check out the Baptismal scene in O brother Where Art Thou. River, white robes. the whole thing. Except they song was Amazing Grace, one of my very favorite songs of all times.

When I was married, the only thing I wanted to plan was the music for the service. I was so tired of a guitar and a flute, which was the big craze at the time. We hired a four piece string ensemble from the Atlanta Symphony. It cost 600 bucks, but the effect was unreal. in honor of my recently dead Grandmother, they played Amazing Grace and there was not a dry eye in the house. i am getting chills thinking about it. I used to have a recording of it, but it, like so many other things have disappeared.

By Yes you are

July 15, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

RF,

That was beautifully put at 9:23! (Hugs!) Those of us with actual souls can appreciate your personal struggles and the courage it took to do the right things — in so many ways — without hurting others. You’re AWESOME! And you’re a better man than I am.

I love the way you took the “martyr” card out of play. (Misery demands company, eh?) Keepin’ it real in the face of people who think they know: (a) What the Creator of the Universe thinks and (b) what the Creator of the Universe wants YOU to do with YOUR life, and (c) that Gee, you’re doing it all wrong!… even though He created you exactly the way you are. God’s rainbow is beautiful to me.

By USinUK

July 15, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

anybody else still waiting on the flying car we were promised?! :^)

meet George Jetson … (doo-dodo-doo doo-dodo-doo doo-dodo-doo) …

By Truth

July 15, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

Mara

We designed a flying car in college. I still think it would work. It used what we called an IPD (Internal Propulsion Device) The simplest was to explain it is a propeller, a jet engine, even a wheel, is a device that pushes against something to produce propulsion. To produce enough propulsion to fly, these external devices are extremely disruptive. That is why you can’t land a helicopter in your driveway if you live near another house.

This thing worked sort of like a cat in a pillow case. There is nothing pushing on the outside of the pillow case, but it is moving like crazy. We designed this system of weights and magnets, both static and electrical that would produce what is called, “tangent power”, or internal propulsion directed in one direction. (My college rock band was called “Tangent”.) If the control stick was perpendicular, you added power and the directional force was aimed straight up, so the car would leave the ground. Directional control was achieved by aiming the IPD toward what ever direction you wanted to go.

It would take an enomous amount of power and it would require mechanics that could endure 100s of Gs, so the technology still isn’t around.

But think about it: it could go into space, on the water, under the water, anywhere. I probably won’t live long enough to see it, but I believe that it will eventually give us flying cars.

The car in Back To The Future would be powered by the equivalent of an IPD.

By Truth

July 15, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

USinUk

Are you going to build or renovate? Building gives you so many advantages. My brother-in-law just used a back hoe and dug a deep ditch and lined the walls with Styrofoam mixed with concrete. He pipes the “house air” back through that underground hallway before it enters the heat pump. The hallway cools the air in the summer and heats it in the winter, so the heat pump usually just acts as a dehumidifier. Really cheap power bills, He wants a wind turbine but my sister wants to see Hawaii. We will see who wins.

By Gale

July 15, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

re: drug testing I meant in terms of FDA testing drugs. For example, newer antibiotics tend to be hard on the gastrointestinal tract. Vegetarians tend to be even harder hit. This one is anecdotal, btw, based on my own and the experiences of fellow vegetarians. My theory is that because the digestive enzymes change when one eats meat, the drugs will react differently. Since most of the population eats meat, fewer tests will involve vegetarians. I have heard that it is hard to get a good clinical test of drugs with children because people do not want to subject their children to drug testing. I can understand that. Sorry, no studys in my pocket to back this up.

Isn’t it odd how the left wants to claim hunters don’t love the environment. Look into the relationship of car/deer accidents and the deer kill limits in various states. Deer tend to breed quickly, without natural predators like wolves to keep the population in check. And oh, too many deer, they will starve.

On another topic, energy, I think we need to think small when it comes to energy independence. Big solutions are ok for densely populated cities. But smaller solutions where they are applicable would work. Solar panels, wind turbines smaller and quieter than the big wind farms, small water generators all provide small solutions that would not require huge delivery systems. Take water generators; I used to live at the edge of a small river. A 5 megawatt generator (I think I remember the example size given) would have been an affordable solution for the small village.

By RF

July 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

UsinUk- I-285 makes me nervous enough. I can’t imagine giving some of the fools the whole sky to drive around!! I can do without the flying car. What I need is the robot maid. Man am I tired of laundry and housework this summer!! I had to tell my 10yr. old yesterday that he was not allowed more than two changes of clothes a day— no matter how wet or muddy he gets!

By NYer

July 15, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

Forget the flying car, people. Just go for the old star trek transporters.

“Scotty, I’m hungry. Beam me over to Kroger’s!”

By JokesOn

July 15, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

Truth (Brian),

I sarcastically said that he was blameless and he said I was calling him names.

Why don’t you start referring to me by my name and stop the cussing? Then you would have some ground to speak from.

He challenged me to explain how posts are presented after five, I do it and it makes him mad so he starts calling me a liar about having three websites.

That was not the challenge. The challenge was to keep posting on the topic we started at 4:55. To keep posting you would have to use more sophisticated methods than simply opening a few extra pages.

Sorry if you misrepresented your knowledge once again, but it was you that stated that you ran a website/server for your business.

All you have to do is stop the name calling and cussing. I do not follow suite until a number of vollys have passed. I will point out where you are wrong though…that is the consequence of being a troll on a blog.

By RF

July 15, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

Truth- the tunnel sounds interesting. It’s amazing how simple heating and cooling can be when you get down to it. If I can ever get done with updates on my current house and can move back to the country, I want to look into solar panels. It’s a big investment in the short run, but you end up sending electricity back into the grid instead of constantly drawing off of it.

By Truth

July 15, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

Gale

Take water generators; I used to live at the edge of a small river. A 5 megawatt generator (I think I remember the example size given) would have been an affordable solution for the small village.

I’ve seen that exact system on the Tennessee River. It was just an anchored barge that had a very efficient water wheel that the moving water turned

Everybody can’t live next to a river, but I had a project in the California desert and I saw one small wind turbo that wasn’t working and very, very few solar panels, and that was in the desert. I built a solar heater for my swimming pool when I lived in the Atlanta burbs. I thought California was supposed to be so progressive about such things.

Like I said, homes are easy solutions. Transportation is another horse entirely.

By Truth

July 15, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

RF

Don’t count your money yet. Solar is hard. Here in Georgia, you probably won’t have the sunshine to heat your home. It will need to be a combination of several things, and the geothermal approach works great for my brother-in-law. I really looked into this when I lived in the burbs.

I wish places like Home Depot offered little supplemental solar heaters for your water heater. Septic tanks produce a lot of methane gas that burns like crazy, but the methods of collection and use is complicated, but a device that could do that could also be sold at Home Depot.

It’s all about capitalism. Once it becomes profitable to produce these systems, they will take off. but right now, we are living in the dark ages of power generation. Hell, we still can’t even transmit large amounts of power except over really big wires. That is Thomas Edison technology.

By Truth

July 15, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

NYer

Forget the flying car, people. Just go for the old star trek transporters.

Molecular reorganization scares the hell out of me. i would be afraid of showing up at the destination with my hand coming out of my ear. The term “you have your head up your a** would take on a whole new meaning.

By Mara

July 15, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

Gale - “Isn’t it odd how the left wants to claim hunters don’t love the environment”

I don’t know as this is true. Nobody I know think hunters don’t love the environment. Many conservationist/environmentalist grew up in hunting households and our love for nature can be directly traced to the time spent outdoors traipsing through the woods looking for game.

Were I to guess on why the mischaracterization continues, I’d say it would be because the NRA spends so much time (and money) telling hunters that “liberals want to take your guns”. And they’re believed because many of us advocate handgun controls and automatic weapons bans.

Couple that with issues like the Endangered Species laws, environmental protections that keep motorized vehicles out of wilderness areas, and the reintroduction of predator species like the grey wolf back into the environment and you have a recipe for conflict. It is also an unfortunate truth that most hunters are from rural backgrounds and that’s virtually synonomous with being a Republican. The GOP, if we’re honest, has been very hostile to conservation and environmental groups.

On the issue of deer population in particular…not too long ago there was a great to-do regarding the over-population of deer at Red Top Mountain. Instead of doing a thorough study and looking at all possibilities (including contraception, chemical sterilization, open hunting, targeted hunting, etc) the State wanted to start banging away and kill as many as possible. A great hue and cry erupted from all across Georgia.

Considering the demographics of this state, there were probably as many conservatives upset about the proposed slaughter as there were liberals.

By NYer

July 15, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

USinUK,

yes, we have more nukes here and in France, but there is still the problem of nuclear waste … where do it go? no one here wants it … what do we do? blast it into space and hope it doesn’t decide to reenter??

Ironically, while the US doesn’t rely on nuclear power as much as some other countries, we’ve already solved the storage problem. This was why Yucca Mountain was developed at the cost of billions of dollars, (and will take billions more to complete). IMO it makes far more sense to store spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in one consolidated, safe and secure location, than at facilities adjacent to the 100 plus nuclear plants operating currently in the US, which is where most SNF is stored now. If security is the concern, it is far easier to guard one place than 100.

I had a client that designed and built casks for the transportation and storage of SNF and it is amazing how far the discussion of this issue has meandered away from the facts.

By chuck

July 15, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

Good afternoon everybody. Thanks for the insight RF. I have always admired your approach to the issues we discuss here. I want to go back to what I said and a couple of things in your response and in the response of others. I think some may have misunderstood what I said which was:

Your argument is that you would have been living a lie.

Several responses included the following phrase or another version of it:

it’s not about the sex - it’s about the lie.

This may seem like semantics, but I think there is an important distinction here. I don’t believe you were LIVING a lie. I believe that you THINK you were living a lie. You were doing what was right in the eyes of God according to His word. But THEN:

The only choice we saw that made sense was to be honest. God already knows the truth and he’ll let you choose to live your life as you feel led. Living a lie isn’t glorifying him or allowing him to live through you and minister to others. What kind of witness was I as a liar? It’s just that- a lie, and it wasn’t proving anything to live it. I’m not deliriously happy now- life is a balance of joy and sorrow.

Here’s the problem I see with that statement. Honesty with God about the STRUGGLE is important and necessary for overcoming the desire. The problem is that instead of overcoming the desire, you gave in to it. Giving in to sin cannot POSSIBLY make your relationship to God closer. There is no doubt that while homosexual desires are Not sin, homosexual ACTS ARE. I could list the entire litany of verses from both the old and new testaments, but I’m sure that you are familiar with them. There are some other verses that apply here though.

Romans 6:13 Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness.

Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature ; rather, serve one another in love.

Galatians 5:16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

Galatians 5:17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.

But here is the one that I think is the most important one concerning a Christian:

1 John 5:18 We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him.

What John is literally talking about here is the LIFESTYLE of sin. It doesn’t apply to JUST homosexuality but ANY habitual sin. Everbody will sin, and there will be some sins that are more difficult for some than others. These are referred to in some passages as “sin strongholds”. As long as you are struggling with the sin and trusting God to help you overcome it, whatever it is, God answers those prayers and gives you “a way out”:

1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

When you give up the struggle and allow that sin a place in your lifestyle, God can’t allow that to continue. The Bible says that is the same thing as crucifying Christ anew. A true believer in Christ cannot live a lifestyle of sin. One of two things has to happen:

Discipline or Death. God will chasten His children to turn them around OR as Paul said:

1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause (referring back to a lifestyle of sin) many are weak and sickly among you, and many have died.

Trust me here RF, I am not judging you. I have enough dirt to sweep around my own back door. I just want to explain the Biblical principles that I believe apply here. I’m convinced that you are a fine young man in a difficult struggle. I don’t write here to condemn you.

By NYer

July 15, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

Molecular reorganization scares the hell out of me.

Not any less scary than flying on I-285 during rush hour.

By Mara

July 15, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

NYer - screw the transporter…I want a holodeck and a replicator :^)

Truth - I would think that technologies like wind turbines, hydrogenerators, and solar panels would be perfect for more rural areas and less efficient for urban locations. Each property could be (relatively) self-sufficient in power generation. That wouldn’t be so easy if you live in a 30-floor highrise in Mid-town.

By Gale

July 15, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

A string ensemble for a wedding. What a great idea.

The water generator that we were looking at was too expensive for an individual; at least most of the residents in this village. But as a village investment, it was affordable. Energy costs were not as high at the time or it might have been an easier sell. Yes, I know not everyone can live near running water. It was in my “what if techknowogy crashes phase”. Land enough for subsistence farming and fresh water were high on my list. Anyway, the unit we were looking into was being marketed in China for rural energy. I guess China must have decided that coal was cheaper yet.

By Truth

July 15, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

NYer and USinUK

The reason that nuclear has made such a headway in France is because Ariva, the company that contracts the systems, has designed a way to re-use the waste and the amount of radiation after the second usage is not much more than is produced by granite. At least that is what they are claiming..

By Gale

July 15, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

Mara, you are right about the left and environmentalists. I struggled over the appropriate word when I wrote that “left”.

NYer, Do you remember the old sci-fi series called Moon 2000, I think. The premise was a nuclear storage dump on the Moon reached critical mass and blew the moon out of orbit. Yucca Mountain makes me think of that.

By Truth

July 15, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this

NYer

Not any less scary than flying on I-285 during rush hour.

Thank God that I haven’t had to deal with that madness for a few years. It was bad in the 90s. I can’t imagine what it is like, now.

Git yer butt into the city and live like civilized folk. We even have sushi, here. (Lots of them damned liberals, though.)

By NYer

July 15, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

NYer - screw the transporter…I want a holodeck and a replicator :^)

I’m on the waiting list for the holodeck and replicator. But I want my transporter too.

By Gale

July 15, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this

I wonder what the cost of recycling nuclear waste is? And speaking of recycling, I recently heard a program about installing waste heat recyclers on the top of exhaust chimneys. I think it was some kind of energy processor. I don’t remember when I heard it. The issue was that a great deal of heat was expelled into the air as waste. Instead they were collecting the heat and running a steam generator with it.

By Truth

July 15, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

Mara

That wouldn’t be so easy if you live in a 30-floor highrise in Mid-town.

You are absolutely right. That is why, when I am King, I am going to disband all the cities.

There will always be a need for centralized power. But as Gale is saying, small communities, even larger apartment complexes could power themselves. And dare I say it, methane from the high rise poo could do a lot.

By NYer

July 15, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

Gale,

Sorry, never saw the show you mentioned.

Yucca is the most studied piece of land on the planet. Luckily it’s not going to blow up when it hits “critical mass”.

By NYer

July 15, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

Truth,

France allows for the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. The United States prohibits it. Reprocessing is a central but not dominating piece of the overall discussion of nuclear power in this country. I believe it was under Carter that this prohibition began. If I recall correctly, he had an engineering background and was very much against reprocessing.

Other than for one brief period of time, I have always lived inside the perimeter during my ten years in ATL. At present I live about two miles from Lenox Mall.

By Gale

July 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

The recycled heat program was radio and probably NPR on a EDT 5-6pm report, or maybe around noon. I generally only listen to the radio while commuting. But it was recently.

Methane gas is another really good source of power in low tech areas. There is a lot of work being done to bring methane powered cooking power to third world subsistance farmers.

By NYer

July 15, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

Methane gas is another really good source of power in low tech areas. There is a lot of work being done to bring methane powered cooking power to third world subsistance farmers.

This brings new meaning to lighting the fart.

By Truth

July 15, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

Gale

A string ensemble for a wedding. What a great idea.

Yea, but it screwed up our wedding pictures. When they played Amazing Grace, my wife-to-be and I was fine through the first two verses, but they changed key before the third verse and most of the crowd started singing. Those wedding pictures showed a couple of blubbering idiots on the happiest day of our lives. My wife had been an actress and she had a make-up person do her makeup so of course it ran like hell. The regular pictures were fine, but the service pictures looked pretty bad.

It is easy to arrange. Just call the symphony and they will hook you up. That was in the 80s so i’m sure it is more expensive, now. But don’t you use my idea for one of those homo weddings. (Just kidding. It really is some wonderful music and it also puts a few bucks in the pockets of some great musicians that never get enough credit.) Tell everyone you know that is getting married about it.

I talked last week about an old deserted hippy farm I had found up in the mountains of SW Virginia. They had used an old boat generator on a water mill. They had no storage, but the creek always ran. They just went without when the thing broke, (I guess)

I also found a grist mill in a little town that they wanted 50 grand for. I would buy it and move up there in a minute if I could make a living up there. (Not really into coal mining)

By RF

July 15, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

The term “you have your head up your a* would take on a whole new meaning*

My mother would swear my father must have participated in experiments in molecular reorganization then…

NYer- I can live without the transporter. The trip to a place is half the fun to me. Let me know when you get your replicator- I’ll HAVE to get one. I love to cook, but the cleanup sucks!! The holodeck would be interesting, but I’d be too busy in there to run the replicator!! LOL

By Truth

July 15, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

Gale

Check out Areva. They claim to have developed a system that reuses the waste and the result is much less radiation in the waste. As you can tell, I am really into this and have read literature from them. I just went to their web site, but their search engine isn’t working.

I’ll check back later.

By Creator talks to me

July 15, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

He says you’re beautiful, and one of the more successful of His creations on this particular planet. He says he’s proud of you, and is going to put a rainbow in the sky soon to show you.

By Truth

July 15, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

NYer

Reusing is illegal in the US? News to me. What a crazy thing. Why would they do that?

I believe that Carter was a nuclear physicist. (Not sure) but I know he worked on a nuke sub.

That seems like it would change the world. imagine how far a little piece of plutonium (or enriched granite) would push a car, no matter how big or heavy the car is. The perfect solution to the vast majority of our problems. It is more stable than hydrogen and a small amount would last for years.

BTW, Have tyou read about the new German hydrogen powered sub? This is a very exciting time to be alive.

By RF

July 15, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this

Chuck- thanks for the calmness of your response. You’ve come a long way in the few years I’ve been reading/posting here. You used to be rather vitriolic in your posts about homosexuality. It’s nice to see a christian with strict beliefs who can calmly discuss those. That has much more impact that shouting, you know? The best witnesses I’ve seen are those who live the life without the “holier than thou” attitude.

Since I’ve been a single parent, I haven’t had time to “practice” the lifestyle anyway, so I guess I’m okay. I have never been able to fully understand the efficacy of that though. Thoughts are as sinful as acts. Lust is sinful, and does not have to be acted on. The simple looking and wanting is sin. I don’t believe in levels of sin. If homosexuality is a sin, then the thought of it is just as sinful as the act. I don’t agree with that, but that’s what I grew up hearing in church. If what you’re saying is true, I can lust after someone all day long as long as I don’t do anything about it and ask for forgiveness. I’m never going to be fully comfortable with that idea.

I know we’ll never agree on this issue, and I wouldn’t want to change your convictions for a minute. I think every person has to deal with life and God and decide these kinds of issues. It will be interesting one day when this life is over to have full understanding of all the questions and issues that life throws at us. I just wanted you to know a little of the struggle many people face in reaching a decision about the issue.

By NYer

July 15, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

RF - try getting small children through airport security these days and you’ll stop saying things like getting there is half the fun.

The transporter would be perfect for avoiding the hassles that accompany travel.

By Truth

July 15, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

NYer

I used to live over on Roxboro before the property values went nuts over there. My old house was replaced with one of those huge complexes.

By Jack

July 15, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

Methane? The Mrs. says I produce enough to power a small town. Maybe I’m in the wrong line of work. :)

By Truth

July 15, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

RF

I always thought it weird that the greatest mystery in life will all be known 5 seconds after we die. We will all die and we will all find out. The trillions of people that have lived have all wondered and now they all know.

So the least informed, is the living.

By Frustrated

July 15, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this

I am frustrated at the fact of so many people saying that you are “born” gay…. That you DON’T have a choice. Are you also saying that murderers and rapists were born to be that way? ALL of our actions are by choice. Good or bad, we make those decisions. And I most certaintly don’t feel that God would put people on earth with out the decision to go against his will. We all sin, but we all have the final say in that sin. To eat the fruit or not. I believe we are all born under the same equality in the eyes of God, our sins and good wills are what distinguish us when the time comes for judgement..

Am I saying that gay people are going to hell? Absolutely not, just as I can say that not all murderers and rapists are going to hell. We all sin, but I would never in a million years say that I had no CHOICE to sin or not. I made those decisions and I carry those burdens.

Desires for same sex partners are just as much a sin as a 50 year old desiring a 10 year old. Different scenarios, but a sin is a sin in God’s eyes. Other than blasphemy, no sin is greater than the next.

I feel saddened at the fact that our nation, our world, is turning from the very foundation that it was based upon. The very reason that we exist. Of course, you have to believe in God to even understand my dissappointment, if you don’t believe, then I know you are automatically going to fire off a remark. And that is fine, you believe what you want. But I can’t for a second believe that the sins of this world were put here because God made us do it. We make the decision, helped with the temptation from Satan or not, we did it to ourselves.

By RF

July 15, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

So the least informed, is the living

Truth- I have a hunch it isn’t all that mysterious or difficult to figure out. Beyond this life I think is the acceptance that just living it was all that mattered.

My parents live in So.Fulton just outside the perimeter and the nice brick house they have has been dwarfed by these huge monster houses on tiny little lots. They’re starting to feel like the poor trash in the neighborhood now. I love the open land in the outer burbs too much to move intown though. I lived in a 1929 bungalow near downtown for several years that I restored back in the 90’s and it was fabulous for the single lifestyle I was living. I can’t imagine raising my boys there though. The yard was way too small for them AND the dog.

RF - try getting small children through airport security these days and you’ll stop saying things like getting there is half the fun

That’s precisely why we drive usually. They’re getting old enough now to endure the wait, but five years ago—no way would I put myself through that. We actually have fun driving most times. All three of us are trivia nuts, so games and the yearly Guiness Book of World Records keeps us busy. Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader has a box game out now that we keep in the car.

By NYer

July 15, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

Hopefully you got your money’s worth, Truth.

By Gale

July 15, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this

Frustrated, homosexuality is a natural state. It is neither good nor bad in the same way heterosexuality is neither good nor bad. I think most of us would agree that murder, rape and pedophilia are bad. It is incorrect, however, to link human sexuality to something like pedophilia. Pedophiles may be found in both homo and heterosexuals.

By Galation Luver

July 15, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

Frustrated, so what your saying is you choose not to act on your gay feelings, and are angry that others choose to act? No wonder your frustrated! I also wonder what is wrong with people in this country. I keep trying to tell them I told you so but they think for themselves. Its a discrace.

By RF

July 15, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

Frustrated- so if we respond to you, we can’t be believers? You post here, get ready for a reply. As a believer I’ll respond.

Are you also saying that murderers and rapists were born to be that way?

Part of the problem is that people believe in levels of sin. Lying is a sin, but people see it as nothing compared to murder or rape. Sin is sin, period. No levels or degrees, right? Every time a discussion of homosexuality comes up with straight people somebody has to throw in crimes like murder or child molestation. Be honest, you think homosexuality is a worse sin than others. You’d rather spend time with a convicted felon rather than an open homosexual. I just can’t believe it to be a sin, and I know there’s no point in having that discussion, so let’s please don’t go there today.

our sins and good wills are what distinguish us when the time comes for judgement

ahhhh, nope. According to the Bible, it’s belief in Christ and asking for forgiveness that determines whether or not we are saved and “get in”. You’re saying that we ‘earn’ our way into heaven. You have to realize that a homosexual can have good will and, by your definition, be more deserving of heaven than many church-going folks I know.

Desires for same sex partners are just as much a sin as a 50 year old desiring a 10 year old and so are lying, gossiping, judging others, just to name a few. There’s that levels of sin thing again. Many societies punish homosexuality as harshly as capital crimes. Funny thing is, they still can’t get rid of it.

By Frustrated

July 15, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this

Let me just clarify if I didn’t earlier. No, I am not gay nor have any desire to be gay.

I also stated in my previous post that sin is sin. Other than blasphemy, no sin is greater than the next. So no, I don’t think being gay is worse than murdering someone or lying to someone or lusting over your best friend’s husband. The point I am trying to make is that God did not put us on this earth as a “gay” person. Each and every “gay” individual on earth made the decision to be homosexual. Just as a person makes a decision to lie, cheat and steal. That is the point I am trying to make.

Third, our good wills and sins will determine our rewards in heaven. In no way did I say that our good wills and sin will get us into heaven. NO, I do not believe that we earn our spot in heaven or pay our way through the gates. I believe the only way to God is through Jesus. They distinguish us on judgement day yes, because we are going to be called out on our flaws and rewarded for our good deeds on earth. So in a sense ” whether my mansion on the streets of gold is bigger or smaller depends on my acts here….”

Finally, I said that if you do not believe in God, of course you do not understand my frustration, I did not say that all believers have the same stance as I do. So go ahead, respond if you like, I have no fear when it comes to standing on my rock of faith.

And whether or not we agree to disagree or not, I am in no way here to offend anyone. I am here defending my beliefs as is everyone else.

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this

Truth -

Are you going to build or renovate? Building gives you so many advantages.

we’re going to add a wind turbine to our house (we’re at the top of a huge hill, so get loads of wind)

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/generateyourownenergy/typesof_renewables/microwind

I recently watched a program about a house that was going to use a heat pump to maintain their home temperature - sounds like a fantastic idea, but looks like it would work best for a single-family home, not so much for a townhouse (which is what we have).

as for 285 … EEEESH!!! When I was in high school, I drove 75/285 to school everyday - could leave my house off the north loop at 7:00 and get to the greater Funwoody area by 7:30 … (this was back in the early 80s). I can’t even imagine how long the journey would take now … Much like you, though, I moved into town when I finished college and had a job - no flippin’ way was I going to do Marietta to Midtown everyday …

By Newzwyre

July 16, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

Frustrated wrote “I am frustrated at the fact of so many people saying that you are “born” gay…. That you DON’T have a choice.”

YOU’RE frustrated?! Think how frustrated scientists and doctors are when they can show the similarities in how the brain functions in hetero females and homosexual males yet still have people like you deny the facts. Or the frustration of the neuroscientist who’s labored to prove that the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women are slightly asymmetric—(the right hemisphere is larger than the left)—and the brains of gay men and straight women are not.

Think how frustrating it must be to be a scientist that can show the genetic markers that predispose a person to be attracted to their own sex, and even the evolutionary benefits of those genes —- and yet still they have people willfully denying that homosexuality is “in-born”.

It is a biological fact that people are “born gay”. They don’t have a choice in that. You can argue about the choices they make in their lives, whether they should remain celibate instead of “sinning”, and whatnot but to deny the biological evidence of same-sex attraction being an inborn trait is willful ignorance. And that’s what frustrates me.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1209914,00.html

http://www.medicineonline.com/news/10/5610/Debate-Rekindled-in-Homosexual-Brain-Research.html

By Truth

July 16, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Let me know how the turbine works out. I looked into that when I had my house in the burbs. There just wasn’t enough wind. (about $7,000?) I can’t remember, but either wind or solar would have required a bunch of batteries and a DC-AC converter. I think that was for solar.

I did build my own passive solar system for my pool. Of course after I had finished, I found one for about half of what I had spent and I’m sure it worked much better. Mine gave me another month in the spring and the fall so it was worth it. I really miss that pool. I swam every day. I actually had a six pack. (Not really well defined, but it was there. You just had to look really hard.)

I have driven in from Sandy Springs. It was fine until they opened a slew of apartments off Roswell Road. Almost overnight, the drive went from about 20 minutes to about an hour and a half. The trip from 400 along Abernathy went from about 5-7 minutes to almost an hour. We couldn’t get out of there fast enough.

I saw a movie night before last on Showtime. It was about the Russian mafia in London. Horribly violent. But one of the main plot elements was taking DNA from one of the mafia heads. I thought it would be hard to get but the police just went to his house and drew blood. Is it that easy over there? It would have taken a warrant and very strong probable cause here.

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

well … I was going to leave the post alone, but since Newzy has boldly gone ahead, I’ll throw my 2p in …

The point I am trying to make is that God did not put us on this earth as a “gay” person. Each and every “gay” individual on earth made the decision to be homosexual

so. um. when did you choose to be straight??

I mean, it’s obvious that, since you think there are no differences between straights and “teh gay”, that you are equally attracted to people of the same gender as you are to people of the opposite gender (as are, evidently, all the rest of us). so, when did you overcome your attraction to people of the same gender to choose to be heterosexual???

By Truth

July 16, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

All this talk about sinning is a little strange. None of the commandments say that thou shall not be gay. I believe that God does punish promiscuity. And it seems that God has gotten pretty serious about it in the last few years. But that certainly doesn’t just apply to gays.

Newzwyre

I don’t believe that all gay people were born that way, but a lot were.

I’ll say it one more time. I believe that a lot of human rights issues are hidden by a lot of very angry people. “We’re here, we’re Que** get used to it”, and Pride Parades where people engage in some pretty classless acts in public isn’t helping anything. Scantily clad men, making out in public is exactly what anti-gay folks would love to see more of. It promotes the sex craziness stereotypes.

I think that a lot of middle of the road folks are just tired of everybody and every cause being in their face.

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

Truthy -

I thought it would be hard to get but the police just went to his house and drew blood. Is it that easy over there? It would have taken a warrant and very strong probable cause here.

no - you have the same standards of probable cause here as you do in the US … (did you see Eastern Promises??)

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

Truth -

Scantily clad men, making out in public is exactly what anti-gay folks would love to see more of. It promotes the sex craziness stereotypes.

three words: Girls. Gone. Wild.

I understand what you’re saying about how “get used to it” and the pride parades give ammo to the religious right and their bigotry, but they are no more “in your face” than any average spring break or Mardi Gras.

back in 2000, my last day on a business trip to SF coincided with the pride parade, so I had the afternoon to hang out before heading to the airport. Pride wasn’t lewd/crude/otherwise objectionable - it was fun, loud, colorful and, frankly, a joy to be around people who were happy to express who they are - without a militant or inappropriate bean in the bag. I would have been comfortable being there with my dad or any of my nieces or nephews.

By JohnF

July 16, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

Frustrated,

I’m frustrated also. It’s extremely frustrating and quite insulting for you to state that every time I have a sexual encounter with my partner of 8 years, I am committing an act that is just as heinous as murdering someone. Do you really believe that?

You are entitled to your faith, but fortunately for myself, I’m not “burdened” with Christianity, so choosing to be gay or not is not an issue I even deal with.

What I also find frustrating is when someone of “faith” uses those beliefs to restrict the “civil” rights and to inhibit the “pursuit of happiness” of someone else, especially when that “pursuit of happiness” has no affect on anyone else. When a bunch of baptist preachers show up at the capitol to try and influence the government to ban gay marriage, I find that completely unconstitutional. That is WRONG!!

According to my beliefs, homosexuality is NOT a sin…it is NOT wrong..in fact it’s quite RIGHT…for me and my partner. I would be extremely unhappy otherwise.

And another point..the world and even this country are becoming more accepting of gay men and women. It is not because of the liberal media. It is because more and more gay men and women have accepted themselves for who they are and have “come out”, and at an earlier age. By their becoming visible ,old attitudes by heterosexuals about gays are challenged, and often abandon especially among the young.

This is also causing many people of faith to examine how their religion treats homosexuals. Many of them try to change within or they abandon their faith. I have experienced this first hand in my office.

Your religion at some point is going to have to come to grips with this or I predict in 100 years, your religion won’t exist as anything but a distant cult.

By Frustrated

July 16, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

Newzwyre- I read your articles and they are null… To examine an adult brain and find similarities does nothing but prove that at that point in time, they are similar. Did they test a newborn? Did they track his brain development over the years? No, so your fight against being BORN gay is useless.

Besides, trying to defend science against religion is a losing battle, I have faith in God and believe the Bible wholeheartedly. NO one can exmaine me and tell me how strong my faith is…I have a testimony for that… But that is off the point I am trying to make.

STRICTLY from a religious standpoint, God’s word clearly states that Homosexuality is an abomination. For example,

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.: Lev 20:13

So, to say that God put you on earth gay, totally contridicts the Bible. He wants you to lead a Christ-like life, to spread his word…and to say that he gave you no choice in being gay is saying he put you on this earth to live in sin with no choice of your actions. Which is garbage.

I am not here to name call, so you can call me ignorant all you want. I am here defending my beliefs just as you are…..

By JohnF

July 16, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

Truth,

Your point is well taken about the Pride Parade. I hear grumblings and discussions around this every year. “How can we expect to be taken seriously if we continue to have half-naked drag queens and leather clad fat men doing who knows what while they march down the street?.

I think the problem is how can we demand tolerance when we aren’t tolerant ourselves, so it’s a dilemma the Pride parade organizers face.

My partner and I haven’t been to the Pride thing in years. Every time you turn around someone is trying to put some political or commercial sticker on your chest…plus it’s always too hot and usually rains.

On the other hand, Pride parades all over the country are part political statement and part Mardi Gras. You see equally classless acts by heterosexuals every year in New Orleans.

By Gale

July 16, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

Truth, I agree with you that the ‘in your face’ crowd generally does more harm to a cause than good. I also do not think the world would be better served if all minorities simply kept in the shadows and let the majority think they were the only ones around. If we are silent, we may as well go back in the closet. Most of the gay community really just wants to go about their lives like everyone around them; have a job, a house, maybe raise kids and live happily ever after.

Yes, there are some differences. I get tired of movies and books where the guy always gets the girl and sometimes I would like to see a ‘good’ movie where the girl gets the girl. That may be a girl-thing because relationships tend to be more important to women. But hey, if gay male brains are more like straight women, seems like relationships should be important to gay men too.

But what I’m getting at is we cannot put a face on gay rights from the inside of the closet, even though that would make the frustrateds of the world happier. We cannot just go away. Straight people need to know that gay folk are all around them and they are just as good and decent, or horrid and nasty as the population as a whole. Sure, there are wacko gays just like there are wacko straights. The greater share of both population sets comprises decent, caring people.

By Frustrated

July 16, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

JohnF-

I said in my first post, if you are not a bliever (person of Faith), then you would not understand my frustration. I am not restricting anything. I have not said anything about gays should go and hide or die or go to prison.

I am stictly here defending the Bible. And the people who are using the Bible in the sense of you are “Born” gay. You are not born that way, you choose to be that way. And in no way am I better, less of a sinner, etc. But don’t blame your sins on God, he didn’t put you here that way… He didn’t put me here as a liar or jealous or anything else. My sins are my choice.

That is the only point I am trying to make. In my religion, the fact of being gay doesn’t send you to hell…..not accepting Jesus as your savior sends you there. I do question those who are gay and claim to be Bible believing Christians. If you are a Christian, you are convicted of your sins….homosexuality is a sin, and therefore if you choose that lifestyle, you are living a constant sin…. Are you not convicted? Do you not question your Christianity?

Lying is a sin, cheating is a sin, being jealous of Joe Smith’s fortune is a sin….. And they are all equal to the sin of homosexuality. So I am not saying I am any better…I just don’t blame mine on genetics….

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

Frustrated -

first of all, answer my question above (to save you from scrolling, I’ll repost( … when did YOU choose to be straight??

I mean, it’s obvious that, since you think there are no differences between straights and “teh gay”, that you are equally attracted to people of the same gender as you are to people of the opposite gender (as are, evidently, all the rest of us). so, when did you overcome your attraction to people of the same gender to choose to be heterosexual???

secondly:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.: Lev 20:13

any christian worth his salt knows that Christ is the new covenant, rendering all the old laws moot (which is why, for instance, christians can eat pork and shellfish) - Leviticus has about as much relevency as an abacus.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

STRICTLY from a religious standpoint, God’s word clearly states that Homosexuality is an abomination. For example,

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.: Lev 20:13

That text specifically, and all that refers to homosexuality is not agreed upon by christain sects. There were many practices that are now all referred/translated as “homosexual.” None of which were a same sex couple in a loving relationship.

It simply is not referred to in the bible. It addresses men raping other men after winning a battle, having young male sex slaves, sexual rituals, and the relationship that was thought of as mentoring where an older male had a relationship with a younger one to guide him into manhood.

By Gale

July 16, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

Frustrated, I don’t want to dwell on this religious discussion because it is always a bottomless pit. However… Why is this ‘word of God’ more important than the one that allows slaves, insists that a man marry his brother’s widow, stone adulterers, not eat shellfish, not work on the Sabath, etc, etc?

By RF

July 16, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

I think Truth hit the nail on the head about behavior. A few nuts who make it on the evening news create a standard by which all in a group are judged. And newsworthy behavior is usually the most outlandish. We are all judged by the behavior of a few nuts, and that brings out the worst reactions. Most people who don’t know a homosexual personally believe they’re all bizarre and have an understandable aversion to the subject. Once it hits home though, and it’s your child or a close family member, the view changes. It’s different when you have to live with it. I can allow people their views against it because they don’t know it personally. You can’t convince someone who doesn’t have to live with it. Frustrated, like others, would see things differently if his/her son or daughter came home and made that announcement—that or lose a child, as some have done.

USinUK- Girls Gone Wild interestingly enough is socially acceptable. Some sexual deviance is okay. Girl on girl—good. Guy on guy—sinful and you’ll burn in hell. Yet another of our double standards in this wacky world.

By Truth

July 16, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Yes. Eastern Promises. Great movie, but damn, I have videotaped surgery and had a hard time with some of the images. (But of course surgery is not violent) The ending set up either another movie or a TV series.

Girls Gone Wild, Marti Gras or spring break all also have their raw, classless side. But the people that are acting like fools probably aren’t promoting a human rights issue. I think we are in agreement that people acting like fools don’t help anyone.

We just had pride week here. Because of the drought, the festival part was moved to the Civil Center parking lot. But lots and lots of people left the Civil Center and still went over to Piedmont Park. I didn’t see what happened in the park, but in past years, there was lots of men laying on blankets, making out. That wasn’t the big problem. The big problem during Pride Week (and almost every day) is the Park of Whispering Bushes: The North Woods at Piedmont Park. That is the wooded area between the Botanical Gardens and Ansly.

At one time I needed to shoot video of that area and I wanted to avoid any conflicts and i wanted the nice morning light, so i went into the woods on Sunday Morning. I was supposed to try and make the area look good, but it was almost impossible. Half rotten blankets, condoms everywhere, trash, and even though it was 7AM on Sunday, there were at least three couples going at it along the creek. I couldn’t imagine what it would be like on Saturday night. THIS is a problem. A lot of public parks in the area have the same problem

Now I am going to get crucified for bringing this up, but the fact is that issues like men roaming through public areas looking for quick and anonymous sex is a huge problem and this is simply not one of the things that you can say : but heterosexuals also do that. They don’t. There may be make out hills, where kids go to grope, but nothing like this.

If anyone reads what I have written on this blog and think that I am anti-gay, they are simply wrong. I’m not. There is no way I could be, considering what I do and where I live, but this is a huge problem about the general public’s perception of gay men.

By Gale

July 16, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

JokesOn, A good example of how many translations muddy the waters of religions.

By JohnF

July 16, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this

Ok Frustrated..what is your opinion of Red Lobster? They serve shell fish. Are the people that work in Red Lobster or eat there committing a sin? The sins in Levitcus make up a long list, some of them are pretty silly. Are all of those sins, every one of them, equal to murder, biblically speaking that is? I know this question gets asked all of the time, but Christians never seem to answer it. Here’s your chance

As far as whether you are born that way or choose to be that way…why do you think you are entitled to an opinion on that?

You either don’t have first hand knowledge of what it is like to be attracted to your own sex, which means your opinions are not informed, and therefor not really relavant..or you are attracted to the same sex and for religous reasons or otherwise you choose to not act on them.

Which is it?

And perhaps you don’t use your beliefs to affect public policy or laws, but many Christians do.

By RF

July 16, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

Gale- any verse in the Bible can, and often is, used in a singular context to support a point. Often people ignore the historical context of the verse, especially when quoting from the Old Testament. I’ve always been amazed at how quickly some will seize on one verse and cover their ears. Most people who do that have grown up hearing the Bible preached that way and it’s hard to make them see the bigger picture. The Bible, like any text, is a dangerous thing in the hands of the narrow-minded and is subject to interpretation. I don’t worry too much about it until I hear an issue coming up at the voting booth.

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

Truth -

But the people that are acting like fools probably aren’t promoting a human rights issue. I think we are in agreement that people acting like fools don’t help anyone.

funny - I don’t take the Pride parade as promoting civil rights any more than I take the Carnivale parades as promoting Christianity - they’re meant to be fun and expressive. but, yeah, fools don’t help anyone.

Now I am going to get crucified for bringing this up, but the fact is that issues like men roaming through public areas looking for quick and anonymous sex is a huge problem and this is simply not one of the things that you can say : but heterosexuals also do that. They don’t. There may be make out hills, where kids go to grope, but nothing like this.

actually, there is a hetero equivalent (I saw an article on it last week - people basically drive up to a particular site and get into a random person’s car) … and there’s a name for it, but I can’t remember what it is. at any rate, it was yet more proof that I am not only way out of the loop, but I am waaaaayyyyy white bread, as well.

as for public sex of ANY flavor, it’s just wrong - I agree with you. whether it’s gay, straight or any combo thereof - take it somewhere private … and fercryingoutloud, wrap that nasty used condom some tissue and dispose of it properly!

I think I need a cup of tea, now.

By Gale

July 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

Truth, That sounds like what ‘they’ say about Amsterdam. As I’ve said before, I hate to generalize. But… sex hard-wiring being what it is, men tend to be ready for sex whenever they have the inclination. If a straight man ran into as many willing partners as gay men, straight men would likely exhibit similar behavior.

To be fair, lesbians may be more ready to move in on the second date than men because of the female nesting instict. ::smiling here::

By GOB

July 16, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.: Lev 20:13

Frustrated - Not to beat a dead horse, but do you also advocate the death-penalty for any “man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman?” You arent picking and choosing what to believe and what to follow are you??? Like Gale mentioned, there are plenty of things in the bible that I assume you dont agree with, unless you actually do think its ok to have slaves, etc etc…

By JohnF

July 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

Truth,

I won’t crucify you. I don’t have any sympathy for those men that have sex in public. Every once in awhile, I read about some sting at an interstate rest area where lots of men are arrested for having sex there. I think they get what they deserve.

RF is right though..perception of gay folks is largely due to what is observed. Those of us that go about our daily lives don’t do anything especially notorious so the only perception is the one people see on TV pride coverage or like yourself, men behaving badly in the bushes.

It is not common for heterosexuals to have sex in public places, but I think you have to admit that a lot of that is because women don’t go for it. And sadly, a lot of these men who end up being arrested are married.

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

JohnF -

Are the people that work in Red Lobster or eat there committing a sin?

yes. what they do to seafood is a crime against nature.

By Gale

July 16, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

GASP! Interpret, RF? Who would presume to interpret the Bible?

By RF

July 16, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

I couldn’t imagine what it would be like on Saturday night. THIS is a problem. A lot of public parks in the area have the same problem

Even a few who do that create a big image problem for the rest of us. If you look at the total number of thousands who show up for the festivities, the number in the woods is relatively small. Personally, I think they should be arrested as anyone else would be for public indecency. If they can’t get a room or a back seat somewhere, they need to be embarrassed by being arrested. I get tired or the association that kind of behavior brings to such gatherings, and that’s where part of the negative stereotype of gay men comes from.

In truth, it’s probably no worse than a college frat party or the keg parties out in the woods that always seem to pop up out in the sticks where I am. But, those are hetero events and certainly a lot less public, so they’re not as objectionable. You see pretty much the same mess after the keg parties if not worse.

By AnotherView

July 16, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

but this is a huge problem about the general public’s perception of gay men.

only real problem with that ‘problem’ is that those most often are downlow men, not exactly “gay”. many go home to their wives and children.

By GOB

July 16, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

Truth, RF - I do think you are right about how much of the behavior at Pride parades creates a very negative stereotype for much of the general public, especially those religious folks in the south. The thing is, if gays hadnt been pushed so far back in the closet for so many decades, they wouldnt need to even have pride parades. If we, as a society, had simply treated gays like everyone else, this wouldnt even be an issue.

It isnt like there are a parades for blondes in all the major cities to show their pride in being blonde. I see Pride as a push back at all of those who have hated gays and fought against their rights, or told them they were all going to burn in hell for all eternity. The outlandishness of the some of those participants takes the push back to the extreme, but it is all in reaction to something else. I’m not gay, so I dont know how those who do participate feel, but this seems like an understandable response.

Also, the reason that so many of the parks in Atlanta have problems with gays having sex is due to the large concentration of gays in the area. Go to a park in Alpharetta on a Saturday night, and I can assure you, that somewhere, there are straight couples doing the same things.

By Truth

July 16, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

JohnF

The sins in Levitcus make up a long list, some of them are pretty silly.

But they weren’t silly at the time. Bad shellfish, without modern medicine would result in a horribly painful death., I get in deep trouble for saying this, but a lot of religion is a way to establish laws that helped the population. A lot of those laws were just public health concerns, but religion and government were one.

By AnotherView

July 16, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

Go to a park in Alpharetta on a Saturday night, and I can assure you, that somewhere, there are straight couples doing the same things

anybody been to a state park in the rural South, gone hiking and heard a local hetero-couple going at it in the outhouses?

I have, kinda embarrassing when you are out hiking with someone(opposite sex) on your second date.

By Frustrated

July 16, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this

USinUK- Here is your New Testament literature….if it makes you feel more at ease.

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Footnote: “A prostitute: the reference may be specifically to religious prostitution, an accepted part of pagan culture at Corinth and elsewhere; but the prostitute also serves as a symbol for any sexual relationship that conflicts with Christ’s claim over us individually. The two … will become one flesh: the text of Genesis 2:24 is applied positively to human marriage in Matthew and Mark, and in Eph 5:29-32: love of husband and wife reflect the love of Christ for his church. The application of the text to union with a prostitute is jarring, for such a union is a parody, an antitype of marriage, which does conflict with Christ’s claim over us. This explains the horror expressed in 15b.”

And as far as your question about being born heterosexual….. I don’t believe that you are born into this world with desires for either man or woman. You are an innocent babe…white as snow….Christ like in the sense of no sin, no wrong doing…. It is your beliefs and personal experiences/influences that help in the development of becoming you…. I was raised and believe that a woman is made for a man (The unity in marriage between man and woman is glorified as resembling the marriage of Jesus and his Bride…the Church), therefore I have always thought of being “Gay” as something against my belief and I have no desire to live that life. NOW, before everyone starts jumping on me, that is my life…and why I did not choose to be gay. I am not saying anything about why or how you live your life. I am just answering a question on my personal belief, in which I was asked.

I understand that those of you who are gay, believe that there is nothing wrong with that. And that is YOUR belief…this is mine. I am not better, you are not better….

The only point I am trying to make is that you are not BORN that way….

Gale-

I am not sure that I understand your question.. Are you asking why does the word of God say those things or why it is it more important than something else?

RF- I would not think any differently than I do now if my daughter came home to tell me she was gay. But here is the difference. I am not claiming that gays are worse than anyone else. If my daughter took that route, I would belive the same…she wasn’t BORN that way. I have had many gay friends…and they are great people. But I would give them the same argument….they weren’t born that way. So don’t assume that if my family were different, I would change my beliefs… Faith doesn’t work that way. You don’t know me and therefore you can’t really judge me on how I would react. I am not judging here, I am just stating my belief when it comes to being “Born” gay. I have never said that I am better, that gay people should hide, or anything of the like.

By RF

July 16, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

AnotherView- I wasn’t going to bring that up, but you’re right. Those who have a reason to sneak around will do the craziest things. I met a guy once who seemed really nice until he got to the point—which was a quick hookup and then home to the wife. He thought it was perfectly okay to do that and totally didn’t get my shock. I’ve been amazed at the number of guys out there like that.

By Copyleft

July 16, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

It’s true that religion helped establish laws, but I question whether they were to “help the population.” Rather, it seems many of them were designed to CONTROL the population.

By Lily Toad

July 16, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

And weren’t some of the prohibitions in the Old Testament about a small tribe surviving — such as a brother marrying his brother’s widow and not spilling seed? Don’t masterbate, use that see to reproduce!

By Lily Toad

July 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

And weren’t some of the prohibitions in the Old Testament about a small tribe surviving — such as a brother marrying his brother’s widow and not spilling seed? Don’t masterbate, use that seed to reproduce!

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

Truth -

But they weren’t silly at the time.

Shellfish and pork, yes. What kinds of sacrifices for what kinds of transgressions, sounds like a good idea. Wearing clothes of 2 different fibers? not so much.

By GOB

July 16, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

But they weren’t silly at the time. Bad shellfish, without modern medicine would result in a horribly painful death., I get in deep trouble for saying this, but a lot of religion is a way to establish laws that helped the population. A lot of those laws were just public health concerns, but religion and government were one.

Very true. The cheif concern of the most of these ancient tribes was survival. They were able to figure out that shellfish could kill you, so made a law that says god will smite you if you do. Being gay certainly didnt help populate the tribe, so again, god says no…

It isnt quite the sophisticated set of rules that many christians assume. I mean these are people who would have looked at the wheelbarrow as a technological marvel (lifted from Sam Harris).

By Newzwyre

July 16, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

Frustrated wrote “He wants you to lead a Christ-like life, to spread his word…and to say that he gave you no choice in being gay is saying he put you on this earth to live in sin with no choice of your actions.”

You are arguing two different premises. A) Homosexuals are not born gay, and B) gay sex is a sin.

I will not dispute “B” simply because your religious views are as valid as mine. If you believe that homosexual sex is a sin, okay.

It seems to me that your argument should be about homosexuals who sin, not about whether God could have made them the way they are. It’s the height of hubris (isn’t pride a sin?) to assert that He could not possibly have created homosexuals as homosexuals simply because gay sex is a sin.

Who are you to say what God can and cannot do?

Or what challenges He might lay on someone elses shoulders? Perhaps it is part of His plan that homosexuals learn to deny their flesh and embrace only the spirit.

Unlike you, I don’t pretend to understand the mind of God nor feel entitled to judge His methods. Also unlike you, I have no problem seeing His hand in the workings of all things, even science.

on a side note - it always amuses me when Leviticus is brought up in relation to homosexuality —- usually the ONLY item they worry about is the abomination of man lying with man. Nobody ever condemns the seafood lover (Liv 11:10), the fashionista (Liv 19:19), or the guy who mows his lawn on Sunday (Liv 23:3). It’s always the gay guy who gets pelted with the rotten tomatoes

By Lily Toad

July 16, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

RF, that reminds me of a friend of mine who was telling me he met the perfect man, except for one thing — he was married with a pregnant wife! Oddly enough, they dated until the child was born, then bye-bye.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

Frustrated,

The only point I am trying to make is that you are not BORN that way….

You may believe that, but that does not make it fact. If you are going into the realm of fact, you have to look to science for that info which currently leans heavily towards the probability that one is born gay.

I am just stating my belief when it comes to being “Born” gay. If that is what you mean, say that, because you frequently state it as if it is proven fact.

And you still have to address my post regarding the bible never addressing a relationship between two loving adults. It only addresses other practices as listed.

By GOB

July 16, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

Frustrated - you still never answered the question about when you chose to become straight. From your post, it sure sounds like you know when, so please enlighten us. Was it on your first date? Your wedding night? As a 5 year old that was told woman was made for man?

It seems very strange to keep insisting that you know that not one person in the history of humankind has been born gay. Does god allow monkeys to be born gay, or is it a choice for them too?

By Frustrated

July 16, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

USinUK- Here is your New Testament literature….if it makes you feel more at ease.

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Footnote: “A prostitute: the reference may be specifically to religious prostitution, an accepted part of pagan culture at Corinth and elsewhere; but the prostitute also serves as a symbol for any sexual relationship that conflicts with Christ’s claim over us individually. The two … will become one flesh: the text of Genesis 2:24 is applied positively to human marriage in Matthew and Mark, and in Eph 5:29-32: love of husband and wife reflect the love of Christ for his church. The application of the text to union with a prostitute is jarring, for such a union is a parody, an antitype of marriage, which does conflict with Christ’s claim over us. This explains the horror expressed in 15b.”

And as far as your question about being born heterosexual….. I don’t believe that you are born into this world with desires for either man or woman. You are an innocent babe…white as snow….Christ like in the sense of no sin, no wrong doing…. It is your beliefs and personal experiences/influences that help in the development of becoming you…. I was raised and believe that a woman is made for a man (The unity in marriage between man and woman is glorified as resembling the marriage of Jesus and his Bride…the Church), therefore I have always thought of being “Gay” as something against my belief and I have no desire to live that life. NOW, before everyone starts jumping on me, that is my life…and why I did not choose to be gay. I am not saying anything about why or how you live your life. I am just answering a question on my personal belief, in which I was asked.

I understand that those of you who are gay, believe that there is nothing wrong with that. And that is YOUR belief…this is mine. I am not better, you are not better….

The only point I am trying to make is that you are not BORN that way….

Gale-

I am not sure that I understand your question.. Are you asking why does the word of God say those things or why it is it more important than something else?

RF- I would not think any differently than I do now if my daughter came home to tell me she was gay. But here is the difference. I am not claiming that gays are worse than anyone else. If my daughter took that route, I would belive the same…she wasn’t BORN that way. I have had many gay friends…and they are great people. But I would give them the same argument….they weren’t born that way. So don’t assume that if my family were different, I would change my beliefs… Faith doesn’t work that way. You don’t know me and therefore you can’t really judge me on how I would react. I am not judging here, I am just stating my belief when it comes to being “Born” gay. I have never said that I am better, that gay people should hide, or anything of the like.

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Frustrated:

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

And that would be Paul’s word. Not Jesus’s. It was a letter Paul wrote long after Christ’s death.

I was raised and believe that a woman is made for a man (The unity in marriage between man and woman is glorified as resembling the marriage of Jesus and his Bride…the Church), therefore I have always thought of being “Gay” as something against my belief and I have no desire to live that life.

you know, my former associate pastor when I lived in Atlanta was also raised how you were … yet, he still came to the realization that he was living a lie. I know a half-dozen people who were raised as good Southern Baptists, Methodists and Catholics who still recognized the truth about themselves.

and, for a moment, put aside what you believe and think about things logically. if you weren’t attracted to people of the same gender, would you want to have sex with them? in other words, there is something that is hard-wired - something different than you - that makes them attracted to the same gender and not the opposite gender.

one last bit of “food to think about” - every single gay person I know said they knew they fancied the same gender when they were young, before they really even understood gay/straight. they just knew they were different.

I understand what you mean about babies being innocent - but that doesn’t mean that babies are all alike.

By RF

July 16, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Copyleft- protections implies some degree of control. Laws then controlled behavior very strictly, and still do in many societies. As Truth pointed out, the church and state were one then, so it was very different. Our system has such battles over the separation of church and state to prevent that sort of blending of protection/control again.

Frustrated- I’m not judging you, I was just pointing out what I’ve seen happen in many families when forced to face homosexuality for the first time. As I said, I support your right to your faith, even if I don’t agree with it. Let me ask a question, and I ask this totally without judging or picking a fight. I honestly want to know- would you allow your daughter to bring a “partner” home for a visit? I’ve had friends whose parents somewhat accepted their sexuality but absolutely refused to meet any of their dates or have them in the house.

Lilytoad- I’ve often wondered about that same verse. I had a friend way back when who tried to use that to say that it was wrong to even masturbate before marriage. One verse taken out of context can create an issue.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

LilyToad,

And weren’t some of the prohibitions in the Old Testament about a small tribe surviving — such as a brother marrying his brother’s widow and not spilling seed? Don’t masterbate, use that see to reproduce!

Yes. The bible frequently oscillates between fruitful/multiply and love everyone/prepare for the end.

By Truth

July 16, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

USinUK

funny - I don’t take the Pride parade as promoting civil rights any more than I take the Carnivale parades as promoting Christianity

Whether or not it is right, gay people are often looked at under a microscope. And in every pride parade I have ever seen, there are lots of sign carrying folks who are pushing human rights.

The hetero equivalent of Park of Whispering Bushes may occur, but it is rare. You are correct that you are dealing with men and we all know what that means. LOL! I’m lucky. I was a musician during the 70s (my youth) so I could pick and choose, but most guys would impregnate a tree trunk if they could find the right sized knot hole.

USinUK, JohnF, Gale

Men are what they are. Yes, married men are caught in rest areas with other men. But are those men gay? If they have produced children with a woman in their past, that would blow out the issue that all gay people are born gay. Some: yes. But certainly not all.

I believe that men just get lonesome and really want someone to be openly attracted to them. This is not going to happen with their wives and this is not going to happen with a hooker. It has been a while for me, but sometimes, a man can find a woman who is very sexually aggressive. For a stranger (woman) to do that is incredibly erotic. Not really the woman you would want to marry, but for a few minutes,, a hell of a good time. That’s why every guy wants to be a rock star. To hell with the fame and money: beautiful women walk up and grab your crotch. Viva la Doobie Brothers.

I have been to gay bars with friends. (Been a while) Men are very aggressive and I could see the attraction of an old guy who has a wife that hasn’t been hot toward him for years. I’m still able to attract a few women that I want to be with. A lot of guys aren’t. They just want somebody, anybody, any sex to want to touch them. I believe that loneliness, particularly sexual loneliness can change a person’s perspective.

But … That doesn’t help the perspective of the general population toward gays. Is that fair? Hell no. They don’t usually condemn the married man for cheating as much as “going to the other side”.

My sweetie and i are pretty tight, but when and if we split, I will be older and less attractive so who knows if i will be able to land another woman that I am as attracted to. I dread those days. I don’t think I will go that route, but I can certainly understand why a guy would.

My advice to any woman that has been married for long time: when he least expects it. Seduce the hell out of him. Just attack the guy. Act like he hasn’t seen you act in years. You will be amazed at what it will do for your relationship.

By Frustrated

July 16, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

JokesOn-

It seems to me that your argument should be about homosexuals who sin, not about whether God could have made them the way they are. It’s the height of hubris (isn’t pride a sin?) to assert that He could not possibly have created homosexuals as homosexuals simply because gay sex is a sin. —I’m not going to get into this. I think everything I am trying to say is being taken out of context now…

My whole argument on being “born” gay is held up by the Biblical FACT that it is a sin and you are born into innocence….. My fact and your scientific fact could be two different things, but what the Bible says, is the truth to me, all the fact I need… That is what Faith is.

And I totally agree with your last part… The guy who mows his grass on Sunday is no better than anyone else. But when it comes to pointing out a certain issue, in this being born homosexual, you use what there is. If we were talking about working on Sunday, then that same verse would be used. I am not saying the rest is ok, I am just using what scripture tells.

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

Frustrated …

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/ch04.html

really interesting treatise on Paul’s travels, mission and, specifically, his letters to the fine folks of Corinth.

By Truth

July 16, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

RF

As usual, you get my point. It is the perspective that hurts your cause.

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

Truth —

Whether or not it is right, gay people are often looked at under a microscope. And in every pride parade I have ever seen, there are lots of sign carrying folks who are pushing human rights.

I was just saying it was my impression of the parade … and, yes, you’re right, gays at the Parade are held under a microscope as people scrutinize them for anything they can condemn. Sad, but true.

most guys would impregnate a tree trunk if they could find the right sized knot hole

dogs. the lot of you. ;-)

By Truth

July 16, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this

Sorry about everybody I seem to be ignoring. I’m not. This is just a great discussion and I can’t type fast enough to keep up.

Copyleft

Yes, there is some control in the mix, but there were also health and cultural problems. Just like modern laws. the History Channel has had a lot of programs about this sort of thing.

GOB

I agree.

By GOB

July 16, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

My fact and your scientific fact could be two different things, but what the Bible says, is the truth to me, all the fact I need

It’s all fine and dandy to say, but in reality, only one of those can actually be true. That is how facts work.

By Truth

July 16, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

USinUK

dogs. the lot of you. ;-)

I HAVE NEVER had sex with a tree trunk. (As far as you know)

By Frustrated

July 16, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

RF-

I honestly don’t know what I would do if I was faced with that. My beliefs on the issue would not change, but as far as handling it, I am not sure. I don’t think I would “agree” or “encourage” them as it being ok. I would never turn my back on her either, that is just being hypocritical as far as being a Christian.

I think the only thing I could do is talk to them, witness to them, share with them my beliefs and what the Bible says about this. And just Pray!! My daughter will be my daughter no matter what. I will not agree with everything she does just as my parents don’t agree with everything I have done. But they love me no matter what and my daughter deserves the same.

Would that person be welcomed in my house, she can be there, but she would need to be prepared to hear me out!!!

USinUK-

I know we are going to go in circles with this, but if you believe as I do in that babies are born in innocence…… Then they are not hard-wired….. Those “wires” come from influences, experiences, preferences from previous actions, etc…..

I can’t tell you WHY people choose to be gay, I don’t know that. But I totally believe it wasn’t because they were born that way.

By RF

July 16, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

It’s always the gay guy who gets pelted with the rotten tomatoes

That’s because that’s the sin du jour right now. With the push for legal rights and media attention to those issues of late, we’ve become the target of those who use such biblical verses out of context to justify their disgust. You have to learn to ignore it.

By Truth

July 16, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

Does anyone know what happened to the Piedmont Park Parking Deck that caused so much yelling? I was a big proponent of that. In fact, i was at a public meeting where I said something that inspired a lot of yelling at me that made the evening news. I wasn’t on camera, but one of the guys yelling was. What he was yelling sure didn’t help his cause.

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

Truth -

I HAVE NEVER had sex with a tree trunk. (As far as you know)

I think the phrase is “I have never had sex with that tree trunk, Dogwood Lewinsky”

heehee

By RF

July 16, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

Frustrated- good response. A good many families have found themselves in that position and haven’t handled it well. I’ve met way too many christians who seem to have forgotten to “love the sinner and hate the sin.” That’s hard to do sometimes, but has a lot more power as a witness.

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

Frustrated -

I know we are going to go in circles with this, but if you believe as I do in that babies are born in innocence … Then they are not hard-wired….. Those “wires” come from influences, experiences, preferences from previous actions, etc…

that’s where you and I differ - I think being born gay is just as much of a part of being born in innocence as being born straight (or being born a child prodigy, or being born blonde and blue-eyed)

By Frustrated

July 16, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

GOB It’s all fine and dandy to say, but in reality, only one of those can actually be true. That is how facts work

The only way to find out is when we die I guess. I’d rather believe what I believe in and be wrong and see that this was it…than to not believe and be wrong and find myself in a burning pit….

By Truth

July 16, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

USinUK

Ok, ok.

I just saw on the noon news that over 700 violent offenders were picked up in Metro Atlanta during Operation Falcon, a nationwide crackdown that netted 25,000 violent offenders,

That’s a good thing.

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

RF -

That’s because that’s the sin du jour right now. With the push for legal rights and media attention to those issues of late, we’ve become the target of those who use such biblical verses out of context to justify their disgust. You have to learn to ignore it.

before “teh gay” it was “teh communist” … once the USSR fell, people needed a new Enemy of the State. It’s primarily gays, but we feminists get the honor every third Thursday. ::shrug::

with Putin and Medvedev at the helm, I’m sure hating the Russkies will come back into vogue and we’ll move down the starting lineup.

By JohnF

July 16, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

USinUK,

yes, shrimp scampi takes on a whole new perspective at Red Lobster, I’ve never seen so much grease with five little prawns.

Truth,

I know the levitical laws were based on health and social problems of the time, but I just want to know why some are still considered relevant while other’s aren’t, given the expectation that the bible is inerrant.

Why is homosexuality still considered a violation of God’s law while eating shellfish no longer is? It can’t be because we need more babies made. Or is the bible just used to codify an already existing distaste for homosexuality?

By Newzwyre

July 16, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

Frustrated - that was my post, not JokesOn’s.

And where exactly did you find that babies are born pure and without sin?! My Bible says that we are ALL born of sin and into sin. THAT “biblical fact” certainly leaves the door open for God to imbue certain individuals with a predisposition toward homosexuality.

Put another way, we ALL have a predisposition for survival. It’s inborn and instinctual. Sometimes survival means stealing, or killing. It is a Biblical fact (as opposed to a simple “fact”?) that killing and stealing are sins. Since most people will CHOOSE to sin under these circumstances, does that change how God made us? Just because most homosexuals CHOOSE to engage in sex, does that change how God made them?

what a bore. If the best you can do is scream “But I don’t believe God would create someone who will sin like that!” it’s pretty useless to engage in dialog. My bad.

By RF

July 16, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

I think being born gay is just as much of a part of being born in innocence as being born straight

UsinUk- a great many people don’t accept the fact that sex drive is an innocent thing that is just a part of our nature. I have a hard time about the “choice” issue myself because I believe the only “choice” you have is whether or not to practice what you know is real. I don’t think most homosexuals would choose to go through the often difficult process of coming out and the challenges of living under the social microscope if they could. I never remember having a time where I considered both options and chose to become gay. It was simply a choice of whether or not to accept it. Many don’t and end up, as was pointed out earlier, to the woods to deal with it. We make it way too painful to just be honest with oneself and the world.

By Truth

July 16, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

Frustrated

Burning pit.

That’s interesting. Don’t get me wrong. I believe in hell, but I’m not so sure about some of the descriptions in the bible as well as the descriptions of heaven. Pearly gates? Streets paved with gold? Seems a little tacky to me. Seems like God would have better taste than that. And wouldn’t gold be really slick to try and walk on?

Hades was a tar pit that burned outside of some major ancient city (Jerusalem, I think). If a person was arrested and died, their body ws not allowed burial, but thrown into the lake of fire. The same was done to anyone who didn’t have a family burial plot. That is the earliest description of hell in the bible, (I think).

I believe in karma. Some things we pay for in this life, some in the next. Will that life be here on this planet and in this celestial plane? Who knows?

By Truth

July 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

JohnF

I just wrote a post about pearly gates and roads paved with gold. Not exactly what I would call heaven. I have experienced what I would consider heaven a few times in my life and it always centered around a wonderful place with a wonderful person. Sometimes an early morning horse ride was involved. Sometimes, the idea of flying was involved. Sometimes playing music was involved.

Nothing in the bible about that stuff.

Why certain things stick and others don’t? Who knows. We can be a very smart species and we can be a very dumb species. A few writers have been able to target that fact, I think the best was Sam Clemens. James Mitchner was also very insightful about that.

By RF

July 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

once the USSR fell, people needed a new Enemy of the State. It’s primarily gays, but we feminists get the honor every third Thursday. ::shrug::

Oh, my dad gives you that honor WAY more often than that! You should have heard him when Hillary was still running for President. OIY!!

Or is the bible just used to codify an already existing distaste for homosexuality?

Short answer— YEP! It’s common to use one verse or passage as the need arises. The OT is often taken out of context to apply to modern society when it is simply a history of the tribes of Israel and how they survived.

This brings up a question that has longed bugged me and gets my more fundamental friends foaming at the mouth. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, then why was the last book written so long ago? Did God stop talking to man after that? Why aren’t any modern writings considered for inclusion? I have a hard time with that fact and with the fact that so many writings of its time about Jesus and his disciples were overlooked. It was book assembled by men for the purpose of controlling religion and their society. It’s been used pretty much that way ever since. Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if someone even postulated the idea of a newer, updated, God-inspired Bible?

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

RF -

I don’t think most homosexuals would choose to go through the often difficult process of coming out and the challenges of living under the social microscope if they could. I never remember having a time where I considered both options and chose to become gay. It was simply a choice of whether or not to accept it.

thanks for saying what I was thinking FAR more eloquently than I did. I just look at it as … well, for an example … as pretty as I think Cate Blanchett is (and, let’s face it, she’s GORGE!), I still don’t want to sleep with her. A snog? maybe. But sleep with her and have a relationship with her like I have with my hub? nope. the drive just isn’t there for me. But Christian Bale or Patrick Dempsey??? - get outta my way.

in other words, it really isn’t a choice for me - and if it isn’t one for me, I imagine it’s the same for you!

By RF

July 16, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

I believe in karma. Some things we pay for in this life, some in the next. Will that life be here on this planet and in this celestial plane? Who knows?

Okay, is somebody hitting the bong and listening the Doobie Brother’s records again? ;-)

By USinUK

July 16, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

heading out for a curry … have a great evening!!

By Newzwyre

July 16, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

Truth wrote “Pearly gates? Streets paved with gold? Seems a little tacky to me. Seems like God would have better taste than that. And wouldn’t gold be really slick to try and walk on?”

reminds me of the old joke about the tycoon who, upon his death asked God to allow him to bring some of his worldly possesions with him to Heaven. After being nagged and begged for a while, God finally agreed that he could bring one suitcase with him.

Upon arriving at the Pearly Gates, Saint Peter demanded to know why he had luggage. The man explained and offered to let Peter check the contents. Peter looked into the case, looked back at the man, looked back at the case, then the man and said quizzically — “You brought pavement?!”

By woodie

July 16, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

Give the gay couples their marriages. Why do people even care whether they get married or not. They aren’t harming anyone. It’s just annoying if they show public affection. The same annoyance if heterosexuals show public affection. Just keep it inside and try not to let it become something for other people to get annoyed about. We’ve got enough problems in this country. We don’t need to worry about gay people.

By Truth

July 16, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

RF

Woooooo Listen to the music … I could tell you some tales about the ‘Brothers.

Been a while since the bong. Sh*t just made me useless. it was no fun playing music because I couldn’t remember the chords or the words. And with what i do now, it would be a disaster. Get an F-stop wrong and I am severally screwed. I know people that still sell it, but jeeze, $120/ quarter ounce? Who can afford that. And with all this Frankin-pot that is out there, who knows what you are smoking?

But I have to say, I have doen some great snorkeling in the Caribbean with very red eyes. Jamaica! Mon, what a splendid place!!! (What I remember)

By Truth

July 16, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre

Funny stuff.

I have a meeting, God, I hate ‘em. Have a good one.

USinUK

Tea? Curry? You are practically a Limy.

By RF

July 16, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

But sleep with her and have a relationship with her like I have with my hub? nope. the drive just isn’t there for me. But Christian Bale or Patrick Dempsey??? - get outta my way

in other words, it really isn’t a choice for me - and if it isn’t one for me, I imagine it’s the same for you

UsinUK- exactly!! It just is, as difficult as it is for many to accept. As for Patrick, you better be quick on you feet, girl!

By Gale

July 16, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

Frustrated, Sorry, I didn’t mean to ignore you. I was away from my desk and it has taken a while to catch up with the conversation. My question had to do with why ‘God’s word’ about homosexuality appears to be so much more important than ‘God’s word’ about eating shellfish, for example. I never see christians picketing seafood restaurants or screaming at baptists patronizing those dens of iniquity.

By GOB

July 16, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

Frustrated - Since you brought up the afterlife, a question: Is there free will in heaven? If so, doesnt that mean that someone could go against god if the wanted to? If not, then who would want to go??

By Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho)

July 16, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

“No, I am not gay nor have any desire to be gay.”

That’s what I said! I am “frustrated” too. We should get together and discuss what to do about all these Godless gays running around. Man to man. We understand each other.

tap tap tappity tap!

By Gale

July 16, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

GOB, oooh. I think I read a story about that once. (Sorry to barge into your question to frustrated.) It was something about no free will in heaven and therefore no sin because the only path was the proscribed path. The protagonist was not sure he was really in heaven because it seemed so much like hell to him. I don’t recall the title unfortunately.

I am personnaly rather in the Karma camp. Do good in this life because eventually, you will have to answer for bad things, and conversely, be rewarded for good things. It is the elementary carrot and stick. Going back to the 70’s, “Make good vibes.”

By Frustrated

July 16, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

Gale-

I am not claiming by any means to be a scholar, but I am going to try to make sense in answering your question. The laws that are put forth in the Old Testament were fulfilled with the Prphecy of Christ. He died so we no longer had to wear beards, etc. He took that place. But, the law of the New Testament is laid out as well. I cannot quote it off the top of my head, but take a glance around Acts and 1 Corinthians.

Again, I find it hard to explain, so if I confused you, I apologize….

By Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho)

July 16, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

And you say you’re NOT a scholar? My, my, you’re being much too …hard… on yourself. I think you’re just brilliant! You and I both know what these gays are doing is wrong. We just need to put our …heads… together to figure out how to stop them! Call me.

tap tap tappity tap!

By Frustrated

July 16, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

GOB,

Honestly, I don’t know that anyone really knows what heaven is going to be like. I think that if you believe in Christ and know what he stood and died for, then when you get to heaven, there is no way you would want to turn from him.

I remember growing up, my biggest concern was the question “Will I know myself up there like I know myself here”….Will I know my parents and kids and spouse, etc like I know them down here.

If Heaven is sinless, which I believe it is, you won’t have to worry about that, you will be praising his name all day…there will be no darkness, no minority, no arguments… You will be perfect in his sight. And as boring as that may sound to a lot of people, how wonderful it must be to live in a place where everyone saw eye to eye…To know that God is everyone’s number 1….no fighting, no stress…

I also believe that you can’t really compare something that great to anything here on earth. So saying that a trip to the mountains was the greatest thing you ever did, doesn’t compare to what heaven will be like…but that is just my opinion.

By Mara

July 16, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

Hey guys! Just popped in for a quick look-see and to let all y’all know that Rush (the band, not the common-tater) will be playing tonight on the 11:30 segment of The Colbert Report.

Music lovers rejoice :^)

By JokesOn

July 16, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

Again, I find it hard to explain, so if I confused you, I apologize….

There is a good reason find it hard to explain. JC never (himself) mentioned a loving homosexual relationship. Corinthians is text that is prose directly TO the Corinthians, not general message material.

The only text is when others refer to OT, and whether it was overstepping JC is even highly debated by theologists.

By Gale

July 16, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

Frustrated, Funny you would mention Corinthians, which isn’t Jesus’ word or god’s, but Paul’s interpretations. I didn’t have time to read what is apparently a lot to say. I googled Corinthains and homosexuality and found lots. Since I really get paid to do something quite different, I picked one at random and found this from one biblical scholar.

Blair affirms that Paul was not against homosexuality per se but against homosexual abuse, or perhaps better—homosexual sins related to abuse of the body and comparable to heterosexual sins such as adultery and fornication. Blair says Paul’s discussion of omosexuality is like Paul’s allowance for temperance in drinking without requiring abstinence (cf. 1 Tim 5:23).

It does not sound like “abomination” to me.

By RF

July 16, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

Gale- it really is all about interpretation, isn’t it? Scholars are often scorned in churches though, because they research the historical context of the letters Paul wrote and read his words with the context in mind. That makes the understanding much different from someone who is looking for a reference to support one isolated idea. I can recall hearing more than one preacher scoff at the scholars. Imagine thinking you know more than a person whose spent years reading the original texts!

Paul’s letters often caution the various churches he wrote to about how to practice their faith within the societies in which they lived. There are NT passages that say women shouldn’t have a vote or hold a position of authority in church. Some modern churches (I went to one years ago) use that to mean that women can’t teach adult classes with men in them. In context, Paul mentions that because the women having authority within the church that they did not have in society in general would have created much dissension in both the church and the society and destroyed the church. His words were to guide the church on how to work successfully in their cultural/social contexts. How literally we take those letters can really affect the functioning of a church. We let women teach and in some cases preach. If you take Paul’s letters literally, is that wrong?

Interestingly enough, to go back to earlier comments, has anyone here heard the Kelly Perry song “I Kissed A Girl”? Catchy little tune that talks about a homosexual kiss. Girl on girl and you can even write a popular tune about it. A song about a guy like that wouldn’t get any airplay, I’ll bet!

By JokesOn

July 16, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

Gale,

Paul’s interpretations have been widely scrutinized by the church itself. He is viewed by many as hi-jacking the intention of christ’s/NT,s message and bringing back the OT way of thinking.

By Frustrated

July 16, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

Gale/JokesOn-

We could go back and forth for hours. I think it is all a matter of what you believe….it is one of those, you are for homosexuality or not. I don’t agree with the lifesytle, but that doesn’t make me a better person than anyone else.

Jesus loves everyone equally, gay, straight, black, white, yellow, it doesn’t matter.

Therefore, everyone needs to be tolorant of each OTHER, not necessarily agree or have to tolerate the actions. I would not appreciate a gay couple showing PDA in front of me….and therefore, I show the same consideration in public….I do not make out with my spouse. I would be offended if someone cussed at me, therefore I do not cuss at others. etc etc. We all make mistakes, yes I have cussed, blah blah. But I live my life the best I know how. And for the times I slip, I know I can pray and seek forgiveness.

I am not judging you on the fact that you like same sex partners, I am not judging at all. That is your life to live as you see fit. I am just upset that people say God made you that way, that you did not have a choice. God made you in his image and to say he made you gay , TO ME, comes across as saying God creates sin….and he DOESN’T. Mankind does.

I really hope that I did not come across as a “Gay Hater”…I am really not. I do not hate anyone. I just stand up for my faith when I see fit. And this case, I saw it fit to defend my beliefs….as everyone else on this board.

By Gale

July 16, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this

RF, good point about scholars and churches. “Please don’t confuse the issue with facts!” It seems to me the problems come in when people just want a list of rules so they don’t have to think to hard about anything. It is so much easier than considering each decision on it’s own merits.

Haven’t heard the song. I have another example of general appeal for lesbian tunes. At a Melissa Etheridge concert some years ago, a young man piled a bunch of chairs and slide them in front of my partner and I. I slide them back and he told me he didn’t want them in front of his wife. I told him I didn’t want them in front of my girlfriend. He sneered a bit but backed off. He may have realized I had lots of company in the audience. To the point, there were plenty of straights in the audience as well.

By Gale

July 16, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

Frustrated, Just when you started to sound tolerant, you went right back to calling homosexuality a sin. That’s the rub.

By Gandalf, the Grey

July 16, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this

Hey EXPAT:

Once you are awarded the Eagle Scout award, you are always an Eagle Scout. So the vast majority of Eagle Scouts are 18 plus.

By RF

July 16, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this

I often watch Joyce Meyer, an evangelist out of Oklahoma, I think. She’s very popular and gives lots of good lessons on day to day life as a christian. If I take Paul literally on the issue of her being an evangelist and the head of a ministry(a position of authority within the church), then she is as sinful as a homosexual. But the success and help of her ministry can’t be disputed. If Paul is right and she is wrong, then how come God keeps letting her preach? And why would there be exceptions to the passages about women and roles of authority?

One thing I like about her is that she isn’t just a “feel good about God” type of teacher/evangelist. She talks about day to day issues and reminds christians to be happy about their faith while doing the right thing. I gotta say I see too many whose only joy in Christ seems to be finding the sins of everyone else and constantly looking grim and sour about life.

By JokesOn

July 16, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

I really hope that I did not come across as a “Gay Hater”…I am really not. I do not hate anyone.

Unlike others on here I do not get that impression from you, but…. half the time you are honest by stating “you believe…” and the other half you state “it is a fact that…”

I would appreciate it if you stayed accurate and consistent by using the “i believe…” version.

Not just on this issue either. (all) People tend to start discussing as if their personal opinion is undisputed fact, and that just muddies up the conversation.

By USinUK

July 17, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this

RF -

UsinUK- exactly!! It just is, as difficult as it is for many to accept. As for Patrick, you better be quick on you feet, girl!

forget McDreamy … he’s McYUMMY!!! (woof!)

Truth -

Tea? Curry? You are practically a Limy.

I do love my tea in the afternoon (tea makes spreadsheets a lot easier to work with) … as for curry, think of it as the English version of Mexican food - there’s a curry place on every corner, a curry for every price range, and no one who works there is native!

Gandalf -

Once you are awarded the Eagle Scout award, you are always an Eagle Scout. So the vast majority of Eagle Scouts are 18 plus.

Where ya been all week??? we don’t hear from you before WEDNESDAY??? slacker!

Good point about Eagle Scouts - it does go beyond the final ceremony, doesn’t it.

By Mara

July 17, 2008 8:27 AM | Link to this

to say he made you gay , TO ME, comes across as saying God creates sin….and he DOESN’T.

Hmmm. I was under the impression that Gawd created everything in heaven and earth…which would HAVE to include Lucifer, the father of sin. And being an angel, without a mortal’s free will and being wholey subject to Gawd’s power, everything Satan is, has done, or has ever conceived of doing comes straight from Gawd’s intention. Since Gawd makes no mistakes, he must have meant to Satan to rebel and bring sin into the world - (much like Pandora, no?)

Ergo…Gawd created sin.

can I get a big Huh-UH? LOL!!!

By Reason

July 17, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

Romans 1:18-32

**18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.**

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

By USinUK

July 17, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this

wow. I sure do wish people would learn the difference between what Paul had to say and what Jesus had to say. While I’m sure Paul was a great guy, last time I checked, he wasn’t the Son of God (if you believe that kind of thing):

a refresher - when he was asked what was the most important commandment, Jesus replied:

Love the Lord Your God and Love Your Neighbor As Yourself

there were no asterices, there were no addendums, there were no caveats.

By Reason

July 17, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

Mara,

Not too much gray area here………………………………..by the way, these are Gawd’s words, not mine, so if you have a problem take it up with Him.

By Reason

July 17, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

U Sin UK,

Chao, Mr. Reason

By Mara

July 17, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

Reason - what’s your point? Are you saying Gawd DIDN’T create everything that is, was, and ever shall be?

By GOB

July 17, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

USinUK - I personally think that Paul completly hijacked christianity and made it into what he believed it should be (although many biblical scholars dont even believe that Paul wrote 5 or 6 of the letters attributed to him in the new testament).

When people start quoting scripture taken from Paul (or whoever it was that actually wrote the letters), they lose all credibility in my mind.

By Frustrated

July 17, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

JokesOn-

One definition of fact is “Something believed to be true or real”- So to someone of my faith, we take the Bible as fact, as well as everything else that God has done, said, created, etc….

So saying I believe and it is fact, to me, are the same thing. You may not think it is fact if you do not believe the same as I. But to me, it is one in the same.

Reason- Amen!

Gale-

Being tolerant has nothing to do with whether I believe that your lifestyle is a sin or not. I can be tolerant of you without agreeing with your lifestyle. I am not going to scorn you for your choices, but I don’t have to agree with them either.

Being tolerant is allowing someone to be to they want to be… We are all sinners….so I am no better or worse than you are.

By GOB

July 17, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

One definition of fact is “Something believed to be true or real”- So to someone of my faith, we take the Bible as fact, as well as everything else that God has done, said, created, etc….

Frustrated - why not include the rest of the Dictionary.com entry for that definition of fact?

Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

Although I guess that might be the most fitting one for the bible…

By Truth

July 17, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

Reason

Don’t bother replying, I’m going to be by the pool listening to my iPod (so I won’t be reading your mindless drivel).

So cranking up the old melanoma possibilities is more important that defending what you said. I see. Your convictions are underwhelming.

While you are out there, hope you have plenty of smokes. Might as well cook yourself on the outside and inside.

By USinUK

July 17, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

GOB -

When people start quoting scripture taken from Paul (or whoever it was that actually wrote the letters), they lose all credibility in my mind.

man, you don’t know how nice it is to see that there are like-minded folkses out there.

remember, folks - the word of Paul isn’t the word of GOD (Gawd, G*d, or Dog) - he was an apostle and, at the end of the day, was just a man. Period.

Frustrated -

One definition of fact is “Something believed to be true or real”- So to someone of my faith, we take the Bible as fact, as well as everything else that God has done, said, created, etc

as long as you understand that just because you believe it doesn’t make it so. people believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth - their belief didn’t make it so.

faith in god is wonderful - and belief in the bible’s stories and life lessons is great - but belief that it is FACT is misguided.

By Frustrated

July 17, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

GOB-

Your belief is your belief. I am saddened at your response, but if you believe that Bible is laced with mistaken facts, then that is your right to believe that way.

By USinUK

July 17, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

Truth -

Have a beautiful day, my work here is done.

Hrmmm … I wonder how he words his “job” on his resume … “go on message board … fling a little poo … leave without saying anything substantive”

mission accomplished.

By Truth

July 17, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

U Sinner U

You know how I feel about religion. I will fight anyone who wants to restrict religous freedoms, but religous freedom isn’t religous arrogance.

But while laying around the pool, God is doing his work. (Sizzling sound in the background)

By GOB

July 17, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

Frustrated - The bible is a book, written by men. How is it really any different than the papyrus scrolls about Ra and Isis that the Egyptians wrote?

We look at what many ancient civilizations believed and call them crazy, but if you truly look at what you believe, there is very little difference.

Afterlife, miraculous birth, raising the dead, symbolic cannibalism, zombies, eternal punishment, the rapture, armageddon - this is the same kind of list that when applied to ancient religions, we laugh and wonder what they were thinking.

By Frustrated

July 17, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

USinUK-

We are going to keep going around about belief and fact…. Yes, my belief is FACT to me. Just as much as everyone who believes that individuals are ‘born’ gay is FACT to them.

If you believe, it is true to you, which in tale becomes a FACT in your mind. If you believe in Unicorns, then you think that it is fact that they exist.

Faith is real, and in my faith lies the belief that everything in the Bible is fact. Whether or not you can see it, hear it, smell it, whatever. The Bible tells us what DID happen and what is GOING to happen.

It is one of those, you can claim that it is a fact that people are born gay, it is what you believe. I came on this board because I don’t believe that and all I am doing is defending my belief like everyone else. (Your facts against my facts) I am trying to defend mine and you are trying to defend yours. In no way am I trying to offend people, just as I know you are not trying to offend me in arguing or not accepting my belief.

This can go no for days, I don’t mind. I think in the end we will have the same beliefs we came to the board with, but it is my duty as a Christian to stand up for what I believe and witness when I can. Whether you take it or leave it is your choice. As much as I would love everyone to understand and believe what I believe, it isn’t going to happen….

But if someone asks me a sincere question about my belief and I can answer it with the facts (because I see it that way) from the Bible, then I will know if anything, they have learned one more piece of my faith. But to walk away and not stand on my rock is not what I am about.

By USinUK

July 17, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this

Truth -

haha .. I think I like the new name!! (especially when the sin involves cheeseburgers or chocolate chip cookies … or Patrick Dempsey)

You know how I feel about religion. I will fight anyone who wants to restrict religous freedoms, but religous freedom isn’t religous arrogance.

I agree - and I’m all for Reason’s and Frustrated’s belief in their version of God and would never want to restrict that (as Queen Elizabeth I said, “I have no desire to make windows into men’s souls”) - all I can say is that the wisest people I have ever known have been the ones who have said “I choose to believe, but I also know that I could be wrong.”

I’m not really feeling the “I could be wrong” vibe …

By RF

July 17, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

GOB- the similarities in religions is interesting, isn’t it? I read a book comparing modern religions, and while we scoff at many of them, their basic theology and structure are very similar to christianity. Too many parallels to overlook, IMO.

By 2D

July 17, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

I haven’t posted in quite some time, mostly due to an extedned work schedule. However, a recent trip to Philadelphia left me wondering not specifically about the topic of same-sex marriage, but about the role of the courts.

There are many buildings in Philadelphia’s historic district that chronicle the founding of our nation. One of those buildings, called the Documents Room, displays an original printed copy of the Declaration of Independence, The Article of Confederation and the Constitution. Seeing these documents nearly moved me to tears. Not so much as the tomb of the Unknown Soldier of the American Revolution, but those documents choked me up pretty good.

Anyway, let me get back on target. On the walls of the Documents Room, there are several items that outline the reasons behind the hows and whys the Founding Fathers devised their govenrment the way they did. One poster had four bullet points that guided the men as they devised both the Aritcles and later the Constitution. One of those bullets read that the laws of the land should be determined by the people governed and not by the “whims” of a few. I quoted whims because that was the exact word from the poster.

As I read that I wondered to myself, is that what the courts represent to day, the “whims” of the few? I stewed on this and after a few discussions with my spouse, I realized that is exactly what is going on today. The courts are no longer the arbiters of law, but they are the co-creators of law. Many decisions by the court have taken lawmaking responsibility and power from the legislature (i.e. the people) and placed it at the whims of the few, which is exactly what the Founding Fathers DID NOT want to happen. We the people have allowed this to happen and we must do what is necessary to return the judicial branch back to it’s original intent. The real questions though are why has this happened and how to we reverse this terrible transformation?

By Truth

July 17, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

U Sinner U (I am really liking that)

I have eaten Curry flavored food. I guess it sort of grows on you.

I had a meeting yesterday at Piccadilly Cafeterias. It has been years. The food wasn’t bad, and certainly wasn’t expensive.

I will be going back to Virginia the first week in August. So far the show is still alive (at least my checks aren’t bouncing yet) It is a little like playing the stock market. It’s a fine line as to when you bail. I have asked that they pay me more often with much smaller checks, that way, if they crash and burn, I won’t be out that much.

The guy that is digitizing the footage of the Inn has said that a couple of the ghost telling shots are pretty wierd. I haven’t gotten back over to the suite so I don’t know what he is talking about yet. Maybe we have finally caught a ghost, now that the ghost hunting series is half way through production. To be honest, I think the ghosts have screwed us.

By Frustrated

July 17, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

GOB-

You may laugh at what some people are thinking, but I see it as no laughing matter.

It is like I said before, I would rather have my faith to find out when I die, I was wrong and sit in the ground to rot…than to not have my faith, find out I was wrong and sit in hell.

Let me ask you, do have ANY religious belief at all? Do you think there is a God…do you think Jesus Christ really is the son of God? Do you believe in Budha, Karma, Muhammed? Anything?

If you don’t, then this is an endless circle… If you don’t believe in my God (the one and only in my faith), then you don’t understand MY beliefs. If you believe in another God, idol, or nothing at all, then I am not going to understand YOUR beliefs.

I am here defending mine…I can sit here and tell you how crazy I think you are for believing what you believe, but I am not going to do that..I am not judging nor do I think you are crazy because you don’t believe the same as me…..I am saddened.

I find it funny that I came here to defend my beliefs, and it seems like everyone is shouting for religious freedom….and yet you are casting stones at me because you think that the Bible is a book of fairy tales….and that Christians don’t understand what it is like to be judged, etc.

It is hard to be a Christian. And you can laugh all you want. But if you believe as I do and are convicted of every wrong doing and try to live a life as Christ would have you lead, only to fail everyday because you slip off the path…..then you start doubting and Satan is constantly knocking on your door with the next temptation….in which all you can do is pray for strength. We are ridiculed too, but we are not SUPPOSE to cast back the stone, we are to turn the other cheek and try a different approach to whatever the situation is.

I know that being gay is hard with the ridicule you must get from judgmental people, but I am not here to judge. There are some Christians who claim to be holier than thou and are quick to cast the first stone, but I am not. No Christian is perfect, we all fall short. But turning my back on what I stand for is not an option for me. And I will defend my position until my job is done here on earth.

By USinUK

July 17, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Frustrated -

just so we’re clear - I believe that you are entitled to your faith.

however, to take your example, just because I believe in unicorns (or faeries, or UFOs …) doesn’t mean that they exist. real in my mind is not the same as a scientific FACT.

faith is belief in something which cannot be proven (such as a virgin birth or the idea that someone who is dead for 3 days can rise from the grave). and faith is a wonderful thing - it can give you strength to get through difficult times and it adds another element of joy when things are going well.

if you choose to believe in the creation story exactly as written, that is your choice - but science has pretty much proven that it isn’t a FACT.

if you choose to believe that gays “choose that lifestyle”, again, that is your choice - but science has pretty much shown again and again that there are differences in the brain’s construction and that it more than likely happens during fetal development (see the Time article cited earlier).

again, believe what you want - but that doesn’t make it so.

By Truth

July 17, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

U Sinner U

That’s why religion and politics is often forbidden in some discussions.

I have a lot of meetings today. I hate meetings. i have never been to one that all the big decisions weren’t made in the first 15 minutes. The rest of the time is just wasted. I will probably be gone for the rest of the day.

Via Con Amigo. Buenos Aires in las banos.

By JohnF

July 17, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

So Frustrated, you still haven’t answered my question..maybe you won’t.

Is it a fact that eating shellfish is a violation of God’s law?

By RF

July 17, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

especially when the sin involves cheeseburgers or chocolate chip cookies … or Patrick Dempsey

Honey, that’s not sin, that’s pure HEAVEN on Earth, IMO!!!

To be honest, I think the ghosts have screwed us

Union regs, man. Limited appearances on documented footage so as not to destroy the mystery. Too many, and BAM, there goes the whole scare industry.

2D- define WHIM. I see where you’re coming from about the will of the people and majority rule and all that, but minority groups demanding rights is hardly a WHIM.

By Frustrated

July 17, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

USinUK-

I’m not really feeling the “I could be wrong” vibe …

I don’t want to come across as Holier than thou, so I have to pick the right words to explain this.

You have faith because you believe in something with all your heart. In my case, I know God lives and that the Bible is his Word. That doesn’t mean you have to. But I am not going to sit here and say I could be wrong…..I’m not. And I wouldn’t be standing on my rock if I thought I was.

If you are saying that you ‘could’ be wrong in your beliefs, then it seems like you don’t really know what is true. So everything you have argued to date is null….. To say you could be wrong is saying you don’t know…which gives the opportunity for people like me to stand up and say “I know, so let me tell you my faith”…..

My faith allows me to say “I know”…take it or leave… It may not be so to you, but it is to me…

By USinUK

July 17, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

Truth -

I have a lot of meetings today. I hate meetings. i have never been to one that all the big decisions weren’t made in the first 15 minutes. The rest of the time is just wasted. I will probably be gone for the rest of the day.

good luck with your meetings - tomorrow, I’ll give you a recommendation for some good Indian in Atlanta …

Buenos Nachos

By RF

July 17, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

Did anyone notice in the news that California has yet another marriage amendment going to the polls in November? Proposition 8 is supposedly less susceptible to legal challenge, but will, in fact reverse the court’s decision of May to strike down the anti-gay marriage law in California. Google it or go to Ballotpedia.org and read about it. The “left coast” seems to have been overrun by the right here of late!

By USinUK

July 17, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

Frustrated -

But I am not going to sit here and say I could be wrong…..I’m not. And I wouldn’t be standing on my rock if I thought I was.

I guess this is where my 4 years in Catholic school comes in … the priests and brothers always taught us that that’s why it’s called a leap of faith - 1) you don’t know it to be true, and 2) there’s the possibility that you could be wrong, but you have faith in God that you aren’t.

again. that’s just me. Your mileage may vary (and evidently does)

(btw - despite my Catholic upbringing and education, I believe as you - that infants are born innocent … I could never abide by the “baptise your baby or, if it dies, it will go to Limbo, not Heaven” … GAH! talk about a means of controlling the masses)

By Frustrated

July 17, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

John F-

Shellfish being forbidden came from the Old Testament, the “old” laws, the law of the land. These laws were put into place for guidance, for people to know the limits….before Jesus, you had to LIVE by them in order to reach the promised land. When Jesus died, he fulfilled those laws and thus came the New Testament. I am not a Bible scholar, so I really have to do research before I can explain it any better, but here is my take on it from what I have learned throughout my life.

Jesus died on the cross FOR all of our sins. So we no longer have to sacrifice our animals, we no longer have to wear beards, women no longer have to cover their hair…..he took the place of all that. YOU no longer gain your way into Heaven by the deeds you do on earth. The only way to get their is through Jesus…

So no, eating shellfish today does not go against God’s law. Before Christ, yes, it would have.

The New Testament does state the way in which one should live their lives, but the whole shellfish thing is not one of them.

By USinUK

July 17, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

RF -

Honey, that’s not sin, that’s pure HEAVEN on Earth, IMO!!!

I’m sayin!!!

2D -

As I read that I wondered to myself, is that what the courts represent to day, the “whims” of the few?

hrm. civil rights is a whim.

do you really think that? do you really think (regarding the Guantanamo decisions) that due process is a whim? or that (regarding the FISA decisions) that privacy is a whim? or the idea that ANY minority (whether skin color or sexual orientation) has fewer civil rights than the majority?

that’s why they set up the courts - something that was independent of the fickle “will of the people” - so that they could act as a check on the President and the Congress.

Checks. Balances. Look it up.

By Frustrated

July 17, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

USinUk-

I married someone of the Catholic faith, and as I am sure everyone knows by my beliefs, I was raised Baptist. I do not believe that baptizing your baby and having your “Godfather” speak for you is saving you in anyway. You must confess with your mouth. In the Baptist ring, getting dunked in the water is only symbolic….that too, does not get you into heaven.

My spouse and I have had MANY conversations on the differences of each religion, and we still hold differences on topics. But it is not about the name you place on yourself with religion. If you believe in the Bible and God, then you know that there is only one way to get into heaven….which is through Jesus. I don’t care who you are, what race, sexual orientation, age, etc…. That is the only way in.

Finding salvation at the age of 9 is just as much a reason for celebration as finding salvation at the age of 88… Finding salvation in itself is the most important thing you can do in life. And no one can judge whether you have or haven’t….only you and the man upstairs know the truth…

By Just curious

July 17, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

2D: You left out the most inspiring part:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Why omit that? Because it might be interpreted to imply that the government has no right to discern that some men have rights that others do not, based on some arbitrary criteria that the majority may or may not deem valid? Hmmm…. If I were a scholar of such things, I might think that incumbent in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is the right to select one’s own spouse and live as family as one chooses, so long as no innocents are harmed. Wonder why you skipped that part. Was it just a whim?

By USinUK

July 17, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

heading home for the night … have a good evening one and all …

tomorrow - new topic!! see you there!!

(and RF - if loving cheeseburgers is wrong, I don’t wanna be right!)

By Bruno

July 17, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

Hmmm. I was under the impression that Gawd created everything in heaven and earth…which would HAVE to include Lucifer, the father of sin. And being an angel, without a mortal’s free will and being wholey subject to Gawd’s power, everything Satan is, has done, or has ever conceived of doing comes straight from Gawd’s intention. Since Gawd makes no mistakes, he must have meant to Satan to rebel and bring sin into the world - (much like Pandora, no?)

Ergo…Gawd created sin.

Mara—I think your logic is correct. Unfortunately, most “Christians” I’ve chatted with over the years aren’t able to assimilate the seeming contradiction of a “good” God and an “evil” Satan into a singular, coherent worldview. You’re a smart girl.

Hope everyone is doing well. Seems like all the news is negative these days with the high gas prices and ailing economy…..

By Bruno

July 17, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

Hmmm. I was under the impression that Gawd created everything in heaven and earth…which would HAVE to include Lucifer, the father of sin. And being an angel, without a mortal’s free will and being wholey subject to Gawd’s power, everything Satan is, has done, or has ever conceived of doing comes straight from Gawd’s intention. Since Gawd makes no mistakes, he must have meant to Satan to rebel and bring sin into the world - (much like Pandora, no?)

Ergo…Gawd created sin.

Mara—I think your logic is correct. Unfortunately, most “Christians” I’ve chatted with over the years aren’t able to assimilate the seeming contradiction of a “good” God and an “evil” Satan into a singular, coherent worldview. You’re a smart girl.

Hope everyone is doing well. Seems like all the news is negative these days with the high gas prices and ailing economy…..

By Gale

July 17, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

CA voter initiative for a constitution revision, as I think I read it will require a 2/3 majority; again, if I read the article right (sfgate.com). I think it will depend on the anti-gay marriage group coming out in force and the pro-gay marriage group staying home, judging from the CA polls. I doubt it will happen with the voter turnout in a presidential cycle.

My question, if they did manage a constitutional change, would be what do you do about the many legally married gays? Do you revoke what was legal? This is not the same as when Newsome handled out marriage licenses without court approval.

By Bruno

July 17, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

Hmmm. I was under the impression that Gawd created everything in heaven and earth…which would HAVE to include Lucifer, the father of sin. And being an angel, without a mortal’s free will and being wholey subject to Gawd’s power, everything Satan is, has done, or has ever conceived of doing comes straight from Gawd’s intention. Since Gawd makes no mistakes, he must have meant to Satan to rebel and bring sin into the world - (much like Pandora, no?)

Ergo…Gawd created sin.

Mara—I think your logic is correct. Most “Christians” I’ve chatted with over the years have difficulty assimilating the seemingly disparate concepts of a “good” God with an “evil” Satan, although both are part of “Creation”. You’re a smart girl.

Hope everyone is doing well in these depressing times…..

By Bruno

July 17, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

Sorry for the repeated posts—I’m using a different browser on my computer which processes the “post” function differently from my usual browser.

By Bruno

July 17, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

As per the topic of the week, I think the older I get, the more I’m accepting a “live and let live” philosophy toward those who are different from me. The “chuck” part of me is getting smaller and smaller…..

By RF

July 17, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

Gale- I wonder the same thing about the existing marriages. If I read correctly, it would void them. What’s going to happen is that if this passes, the courts will end up involved again and it will likely end up at the federal level. The question is how the amendment is worded and how it fits with the 14th amendment. That will end up being the linchpin, IMO. What the pushers of the proposition don’t realize is that continuously presenting such a proposition is only going to create more intense scrutiny and legal challenge. They’ll lose control of the issue when it goes to the federal level and they will likely end up creating an issue that will force all states to grant marriages without respect to gender or sexual orientation. Their battle to keep California “safe” from gay marriages, IMO, will likely end up turning this into a much bigger issue than the legislators in California realize. It could, as Truth mentioned several times, create a new legal definition of the word marriage, allowing for civil unions for all and “marriage” ceremonies offered by churches to be hetero only according as they see fit. That would solve the whole problem. Interesting time to be in the good ‘ol US of A, ain’t it?

By Bruno

July 17, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

We are going to keep going around about belief and fact…. Yes, my belief is FACT to me. Just as much as everyone who believes that individuals are ‘born’ gay is FACT to them.

Frustrated—Hopefully you will one day understand the difference between “facts” and “opinions”. My personal suspicion is that deep inside you know that you are wrong in your condemnations. We’re all fragile sinners, both “straight” and “gay”. God made us all. As humans, one of our most insidious sins is putting others down so that we feel better about ourselves. Is it possible that you are guilty of this particular sin?

By RF

July 17, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this

Well, I’m off to the races. Gotta shop for my big boy’s birthday. Man, kids’ “stuff” gets pricier and pricier as they grow. He’s entering the “tween” years and I’m so, so not ready for that! Have a great afternoon all!

By Bruno

July 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

Special hello to kimberly, wherever you are. I’ve been praying for you to win the lottery—Further proof that prayer doesn’t work….. ; > }

By 2D

July 17, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

A few notes before I respond…

The word “whim” is not mine, but the words of the exhibit adjacent to Independence Hall. What is and is not a whim, well that can be determined by the fine people on this BLOG and around the world.

Now on to the repsonses. They are not directed to anyone in particular, merely summing up notes from previous posts.

I didn’t omit anything. I presented an observation that the courts are no longer arbiters of law, but are writing law. While USInUK correctly pointed out that the court is there as a check to the legislature and President, it’s job is merely to be the arbiter of law. When the court gives specific notations to the legislature on how a law may be written, they have overstepped their bounds. Roe v Wade is a classic example. The majority opinion spends a great deal of time talking about many non-legal items and lays out a framework for what laws are acceptable to them. The dissent written by Rehnquist is far more succinct and representative of the role of the court. I suggest that folks read each. I learned more about the politics of abortion reading them than I did from anything else.

Just Curious… Those words that you quoted are part of the Declaration and have in no way been trampled upon with the laws prohibiting gay marriage in California or anywhere else. The issue discussed as part of this post outlines the a legal acknowledgement of same-sex marriages (at least that is my understanding) not the ability for same-sex people to live together as a family unit.

While you may or may not believe it, I agree with your posting “If I were a scholar of such things, I might think that incumbent in ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ is the right to select one’s own spouse and live as family as one chooses, so long as no innocents are harmed.” However, I question whether or not same sex couples need the government to issue a license to do exactly as you have described. I live among many same-sex couples who by all accounts live exactly as do me and my heterosexual spouse. We live in the same homes, have careers, even have families. So, not sure where the lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness, has been prevented.

What the laws, ammendments, etc. prevent is a legal and formal acceptance of the same-sex lifestyle. While I personally routinely vote against such ammendments to the State Constitution and other associated laws, I do believe that the people have the right to define “marriage” as whatever they see fit. The people have stricken plural marriage as a legally acknowledged lifestyle and can rightly do the same for same-sex marriage. I do not believe, however, that the people have the right to prohibit same sex relationships.

Another quick point to USInUK… If the courts are necessary to subvert the fickle people, perhaps we should also repeal the 17th ammendment and allow Senators to be appointed by governors and approved by state legislaures rather than be directly elected. That, I believe, would do far more to and more prudently, balance out our legislature than utilize the federal courts to undertake an activity for which they were designed to complete.

By Perpetual Change

July 17, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

And there you are,

Making it up but you’re sure that it is a star,

And boy you’ll see

It’s an illusion shining down in front of me,

And then you’ll say

Even in time we shall control the day,

When what you’ll see

Deep inside the day’s controlling you and me.

By Perpetual Change

July 17, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

Love to all…..

By Frustrated

July 17, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this

Bruno-

I don’t feel I am wrong deep down as you say I do. And I am not putting others down. I am stating my belief. I have said time after time, I am no better or worse. Sin is sin. Had I not read the part of “God made me this way,” I am not sure that I would have even started posting…..I cannot ridicule someone for sinning, for I have sinned too. I am defending my belief on the statement that “God put me here gay”.

I am not sure where you see that I am putting people down in order to make myself feel better…what is there to feel good about when you talk about sin???? There is nothing good about that and I haven’t condemned anyone for doing it…..but God did not make you that way….we make our own choices.

By USinUK

July 17, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

2D -

Another quick point to USInUK… If the courts are necessary to subvert the fickle people, perhaps we should also repeal the 17th ammendment and allow Senators to be appointed by governors and approved by state legislaures rather than be directly elected. That, I believe, would do far more to and more prudently, balance out our legislature than utilize the federal courts to undertake an activity for which they were designed to complete.

I’ll let you propose that one to the populace and see how far it flies!! (heehee)

As I think we’ve all seen over the last 7+ years, cronyism is no way to run a gummint. When the Framers (bless their cotton socks) were writing the Constitution, only men with property could vote, slaves were property, not men, and women? well, we counted as less than slaves. In the late 1700s, it probably was a good idea to let the governor pick the 2 men who would journey to the seat of government (in fact, the majority of men in each state probably would have worked with him to pick the appropriate person).

However, that genie is well and truly out of the bottle - he’s not going back in.

As for the Roe decision (and to think - we went almost a WHOLE WEEK without talking about the a-word) - remember that it didn’t happen in a vacuum. It followed 2 major birth control decisions (Griswold and one other one I don’t feel like looking up) which established that the government has no interest in people’s personal medical decisions.

You may not agree with their decision in Roe, but, as I mentioned, it followed on precedent, so it was hardly a whim.

The framers were primarily talking about the whims of monarchs - the men (and women) who could unilaterally decide to levy taxes on their subjects to pay for another royal residence. And the subjects had no choice but to pay. Who could decide to declare war on another country and the subjects had no choice but to pay for it. THAT’s the kind of “whim” the FFs are talking about.

By Copyleft

July 17, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

2D, you’re looking at it from the wrong perspective. You’re focused on “who wins—the majority or the minority,” but that’s not at all what the courts are about.

The courts focus on “what’s constitutional,” nothinig more. Sometimes the majority will be happy with that; sometimes, they won’t. The point is, the will of the majority has NO RELEVANCE to the court’s function, in either direction. To a judge it shouldn’t matter whether the ruling he makes will be popular or unpopular, whether it will benefit the vast majority or only a few (or even one citizen). The ONLY thing that matters is what the *Constitution says.

“The majority” is sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. Just as individuals are. Does that mean that sometimes the majority will get the short end of the stick? You betcha… which is exactly as it should be when constitutional rights and freedoms are involved.

By GOB

July 17, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

Frustrated - To answer your question, no, I am not religious. I was raised in an evangelical family (laying of hands, speaking in tongues, etc.) so I do have a background in religion, and do understand the typical christian mindset. I lived it for years. As I got older, the more I studied christianity, along with other past and current religions, the more I became convinced that christianity, is not really any different than what the Egyptians or Greeks believed. Certainly not anymore plausible.

Also, I am a straight, married white man, so there it wasnt like I turned away from christianity because I was shunned. I simply looked at the evidence and made a decision that it was strong enough.

I am not arrogant enough to say that I have the answers. I am completly ok saying that I dont know if there is a god or not. I have my suspicions, but am happy to say I dont know. If I did have to classify myself, I would call it skeptical agnosticism.

I believe that science is a much better source for answers than the bible, or any other religous text.

By GOB

July 17, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

It is hard to be a Christian. And you can laugh all you want. But if you believe as I do and are convicted of every wrong doing and try to live a life as Christ would have you lead, only to fail everyday because you slip off the path…..then you start doubting and Satan is constantly knocking on your door with the next temptation….in which all you can do is pray for strength. We are ridiculed too, but we are not SUPPOSE to cast back the stone, we are to turn the other cheek and try a different approach to whatever the situation is.

Not sure if I have seen a better description of how the church uses guilt to keep those people coming back and tithing each week. Talk about control people…

By 2D

July 17, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this

USInUK…

While I would agree that the FF’s were most assuredly speaking of monarchs when they wanted to prevent the “whims” of a few to govern the many, I merely believe that we are now in a position where the “whims” of a few, in this case being the courts, are subverting the will of the people.

Copyleft makes a good point, that the courts are there to focus on what is or is not Constitutional, which is why things like “Civil Rights” as mentioned in previous posts, is well within the role of the courts to enforce. There are multiple ammendments that directly relate to specific rights, specifically the right to vote amongst others, that cannot be denied based on race, gender and other basis. So in this case, there is clear Constitutional conflict and the majority gets “screwed”. But I don’t see it that way. I see it as the minorty not getting screwed.

To build on the above, the courts are not in the business of decided right vs. wrong. They are in the business of arbitering the law as written and ensuring that the laws abide by the Constitution of the State and eventually of the USA. The courts do not have the luxery, nor the duty, nor the ability to strike down a law because they think it is wrong. They are only to do so if it is deemed un-Constitutional. Short of that, the court is hogtied. Are there bad laws…? You betcha, but the court can’t do anything about it. Because it is not the role of the legislature to make laws. It is ther job to be an arbiter. Nothing more.

That is why the Roe decision is bad law, whether or not you think abortion should be legal (which by the way I do). The Constitution does not give the Federal government any authority over such matters. In absence of that authority, it is left to the will of the State. USInUK, correctly indicates that the decision was reached after precedent of other cases but it also reached as a political compromise. Anyone who reads the decision can see that is what happened. Likewise, anyone who reads Justice Rehnquists dissent would be equally impressed with his grasp of the role of the court.

Same sex marriage is not at all like Roe or basic civil rights. Gays are not prevented any basic “rights” by the Federal, State or Local governments. The ability to have a same sex relationship is a right. Having the government formally acknowledge that reltaionship is not. Why do I feel that way? Becasue I do not believe that the gay couple needs the government to acknowledge their relationship in order for them to have their relationship. They can do everything, or nearly everything since I’ve not investigated it completely, that I and my spouse can do as a heterosexual couple. They can vote, have careers, own property, have children, live in any neighborhood they choose. Where are their “rights” being trampled? The answer is… They aren’t.

By Frustrated

July 17, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

GOB-

My brother-in-law classifies himself the same as you… I know there are a lot of people who find comfort in jsut believing “Something”…but never find the answer they are really searching for. But then there are others who are quite content in not wanting to know or just think that whatever shall be shall be, they are just along for the ride.

I had a dear friend recently move to NY, and we were talking one day only to land on the religion topic. He has no faith in anything….which to me, seems kind of scary. He tried arguing with me about my faith and I asked him how can you argue your point if you don’t believe anything??? Not God, Satan, reincarnation, Aliens…nothing… His response was “you just die” I have no idea, but he gets through life just fine I guess..

By NYer

July 17, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

2D,

Standing and applauding. Bravo. Prior to the time that I began posting on this blog, I read it for awhile. I am glad to see that you have returned, as I had always enjoyed your posts.

I too have thought long and hard about the role of the courts in this nation, and how that role seems to have evolved from “arbiter/interpreter” to “decider” on several issues. As you imply, certainly not all of the courts decisions fall into this category, but in my opinion, far too many do.

Rather than confining ourselves to the example of Roe v. Wade, the entire abortion debate is an excellent example of what I believe you are talking about, although I fear the majority of people on this blog will be unable to set aside the emotion of the issue to see that. Probably more than any other topic, abortion, with the numerous changing standards that are and have been applied over the last 35 years, has done more to undermine the courts, specificially the Supreme Court, of their role of neutral interpreters of law. And I believe the SCOTUS, in many instances, has swapped its judicial role for one of policymaking. That is a shame, because the decidedly undemocratic powers bestowed upon judges and justices is done so precisely so that they will follow/interpret the law, not create it.

By Just Curious

July 17, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

I live among many same-sex couples who by all accounts live exactly as do me and my heterosexual spouse. We live in the same homes, have careers, even have families. So, not sure where the lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness, has been prevented.

I understand what you’re saying, but you and your het spouse have something from the government that your neighbors don’t have and (in Georgia) cannot receive: the legal status of “married.” It’s NOT just a word when it comes with inherent guarantees and rights, such as the transfer of property, insurance benefits, life and death medical decisions, etc. Same-sex couples have to pay lawyers to draw up civil contracts that may or may not be honored universally. YOU paid a small fee for your marriage license with those rights attached.

You’re getting special treatment. You have special rights because you’re straight. No one is asking for special treatment to ask for what you have, and as others pointed out, our government was set up to protect the minority from being overrun by the majority just because they’re different. I cannot understand why someone who’s different should be denied by our government what you get just for asking. They are just as much “we the people” as you or I.

By GOB

July 17, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

They can vote, have careers, own property, have children, live in any neighborhood they choose. Where are their “rights” being trampled? The answer is… They aren’t.

They dont receive the same tax benefits as married couples, they dont have final say in medical situations for their partner (a family that has shunned their gay son or daughter for years can make decisions about health ie. pulling the plug, etc, even if the person’s partner of years and years disagrees). It isnt as simple as them being able to live together. The government grants rights to those who are married, and therefore, by not allowing some people to marry (and please dont say they can, just someone of the opposite sex - what a copout), they are deny basic rights, therefore no equality under the law.

By NYer

July 17, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

2D,

Where are their “rights” being trampled? The answer is… They aren’t.

Others have pointed out some of the reasons why, but this is where I would tend to disagree with you.

Personally, I do not take issue with providing some of the benefits conferred by the states upon married couples to gay couples as well.

By GOB

July 17, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

Frustrated - why is it scary to just let life be life? I dont know if there is a god, but I really cant believe the god that the bible describes, particularly the new testament exsists, or if he does that he deserves anything but scorn. There may be some higher power out there, but to believe that it concerns itself with the everyday activities of humans on earth is arrogance in the extreme in my opinion. And if I am completly wrong, and the christian god does not only actually exsist, but listens to prayers, etc and takes an active role in our lives, a whole new can of worms is opened.

When terrible things happen in the world, one of three things must be true. Use a child getting struck and killed by lightning as an example.

Who would worship the first god if he allows such things to happen? The second is surely not all powerful, so the bible must be wrong, and tthe third clearly shows the bible is wrong.

If there is an option I am missing, please let me know because I certianly dont see it.

Treat other people with respect and do no harm. That ethical base will keep you out of trouble and make the world a better place. I dont think it needs to be more complicated than that.

By Frustrated

July 17, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

GOB-

Funny you should say that. I am not a frequent church goer… churches are not the same as they once were. Too many people are easily offended and one’s tithing can’t afford to cover 5 lawsuits from people who got their feelings hurt because the preacher made them wiggle in their seat. Too many “unconstitutional accusations”

I feel no guilt from my church, I feel guilt from my actions in which I am convicted of in everyday life.

Church has nothing to do with whether you are saved or not. You are not a better person because you go. You can kneel beside your bed just as well as you can walk to the alter.

Am I against going to church, absolutely not, I just haven’t found one that I feel truly at home at…. but for you to say that the guilt comes from them is just wrong. It is a place of worship in which you can teach and learn from each other and grow together in Christ, to be able to support one another in bad times.

Being a Christian is following Jesus, living and spreading his word. Believing he is the one and only way to God, that he died for us… You don’t have to be in church everytime the doors are open to get that. So no, it is not a description of the church….it is a description of everyday life for one who is a Christian.

By NYer

July 17, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

Some of you might enjoy the following quote:

The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Goverment upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisisons of the Supreme Court,…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practially resigned Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Brownie points for anyone who can identify the speaker!

By Frustrated

July 17, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

GOB-

What about the God that saw it time to take the child home to be with him… afterall, in Christianity, isn’t earthly death actually eternal life? I am not saying that a child being struck and killed by lightening is something to rejoice about on earth, but isn’t it something to rejoice about if he is in heaven with God and not having to live on this cruel earth ever again?

What about the God that saw that the world had become a terrible place and wanted to spare the child the heartache and constant pain?

What about the God that created the child to be a shining light for the world….to remind people that life should not be taken for granted. That one day your time will come, and that time will come soon. So that you realize you have little time here to make a difference and therefore should do what you can.

Why is someone dying by a tragic accident always looked at as being a terrible thing that God allowed? Because we are humans and we are selfish and we don’t want our loved ones taken away, that is why. But as a Christian, you have to keep the other side of the story in play, that person is in a better place, with a perfect body and sitting with the Lord…..

IF that scenario happened to my daugheter….tomorrow…yes, I would be broken hearted and I would cry and scream and be sick and yell that it isn’t fair. Because I am human and I am selfish. But I know that if something were to happen to her, she would be in a better place, and for that I can rejoice, for I know I will see her again.

By GOB

July 17, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

Frustrated - Perhaps I should have been more clear. When I say church, I am generally speaking of the christian community, not the actually building or act of going to said building. And many do use guilt to keep people coming back to tith each week.

But back to the guilt, do you really believe that you would be “convicted by your actions” (and if there is a more churchy phrase than that, I’d like to hear it) if you hadnt been raised as a christian and told over and over that you never would be good enough and that you would fail everyday in the most important thing you do, namely living a christ-like life?

Unless you do some pretty jacked-up things as part of your everyday life, I just dont get it.

By GOB

July 17, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this

The problem is that in any of your rationalizations for why god would let a child be struck and killed by lightning still create a god that allows horrible things to happen when he has the ability to prvent them. Screwing up a family for years, or in one instance you cited, leaving everyone else to suffer “heartache and constant pain” is not the sign of loving and caring god.

Also, in every scenerio you came up with, would you try to keep the child alive? Wouldnt that be going against god’s will, since he apparently wouldnt let something so horrible happen unless there was a good reason?

It still doesnt make any sense. Why would you worship a god that was able to stop the horrible things that happen in our would but turns a blind eye? I guess it isnt too different than the woman who stays with the abusive husband though.

By Frustrated

July 17, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

GOB-

do you really believe that you would be “convicted by your actions” if you hadnt been raised as a christian and told over and over that you never would be good enough and that you would fail everyday in the most important thing you do, namely living a christ-like life?

If I were not a Christian, I wouldn’t be convicted at all of my sins. So no, if I were not raised in the Christian life and did not accept Jesus as my savior, I would not have that conviction.

As a child, did you not worry that you were going to get caught doing something you knew was wrong….staying up late, eating cookies before dinner, hitting your siblings, etc….. If so, why were you worrying, because your parent’s told you not to or you would be punished, right? If you didn’t think there were consequences, you wouldn’t care.

As a Christian, the Bible tells us to live a certain way, therefore I try to live that way…when I slip, I feel bad (convicted) of my actions. It may not be right away, but I feel it sooner or later. Maybe it was because I got mad in traffic or said a bad word to a friend, talked about sex in an inappropriate manner…etc etc…

Either way, the Bible states that there are consequences for your actions….do not accept Jesus…no not pass the gates…. You sin, you will be judged….

For those who don’t believe….they see that they have nothing to worry about except living life here on earth… As for me, there is something greater, so I am trying not to mess up too bad and lead the life I need to lead while I am here…no guilt from anyone….just my actions.

By Frustrated

July 17, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

GOB-

You and I and every other human being on earth is not going to understand WHY God lets people die. But at the same time, we are human, we don’t understand just how glorious his kingdom is….we haven’t been there yet if we are still here!!!!!

If you can’t believe that heaven is a great place to be and that your one goal in life is to one day be with him, then you are only going to see the negative, human element of this argument.

Yes, it is horrible to me as a human for someone to die like that…..but I know that the child is in a better place. For me to want him to stay here is selfish on my part. Shouldn’t everyone want their loved ones to be in a better place? Sure, I want my family to go to heaven….do I want them to be taken away from me, no…. But when faced with the choice of going to heaven versus living here with me, I would want the greater good for THEM…..to go to heaven…

So why is God taking a life from earth looked at as being bad???? Because we are humans and we don’t understand the whole picture….

By Frustrated

July 17, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

GOB-

I didn’t answer your other question

Also, in every scenerio you came up with, would you try to keep the child alive? Wouldnt that be going against god’s will, since he apparently wouldnt let something so horrible happen unless there was a good reason?

Yes, I would…..but for the same reasons I stated earlier. I am human and I am selfish. I couldn’t sit aside and watch him/her die. If I were able to save, does that mean I defeated God, no….. It means that there was a purpose in me helping the child. And trying to find the purpose is our mission in life…why are we here? And when we find it and accomplish it, are we going to die right then???

These are questions that no one has the answer to but him

By 2D

July 18, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

Just Curious… I apologize if this sounds a bit insensitive, perhaps I am missing something. But, having a legal designation of “married” does not, in my opinion, constitute, a “right”.

As for some of the “benefits” that people discussed in earlier posts. I would make the following observations.

The government treats different people in different manners all of the time. For example, we all get taxed differently. People who make different amounts of money pay different rates. Singles pay different than marrieds. People with children pay different than people without. Single parents get different benefits than married parents. Marrieds with only a single income earner pay different than two income households. The list goes on an on. The issue with taxes isn’t whether or not same-sex couples can be classified as married. The issue is with the bleeping tax code.

Another exmaple is the selective service. Men must register for the draft but women do not. Women serve with distinction in the military yet they are not expected to be drafted. That is a clear difference in treatment based on gender.

As for some of the other issues like passing property, living wills, etc. Same-sex couples can do these things, it merely takes an extra step of conferring with a lawyer. The government is not prohibiting these legal activites, to the best of my knowledge.

Many employers, including the city of Atlanta, provide health benefits for same sex couples. Many do not. But I don’t really see this as a “rights” issue, because I don’t believe that health benefits qualify as a “right”.

Still, nothing, that IMO, indicates having one’s “rights” trampled upon. Again, IMO, this boils down to an issue of acceptance. Until some governmental body attempts to pass a law that prevents same-sex couples from exercising an accepted “right” (and as I mentioned before, I do not consider health benefits a “right”), I don’t see much of a argument.