« Late-term Abortion Doctor Shot Dead in Church | Main | Anti-Filibuster Group Calls for Filibuster (sort of) »

June 2, 2009

Obama Issues Gay Month Proclamation, Cheney Endorses Same-sex Marriage

President Obama issued a proclamation honoring "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Pride Month 2009," while former Vice President Dick Cheney issued his support for same-sex marriage on a state-by-state basis.

"Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community," Obama's proclamation states. "Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans."

Cheney said at the National Press Club yesterday that "people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish." Cheney's position appears to put him to the left of President Obama, who has said he supports civil unions, rather than same-sex marriage.

Cheney has become a leading critic of the Obama administration over foreign policy decisions, but Dan Eggen writes that yesterday, he parted ways with Obama on a social issue.

He added, however, that he does not support a federal role in the matter. "Historically, the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level," Cheney said. "It has always been a state issue, and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis."

Cheney has long departed from conservative orthodoxy on the issue of same-sex marriage. He said during the 2000 presidential campaign that the matter should be left to the states, and he caused a small uproar during the 2004 race by appearing to distance himself from a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a measure that was strongly supported by his boss, President George W. Bush.

Comments

awwww don't worry. so what happens if more and more republican leaders move to agree that same sex unions should be allowed. at least there's Focus on the Family as the standard bearer!!!!!!!!

Justin,

Christians don't worry. Depending on the the way God has fashioned them, Christians fight against, educate, passively resist or remove themselves from an increasingly perverse culture. This is not a Christian nation nor will it ever be, but Focus on the Family is produced for a Christian audience. The road this nation is on is not a very long one, obviously, but the Kingdom of God goes on forever.

While GLBT Americans - some of whom I am blessed to count as friends - have done much good, we all must admit that unsafe behavior has led to special health problems in the GLBT community, including an unusually high infection rate for HIV/AIDS.
Harassment against GLBT persons must stop, but I must object to unsafe behavior that is statistically very destructive to those who engage in it, both in terms of mental and physical health. Let us affirm equal rights on the one hand, and mutual health and wholeness on the other.

God is Love, and he gave man Free Will do do as they please, and asked that we Love our neighbors as we Love the Lord. Though we tend to "pick and chose" our traditions, and to quickly side with someone who's thoughts will benefit us, we must not forget God's Gift of Free Will, and his Grace of Love.

To judge and hate and disobey are far worse that allowing two Free Willed adults to Love. No one is forcing the Church to recognize or perform gay marriages. Yet we are turning into a community or disrespect. God is Love, don't hate how someone Loves. We cannot be so easy going on divorce and adultery, yet protest and spend millions to keep gay marriage at bay (for the time being, it is a civil right). No gay person is a surprise to God...Love ALL neighbors and walk for God YOURSELF. Everything will be OK.

Re: Kevster. Yes, God is Love, but God is also just and holy; we live in the tension. Let's be careful to let God define what He means by love, justice, and holiness, rather than projecting our experience onto God. We're in His image, not He in ours.

I agree with the Christians who are loving and open to all people, no matter their perceived "imperfections." If I were a Christian, and I believed, like Justin, that I did not live in a Christian nation, I would promptly move myself and my family to a place that was acceptable to God.

Follow the golden rule and if you must be religious, at least be kind and giving in your religiosity. The more people like Kevin judge and loathe others, the fewer people join churches.

Brendan, while it's true that the LGBT community has suffered greatly from the AIDS crisis, the epidemic does not discriminate as people do. HIV/AIDS cases are now highest in Straight Latino and African-American males more so than any one else.
Also, recognizing loving, commited relationships via marriage will go a long way to curbing these "unsafe" practices as well as the mental illiness and depression found by many in the LGBT community when they are shunned and outcast by their own families.

I place the responsibility of the HIV epidemic squarley on the shoulders of Christians and others in the religious communities.

Imagine how life might have been different if since the beginning of time we all supported gay people and encouraged them to enter into monogomous loving relationships and to start families.

Gay marriage is good for social health and this is undeniable.

Some of you are really funny! To the person who made the statement about unsafe behavior, let me ask you this - how many unwanted babies are made from same sex couples? How many abortions do same sex couples have? Unsafe sex is unsafe regardless of it being between two women, two men or a man and a woman! Let's not waste time being hypocritical. There is a reason that so many non-gay people have STDs and it's not because of gay people. Unsafe people are just plain unsafe - gay or straight!

It seems strange to me that the line is drawn on gay marriage. If the point is that homosexuality is a sin, shouldn't the fight be to outlaw all homosexual conduct? It seems strange that Christians would be ok with promiscuous homosexual activity being legal, but then would try to pass laws to discourage gays from a committed married relationship. I guess Christians somehow feel that depriving gays of the right to act is going too far, but that depriving gays of the right to legal benefits of marriage is ok.

The obvious point is that we live in a society where we have to distinguish between personal moral and religious beliefs and civil or penal laws. Being tolerant of those who live in sin is a basic tenant of our society. That is what distinguishes us from nations where oppression occurs in the name of following God's (or Allah's) laws. The bible condemns divorce (outside certain limited exceptions) ... and yet we don't see Christians voting to pass laws that would deny divorcees the right to remarry. I suspect that is partially because the straight majority realizes that this is something real that they may face in their own lives, and therefore it is a sin between them and God rather than one for the law books. Same goes for adultery. Yet those same Christians are more than quick to try to pass laws to deny the right to marry to the gay minority. One could get the idea that inconsistent application of moral views in a manner that denies basic rights to a minority group is, in its simplest form, discrimination. You don't have to like or approve of gay people (or gay marriage) to make the simple distinction between God's laws (or your interpretation thereof) and civil/penal laws, and the simple realization that discrimination is not the way to love your neighbor as yourself.

Re: Chris. I place the responsibility of the HIV epidemic on unsafe behavior that results in infection. I believe education and changed behavior, much more than laws, will improve the situation.

Re: Ms. Very Stupid (self-named). I agree that heterosexuals also engage in unsafe behavior resulting in health problems, including HIV/AIDS. What hypocrisy is there in wanting one group of people who have disproportionate health problems to achieve health and wholeness? That desire naturally extends to all members of our society and the world.

Interestingly, none of the comments address the issue of the article. Should our nation set aside a month to recognize lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered? What about Never Divorced Heterosexuals month? Certainly this oppressed minority group deserves similar recognition.

The current LGBT same-sex union movement makes a mockery of God and his institution of marriage. However, for believers to think they can change the legislative direction or process is naive. We are aliens ... citizens of another Kingdom.

I really hate that when we follow the Bible we're told we're discriminating. OK, fine we are. God said to love everyone, but he wants marriage to be between a man and a woman. Hey, if we're going to have a Gay and Lesbian month can we have a month honoring all straight couples? What? That's prejudice against homosexual couples? What about this month that's being prejudiced against heterosexual couples?

The Church is not an "organization" that was established to be compassionate and loving to all in order to be successful or liked, but was established to be faithful in spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. This Good News is steeped in truth and that truth is that God's character is holy and that everything He created is and must be holy. Since we all are sinners our holiness must be derived in union with Christ--which means we MUST accept salvation for our sins through Christ and begin the process of change within. Homosexuality, adultery, murder, envy, hate, and all other forms of sin and ungodliness must be discarded through transformation, and only through the power of the Holy Spirit can transformation be realized. Hence, the church is NOT to be a fraternity or sorority where sinners congregate to be liked and accepted. We are called to be hot or cold, and we are not to be double minded--that is behaving carnally and adopting a world view steeped in secular-humanism. We are called to repent, to change. Jesus was correct in saying that the gate is indeed narrow that enters into His world, and that He truly had come to bring division and not the world's peace. Ours is to choose--the Kingdom of God or the kingdom of man. We cannot have both. It's black and white. The gray matter falls to God--He dispenses grace. And only He makes that choice, we don't.

The Church is not an "organization" that was established to be compassionate and loving to all in order to be successful or liked, but was established to be faithful in spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. This Good News is steeped in truth and that truth is that God's character is holy and that everything He created is and must be holy. Since we all are sinners our holiness must be derived in union with Christ--which means we MUST accept salvation for our sins through Christ and begin the process of change within. Homosexuality, adultery, murder, envy, hate, and all other forms of sin and ungodliness must be discarded through transformation, and only through the power of the Holy Spirit can transformation be realized. Hence, the church is NOT to be a fraternity or sorority where sinners congregate to be liked and accepted. We are called to be hot or cold, and we are not to be double minded--that is behaving carnally and adopting a world view steeped in secular-humanism. We are called to repent, to change. Jesus was correct in saying that the gate is indeed narrow that enters into His world, and that He truly had come to bring division and not the world's peace. Ours is to choose--the Kingdom of God or the kingdom of man. We cannot have both. It's black and white. The gray matter falls to God. He dispenses grace. And only He makes that choice, we don't.

For Christians, the inescapable fact is that homosexual behavior is abhorrent to God, just as other sinful behavior. All people are clearly commanded not to practice homosexuality. This is similar to the command to be faithful to one's spouse ...even though compliance with that command may be contrary to an individual's "nature," we are called to obey, difficult as that may be. In that light, it is not hateful to reject any societal attempts to accept the abhorrent behavior. An official recognition of such behavior is itself abhorrent because it encourages people to contravene God's commands. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

When will you all realize that the "gay marriage movement" is not an attempt to change God's laws? God's laws are what they are. While there may be different interpretations, in no event is anyone foolish enough to think that somehow our actions or votes will change God's laws. The point is just that, when living in a multi-cultural society with differing views of God and God's laws, it is important to accept the notion that God's laws, while dictating personal behavior of believers, is not and should not be the basis for determination as to man's civil and penal laws. America was founded on the notion of escaping from a society where one view of God's laws was imposed on all -- where we as a nation determined that God's laws (and the various interpretations thereof) should be separate from man's laws. So yes, imposing your view of God's laws on an issue that does not directly affect you so as to deny civil rights to a minority group could be viewed by some as discrimination.

Take the orthodox Jewish community as an example. They have strong beliefs on God's laws (as they view the same), including to the point of not marrying outside of their faith --- yet, they do so without the imposition of laws that would dictate that the rest of society follow their rules. They realized long ago (especially as a minority) that personal beliefs can and should be followed within the religious group, but that the same should not be imposed on society at large.

Re: Mark. Many draw the line at same-sex marriage because not only does the state allow homosex, (which they regard as sin), but confers upon same-sex unions the legal status of a holy sacrament (marriage). It is the turning of the sinful into the holy that so affects opponents of same-sex marriage.

I have my own questions, on "the right to legal benefits of marriage": What is the essence of marriage, such that same-sex couples of right must share in all its legal benefits? Why change the definition of marriage, unless one is intentionally and creating a fundamentally new and heretofore nonexistent right? The right to special benefits?
On what grounds? Non-descrimination?
Should a similar right to special benefits be invented for singles on the same grounds, citing prejudice against both the sexually inactive and the promiscuous?
Unless there are reasons for differentiation? In which case, to get back to the original question, are there reasons to differentiate between same-sex and different-sex couples? If so, what reasons?

These are precisely the questions which need answering, which no one is asking.

There is a lot of partial anomic-fatalistic and unhealthy things going on, from unsafe sexual practice to overeating, over consuming in general, intolerance, inappropriate passivity or inappropriate anger, absolutism, smoking and self medicating, to put it politely.

What does one do about such problems, especially when one is a complete hypocrite, having done most of those things at one time or another? (However, I have lost sixty pounds, and kept it off for over two years now, and fewer and fewer Americans, at least, are smoking.)

I know a few Gay people who think that the equality in marriage movement is an evil 'Christianist' conspiracy to destroy true freedom and the joy of living in this world; to turn Gay people into colorless, boring, vaguely alienated, repressed and depressed but usually adequately functioning people like most every straight person they think they know...and many other Gay people who have been happily married for decades now, and would love to have the paperwork finally finished.

Most people I know, Gay or not, will now not accept anything except full citizen equality. Neither will I. We have generations of sociological study to back us up as well. Gay people are productive, valuable members of our society, and could be even more so. While some GLBT people are enviably prosperous, more than their fair group share live on marginal incomes and/or have had opportunities snatched from them unfairly.

Of course, life is unfair, I have a genetic disease that has caused me lots of annoyances and money I can't afford anymore. But, there is that sort of thing, and unfairness that can be ameliorated with a dollop of good will, a nod to the Golden Rule, and a few minor legislative efforts, all of which religious conservatives, in general, appear to massively, greedily and somewhat incomprehensibly oppose, as they did to a different group of people in my childhood.

Some people are just Gay, no truly moral person, a person who tries to practice the Golden Rule, cares if they are, unless one is looking for a date.

Brendan: I think that the main reason is that heterosexual behavior in marriage is not condemned behavior, whereas homosexual behavior is condemned behavior. This does not in the slightest detract from the wonderful grace we sinners can experience through Christ. All the same, though, society should strive to live up to God's standards in its laws. We ignore God's standards at our peril. How much more perilous is it to celebrate and encourage practices that violate God's standards?

Brendan,

Marriage before the state is not a holy sacrament. At no point do I think that changing the definition of marriage in civil laws is equal to changing such definition in God's eyes, or in the views of a particular faith. I am all for Christians (and each denomination thereof) deciding within their own church or denomination, as to what they see as God's definition of marriage (and, for that matter, other issues such as divorce, pre-marital sex, hair length, use of percussion instruments for worship music, modesty in apparel, etc.).
Live your beliefs. Share and convert others as you are told by the Bible.
But realize that civil laws (and the definition of marriage for purposes of the same) are and should be separate from your view of God's laws.

voting in favor of equality in civil laws is not, and should not be, viewed as a stance that gay marriage is ok before Gods laws --- rather it is merely an acknowledgment that, in a diverse society, one's view of God's laws should not be imposed on those who believe differently.

As to marriage rights to single people ... as those rights are, by definition in law, rights that relate to how benefits are conferred on or shared with a spouse, it would seem logically impossible for a civil marriage to exist without the presence of the spouse. Result: Bad analogy.

Gregory: Let me be clear. I certainly don't categorize people by their orientation and some of the best people I know are probably gay, just as some are probably adulterers and drug addicts. It's not my job to check. Still, if the question is what should we advocate and ratify through our laws and public holidays, I think we should try to uphold God's standards. Sin should not be celebrated, it should be repented of and resisted. I will celebrate the people who, despite gay orientation or a an adulterer's heart, stay true to God's commands.

When I was a student in a Bible Belt college, I was told that God hates race mixing. Why should I believe that God hates homosexuality? My Bible doesn't say any such thing.

As near as I can tell, my Bible says that God's will, what God wants us to do, is to love God and try that Golden Rule thing as best we can...and that's pretty much it, at least for the time being.

Low expectations from God, I guess, but not without certain interesting challenges to us, don't you think?

All the verses that have been warped into clobber verses are lessons in human behavior from the past, not necessarily what people should be doing now. Clobber verses really ask us to consider what idolatry was then, what it is today, about the politics of identity, about how people thought of the Golden Rule then, and how people think of the Golden Rule today.

The ancients somewhat unconsciously condoned slavery as a"given," yet it was swept away, at least legally in America, in my Grandfather's lifetime. What do we condone today, in the same way as the ancients condoned slavery?

In your eyes I am a sinner. My God does not discriminate based on who someone chooses to love. My God rejects those who hate, for God is love. You can keep your fire and brimstone (I reject it). Your beliefs are different from mine. You cannot/should not legislate religion.

I am gay. My partner and I have been in a monogamous, caring, loving relationship for 13 years. We don't ride on gay pride floats or have pierced nipples (not that there is anything wrong with that). We are just like you: happy to have found someone to grow old with, to call during a busy work day just to say we are thinking of each other, or to catch a afternoon movie with on a rainy Sunday.

The problems in the gay community are mostly caused by pressures from the mojority (herterosexual) community. You shame us for being gay and are surprised by self-loathing that leads to drug abuse and risky behavior. You won't let us adopt children or get married but condemn us for what you perceive as promiscuous behavior. I say, shame on you.

God doesn't make mistakes. People do.

Gay isn't a sin. "Homosexuality" isn't something that people do. Gay Pride isn't a celebration of sin. In any case, the religious right's abuse of the concept of 'sin' has made the word a vicious weapon in crimes against humanity...and I'm being polite.

Gay Pride is about perseverance in the face of illogical, unfair, greedy and dangerous ignorance and stupid and evil oppressions... Of being proud of a community that gives to a largely thankless and calloused world that which the world needs, respect for others, love, the joy of living with integrity, freedom, equality, the hard work of the GLBT people of the community, hot shirtless men...lol...of having made it another year without compromising, at least too much, one's integrity and one's innate human dignity.

To compare Gay with adultery, bestiality, drug addiction etc, is unconscionable, illogical, driven by greed and unreasonable fear-mongering, unsupported by high integrity science, and by my Bible (which I suspect is likely nearly the same as yours, just read with correcting lenses made from the Golden Rule). Not to mention that the same things were compared with those in the Civil Rights movement of my youth...and the abolitionist movement of my Great Grandparent's day. How many times can religious conservatives shout out a warning of "Sin!" and still be taken seriously?

1 Corinthians 6:9

The Gays etc. should have a Holiday. Christians have Christmas and Easter. Sorry at least we did. At least we have Heaven(those in Christ)to look forward too. PTL!

IS it possible that he feels this is the best way to handle this? Giving each individual state the power rather than this current administration. I beleive that if the current administration had full power in this matter it would have already happened. Here in Hawaii the people spoke with a large voice against Civil Unions and won! PLT

God hates sin, but loves the sinner. I feel the same way. I will not discriminate or criticize anyone as a person, but I will condemn behavior if I think it is sinful. You folks who don't think homosexuality is a sin need to keep reading your Bible. It doesn't really matter what you think about your own condition or choices, or what the government defines as legal. We will all be judged by Jesus some day, and the only thing that matters is what He thinks! It would seem to be wise to figure out exactly what He expects instead of just looking for what you want to believe.

paul said that all scripture is given by the inspiration of God. Which is clearly not true.
KJV never had the word homosexuality. Now I've noticed that the most recent translations do have the word.

Isn't it just possible that ideas and words have been changed to reflect prevailing thought/morays/traditions.

The word "homosexuality" was coined, sympathetically, I might add, in the 19th Century, but it is inadequate and obsolete theory now. It's now a word much abused by unconscionable bigots, who really have no theological, scientific, intellectual or moral leg to stand upon anymore...so they apparently resort to slander, ignorance, tawdry hate-mongering, scapegoating, long discredited racist-like political and religious tactics that rely on short memories by busy people and glossed over history lessons, historical revisionism, nuance and context free absolutist arguments, claims of now obvious, to everyone else, of always had been pernicious traditions and such.

'Homosexual theory' didn't really take adequate account of our sociability, the sociology of identity and community formation, the general complexity and flexibility of human ways, the politics of sexuality, the blood soaked, yet sometimes actually progressive and evermore science dependent history of the 20th Century, the pull of status and authority, the timeless politics of petty greed, and research on racisms and/or authoritarian types, for starters.

Animals don't, as far as we know today, 'do' identity, but we definitely do. So, "homosexuality" is no longer a word to apply to human relationships and individuals anymore. It's an 'applied by outsiders,' mechanical, scientifically coined sort of word, not a proper community name and complex personal identity arrived at by history and the consensus of the people who are the Gay of today.

People who identify as Gay, Lesbian, GLBT, have formed a worldwide, very connected community named "Gay." While there are local names, traditions, cultures, slang and such, of course, world wide, the consensus name is now "Gay."

To use "homosexuality/homosexual" is increasingly considered to be rude and pejorative, ignorant at best, often a signature of people of ill will and carefully wrought bad manners...with no small help from the religious right, who use "homosexual" in a very racist-like manner.

That's no surprise given the extremely racist, pro-slavery, Jim Crow and generally violent (physical and mental) history of the American 'white' conservative evangelical movement, and other extreme patriarchal systems and patriarchal justifying religious elsewhere as well.

There are some people who have same-sex sexual activity, yet prefer not to be identified with the Gay community. As one theorist on whiteness and privilege has pointed out in the early days of the Rev. Ted Haggard scandals, they seem to want hot man on man sex, but with heterosexual privilege, but that may have been be a bit of over the top wit...or not?

For these I'm-not-Gay men, anyway, sociological researchers usually use the category appellation of 'MSM,' men who have sex with men. Presumably, there is a WSW label as well, but I haven't actually seen it used. I'll have to do an internet search when I have more time.

There are also Gay people who don't have same-sex sexual activity, for many reasons; another reason to reject the simplistic and mechanical-like word "homosexual."

I say go for it, Obama. Change the definition of marriage as I know a Sister and Brother who love each other so much they are already living together and having sex. They are such nice people, they should be allowed to marry each other. Yes, their wills give everything to each other unpon the death of one of them,and they have had their lawyers draw up papers giving the other hospital rights, etc. but they want to be married as they love each other. Yes, they are born citizens, never been slaves, so they have all the rights of citizens, they vote, etc. but they don't have the right of marriage (is this a constitutional citizen right? just asking), and since they love each other, they should be able to be legally married, so go for it Obama.

Anna,

The first time I read your poist, I couldn't make head or tails of what you were talking about

I read it a second time and I still didn't get it. I was about to ask you to explain what you meant.

Then I read it a 3rd and then 4th time. And finally got it. Got to tell you that it verges on the point of being silly.

Read the story of Abraham. And I will go no further

====================================================
I say go for it, Obama. Change the definition of marriage as I know a Sister and Brother who love each other so much they are already living together and having sex. They are such nice people, they should be allowed to marry each other. Yes, their wills give everything to each other unpon the death of one of them,and they have had their lawyers draw up papers giving the other hospital rights, etc. but they want to be married as they love each other. Yes, they are born citizens, never been slaves, so they have all the rights of citizens, they vote, etc. but they don't have the right of marriage (is this a constitutional citizen right? just asking), and since they love each other, they should be able to be legally married, so go for it Obama.

Oh Anna, forgot also study the account of Adam and Eve and their family

Brenda, if your Bible has the word "Homosexuals" in it, toss that evil thing in the recycle bin and buy a real Bible translation.

In any case, who in their right mind would want to inherit the religious right's concept of God's kingdom? I certainly don't.

Not to mention that it's uncontroversial that the ancients, like Paul, thought that same-sex activity was caused by idolatry...which is wrong. Gayness is caused by being born a human.

In any case, Paul likely wasn't referring to "homosexuals, which didn't exist, but was more likely referring to male prostitutes, pimps, men who cater to sexual customers.

And, the word translated sometimes today as "effeminate," may have referred to men who live soft, easy, indolent lives, as John Wesley thought, if memory serves, than what we think of as "effeminate" today.

So, those today who translated the verse with "effeminate and homosexuals" were not only careless, at best, and bigots with an agenda at worse, they are also making Paul into a villain for today, just as pro-slavery apologists made Paul in their own, morally and intellectually bankrupt image.

I remember an anecdote in a Rev. Peter Gomes book where he says that after a woman had been released from enslavement at the end of the Civil War, she then ripped Paul out of her Bible...a feeling with which, I'm sure, many people besides former slaves can sympathize.

Yet, if read in a light that rejects the racist invented, "literal translation" methods, Paul can teach us much about then and now...thereby teaching us about ourselves. We don't have to rip Paul out of our Bible, just read him as we would read any other man...as a man with something to say that we should attend to, for a good many reasons...and the long history of authoritarian abuse of the Pauline letters is one excellent reason to read him in different lights.

Sort of like remixing and restoring historical recordings with today's technology; you can now hear the nuances and ambiances hidden in the old ways...and fall in love with that which had grown maybe all too familiar.

Justin, you don't say what point you got from my posting so how do I know if you got my point. What does Abraham, and, Adam and Eve and their family have to do with my "point".

Jim Elliott writes: "The current LGBT same-sex union movement makes a mockery of God and his institution of marriage."

And the US Constitution also makes of mockery of your god, given that it provides all the citizens the right to practice any religion -- or none at all -- that they choose. Kinda makes of mockery of all that 'no other god before me' stuff, doesn't it?

And that, my friends, is why religious beliefs and rules are subordinate to American law.

Anna,

Somehow you think that by the President making such a proclamation that it's going to somehow lead to siblings getting married. That for him to do so would somehow redfine marriage

1. How did you think the population of the earth spread if Adam's and Eve's children didn't have sex with each other? Either they married each other or they didn't, but either way they would have had to have sex with each other for the world to be populated.

2. Abraham was married his own sister. The fact that we don't do it now indicates that there was a change. Now do you understand where I'm coming from?

Exactly, what is God's institution of marriage?

====================================================
Jim Elliott writes: "The current LGBT same-sex union movement makes a mockery of God and his institution of marriage."

And the US Constitution also makes of mockery of your god, given that it provides all the citizens the right to practice any religion -- or none at all -- that they choose. Kinda makes of mockery of all that 'no other god before me' stuff, doesn't it?

And that, my friends, is why religious beliefs and rules are subordinate to American law.

Justin, yes, you did get my point. And,I don't follow the Old Testament, only Jesus because he was sent to clean up the Old Testament laws. Anyway, we don't even know if Adam and Eve had a word such as marriage but when the word marriage is used in Abraham's time, we hope the translations of Hebrew into other languages are right as to the definiton of marriage because the definitions used in the Bible indicate that it is always between a man and woman and in Christianity between "non-family" since it's beginning. Only in Islam and cults of Christianity is marriage different and it's still between man and woman, just the number of men and women within "marriage" are changed. And at that, it's usually to the advantage of men i.e. one man, many women. My point, change the definition of marriage which is centuries old, and you open a can of worms to paganism, no marriage necessary, any sex to go. We did get away from that once for the benefit of women. And again it's men who want to change the definition of marriage for their own sexual urges not for "love" because the definition of marriage doesn't nor has it ever demanded love be included. The man is there to "protect" the woman from other men, which two men don't need. It's funny that Islam understands this but nowadays Christianity doesn't.

Marriage was often between men, between a man and his future father in law. Marriage was the contracted transfer of female, certified "pure" property at a negotiated price...or else she would die a horrible death.

Oh the good old days...sigh, we've fallen into such a state of sinfulness since then.

See the story of Jacob and Laban's marriage negotiations, for starters.

"Keep reading my Bible"?

Sorry, but I'm Buddhist (and American), some of us don't own what "you" call a Bible!

Whatever you guys believe to be your God's message, you should try to remember that Church and State are 2 separate entities and you can't expect the State to enforce one particular religion to the detriment of those who believe in a different religion or in no religion at all.

It is a fact that gay people are discriminated against (whether you believe that discrimination to be legitimate or not) and that's why there is an LGBT pride month and not a Christian pride month.

When Christians have their right to marry taken away from them, they can't serve in the army and can be fired from their jobs just because of their religion, you can have your pride month and I'll be there fighting for your rights.

Right now you are just the guys who are trying to take other people's rights away. Do you want a medal for that?

To everyone who is so offended by "unsafe behavior,,," Please stop raising whores.... have you seen the way straight girls act today. How much unsafe behavior goes on in the straight community? TONS....TONS.... It's such a double standard to even mention it.... Plus, the aids rate is highest among "straight" african americans - just in case anyone has not seen the statistics.

Folks: If your Bible doesn't include a clear condemnation of homosexual behavior, then you are reading a Bowdlerized version. CT had a very informative discussion of this a few months ago. We may not like it, but the Bible is clear in its unstinting condemnation of homosexual practices. I certainly will not arrogate to myself or to anyone else the right to pick and choose which part of the Bible's clear teachings should be followed. Again, this does not detract from God's grace ...it expands it to include all sinners, including practicing homosexuals.

Well Steve, and here is what I don't understand. The bible is also clear in its condemnation of liars, and fornicators and adulteres etc. As a matter of fact they are right in the very same verse in 1 Corinthians.

How come we don't pass legislation to stop these sort of people from getting married as well?

And where exactly in the bible does it say two men or two women should not marry?

And I still don't understand how does 2 consenting adults of the same sex choosing to marry affect your marriage? It doesn't affect mine. How does it affect yours?

=====================================================
Folks: If your Bible doesn't include a clear condemnation of homosexual behavior, then you are reading a Bowdlerized version. CT had a very informative discussion of this a few months ago. We may not like it, but the Bible is clear in its unstinting condemnation of homosexual practices. I certainly will not arrogate to myself or to anyone else the right to pick and choose which part of the Bible's clear teachings should be followed. Again, this does not detract from God's grace ...it expands it to include all sinners, including practicing homosexuals.

Eh Anna,

You are waffling all over the place and making lots of contradictory comments. I’ll try to stick to the major ones.

What do you mean you don’t follow the Old Testament? Of course you do!! What you are doing, as so many of us do is to pick and choose what suits your prejudices. And therein lies the danger! Take the 10 commandments for example are you trying to tell me you don’t follow them?

Jesus himself said He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

Further, if you are truly following Jesus and not the Old Testament surely you must know that Jesus never once spoke about same sex marriage. He had quite a bit to say about opposite sex marriage though. Quite a lot indeed. So, if you are following Jesus, can I suggest then that you reserve your comments like he did to opposite sex couples? From the look of the world around us, we seem to have done more harm than good to marriage ourselves. Let’s stop worrying about the re defining of it and deal with the mess in our house first.

Marriage as we know it in its current form is a recent human construct, it is true. But if you are going to take this line of thought, then anyone can argue then , so is homosexuality (as the poster G. Peterson so often informs us) and many other things. And the lines become blurred once again. Again we revert to using the bible in an attempt to give credence to our own prejudices.

Have you read what Paul said about marriage? Have you read his commendation to marriage?

See Anna you’ve hit on one true thing in your post - We don’t know many things. Coz we are seeing thru a glass darkly. How about we leave it up to God to deal with matters since he sees all clearly? The earth is his after all. How about we preach the good news and try to change people’s hearts instead.

Anna, the last part of your post has floored me. You seem to be saying that a woman gets married only so that she can be protected from other men. Well, with such a view of marriage I don’t have much to say. Expect to say that this is quite a mercenary view of marriage and I thank God that it has been re-defined since then.

Justin: Mostly, we have passed laws against the categories of sin that you describe. My point is that we should not celebrate and encourage sin by declaring public support of such behavior, which is what happens when we authorize homosexual marriage. We should be teaching people to avoid sin and adhere to a Godly lifestyle. How does it affect my marriage? While I don't think that question is even relevant, when the whole culture is imbued with the notion that God's standards are meaningless it does become more difficult to do what's right, let's face it. This is precisely why Paul noted that we should not celebrate sinning, just so that grace "may abound." I trust that my marriage will do fine. It would help, however, if we didn't promote sin in our broader culture.

Steve, as you stated we have passed laws against these types of sins: and yet we still allow people who commit them to get married. Does this not at all indicate the silliness of this whole argument to you?

If we allow people who you have admitted already are so heinous that even civil laws had to be passed against their practices to still get married - are we not therefore already celebrating and encouraging their sin? What makes their sin any different than two other consenting adults who want to celebrate their love?

Who makes you or I the arbiter of who should or should not be allowed to get married? You keep talking about celebrating of sin. If being sinless was a requirement for getting married there would be few marriages if any allowed. And I still don’t see where in the bible it says that sinners should not get married?



God has revealed, through his word, that those that practice sexual impurity cannot enter heaven. The alternative is an eternity without peace. However, that won't stop anyone from getting a marriage license, if it means that much to them.

Instead of Gay and Lesbian Pride month, why don't we try Gay and Lesbian Humility month. Now, that would set a good example for all of us.

I can imagine President Obama honoring those Gays and Lesbians who've bowed and given thanks to God for his patience and mercy. What a blessing that would be.

Cheney's approach is pragmatic. Push issues of morality down to the state and local level; the closer to the individual level the better. Moral issues are matters of conscience.

Are you going to follow God, the civil government (the ultimate moral authority) or get out your crayons and design your own map? Take a look at yourself. Don't blame Christians for making you feel guity or Republicans for screwing up your life.

Since we are supposed to be followers of Christ and therefore called to a higher standard, how about we try a Believers in Christ Humility month.

Imagine what a blessing to the world that would be. I envisage we would become the salt of the earth as we were supposed to be.
====================================================
Instead of Gay and Lesbian Pride month, why don't we try Gay and Lesbian Humility month. Now, that would set a good example for all of us.

I can imagine President Obama honoring those Gays and Lesbians who've bowed and given thanks to God for his patience and mercy. What a blessing that would be.

Do you live in America, Africa or Europe? I have to ask this because based upon your second paragaraph I can't belive you live in America

====================================================
Cheney's approach is pragmatic. Push issues of morality down to the state and local level; the closer to the individual level the better. Moral issues are matters of conscience.

Are you going to follow God, the civil government (the ultimate moral authority) or get out your crayons and design your own map? Take a look at yourself. Don't blame Christians for making you feel guity or Republicans for screwing up your life.

Justin,

My second entry today was tongue in cheek. My third was serious and maybe a little strident. (Except the part about the civil government being the ultimate moral authority. That was tongue in cheek also.)

America's cool anyway, right?

Justin: With respect due to you as a unique creation of a wonderfully creative God, your argument is with God, not me. The definition of marriage is clear in the Bible and it is just as clear that the new definition advocated is simply a cover for sinful practices, thereby encouraging them as a matter of public policy. I'm sympathetic, because it is not easy for one who is drawn to practice a particular sin to swear it off forever, yet that is precisely what we are called to do in matters of sex outside traditional marriage. Traditional marriage encourages the proper practice of sex and attempts to minimize (and there is reason to believe that it does) other sins, too. Marriage is not supposed to be for sinless people (does any such person exist?), rather it is a training ground for avoiding sins. A gay marriage simply can't do that, at least in the sexual realm. Are you suggesting that sexless gay marriage is what's being advocated? I doubt it. The other virtues promoted by marriage can be found in simple friendships, family relations, etc. The ones that can only be found in traditional marriage are sexual purity and procreation, neither of which is condemned in the Bible.
Still, the main point has to be that we all are sinful, regardless of our sexual fidelity, and require "washing" before we can come before God. This debate is a good one to have, but we cannot lose sight of the biggest problem in all of our relationships; that of sin. Two of the finest men I have known were gay men who died of AIDs. As wrong as they were to practice homosexuality, knowing them was one of the privileges of my life and I often find the wound of their deaths reopened in my memory. I hope and pray that we will meet again and I know (as much as I can know any such thing) that Christ has power to make that happen.

Mark,

"Marriage before the state is not a holy sacrament.... civil laws (and the definition of marriage for purposes of the same) are and should be separate from your view of God's laws."

Sure, but the problem is we use the same word - marriage - for the civil status and religious sacrament, which are often the same events. When the state confers "marriage," it implicitly conveys meanings associated with the religious sacrament - that's why pastors have authority to issue state marriage licenses. If the state really has nothing to do with the religious ceremony of marriage, why not ditch the marriage language altogether and stick to "civil unions" for everyone, issued by state employees only? Let's face it: marriage in America today makes a joke of the separation of church and state.

Simply, "progress", so-called, is destroying the earth(land, air, water, vegetation, creatures) and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Life, Truth, Love, Peace, Hope, Grace, Miracles, Faith, etc.) ;-(

Postings have been made at TheDestructionOfTheEarth.Wordpress.com concerning such destruction and perversion and also concerning The Creator's(GOD, Father) promise that HE will "destroy those who destroy the earth(HIS Creation)!" (Rev11:18c)

Yet there is a Living, Lively Hope!

However, such Hope is not for that which is of the earth, earthly and fleshly, but there is a Living, Lively Hope for that which is Spirit, Heavenly and Spiritual.

Hope for that which is Spirit is Alive because "progress", which is the product of mankind's "imag"ination, can pervert, yet not destroy that which is Spirit! For that which is Spirit is Real, and that which is Real is Forever!

So no matter how perverse this world's systems of religion become, that which is Spirit can only be abused and perverted, not destroyed!

(continued @ thedestructionoftheearth.wordpress.com)

What about the "B" in LGBT? Nobody talks about the alledged rights for "B." Why is "B" such a low profile? Could it be that, since Bs are attracted to both sexes, they might want the right to marry two people, one male and one female, a menage a trois? I think so, hence they are the silent partner in this LGBT. For the President to declare a month to honor "LGBT Pride," shows he has never seen an LGBT parade or has never looked into the LGBT media or has lost his everlovin mind. Only the saddest of reprecussions can follow upon raising these perversions to the status of being considered acceptable. Before the end of this century the USA and the West will reap the whirlwind.

ray

it is prophets like you that scare the living daylights out of me. it's a good thing though that we don't live in days of yore. do you know what they used to do with false prophets?

God said what He had to say and then gave man free choice to do with it as he will. Last time I checked He was not here stopping anyone from getting married. Humans who would not mind their own business are the ones appointing themselvs His voice and stating adamantly what His will is or isn't. So no - I've got to take it up with humans since they tend to pick and choose what suits them and absolutely refuse to paint everything with the same brush.

Where in the bible is marriage defined? Do you mind sharing chapter and verse?

Why among christians is there not the same railing against fornication and adultery? Should there not be a law enacted against adultry? After all marriage is between one man and woman till death do part: divorce is a no no! Where is the movement for this law?

@Brendan: "If the state really has nothing to do with the religious ceremony of marriage, why not ditch the marriage language altogether and stick to "civil unions" for everyone"

Brendan, marriage as a civil institution predates Christianity itself. Not only that but the Church didn't even recognize marriage as a sacrament until well into the 13th century. If the Church has a problem with sharing a word it has taken from a civil institution then it should be the one to return it and find a new one for its religious purposes.

For me it is obvious where Christians should stand on the issue of Homosexual tolerance... Homosexuality is a perversion, that is entered into by a free-will choice. It should no more have a month honoring it than having a month set aside to honor adultery, prostitution, indecent exposure,or sadomasicism.

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

I'm proud of both these men. Equality under the law is the foundation of this country. The separation of church and state has been a rule of law since written by Thomas Jefferson in 1801 in the Danbury letter.

"Traditional marriage" was about treating women as submissive servants to patriarchy...a double standard, which is codified next to bigots' favorite, mindlessly, idolatrously and evilly chanted clobber verses...few rights, little recourse if abused, no freedoms, easy disposed of. Joseph could have had Mary legally stoned to death for being pregnant not by him.

You want the mother of Jesus stoned to death? Go on defending traditional marriage.

How can people smugly say they're defending such an utterly depraved and evil system anyway? Haven't you leaned a single thing from the last two hundred years of history? You want to bring back slavery, legalized pederasty, Old Testament polygamy, kill alleged blasphemers and Sabbath breakers? I'm guessing by one's defense of traditional marriage, that that is indeed exactly what you have in mind.

"Traditional marriage" is legal cover for traditional wife abusers, and you know it. Moral people, instead, have moral marriages.

"You want the mother of Jesus stoned to death? Go on defending traditional marriage.

How can people smugly say they're defending such an utterly depraved and evil system anyway? Haven't you leaned a single thing from the last two hundred years of history? You want to bring back slavery, legalized pederasty, Old Testament polygamy, kill alleged blasphemers and Sabbath breakers? I'm guessing by one's defense of traditional marriage, that that is indeed exactly what you have in mind.

"Traditional marriage" is legal cover for traditional wife abusers, and you know it. Moral people, instead, have moral marriages." -- Gregory Peterson

It is obvious to me that you are the one who wishes to clobber those with whom you disagree.... Your ignorance of the New Testament is rather apparent...

Ephesians 5:25 And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the church. He gave up his life for her

Ephesians 5:28 In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man is actually loving himself when he loves his wife.

Colossians 3:19 And you husbands must love your wives and never treat them harshly.

You consider marriage between one man and one woman to be "an utterly depraved and evil system ?"..... Methinks your vitriol is gratuitously and theatrically spilled....

Please to show me where in Scripture where pederasty was ever allowed by God.... Thank you in advance.... As for the rest of your inclusions regarding slavery, polygamy and execution of blasphemers and Sabbath breakers... Methinks thou doth presume too much...

To even begin to presume that those who hold to the idea of marriage as being between one man and one woman, as also being proponents of spousal abuse is ludicrous...

Gregory, whether marriage is referred to as traditional or modern or whatever, marriage has always been between a man and woman. The problem is changing the components of marriage from man and woman to different components which means it ain't marriage anymore, it's something else. And depending on what religion and than what building of that religion you're in will determine what sin(s) can or cannot be included into whether or not you get married in that building. Jesus allowed a woman to choose whether or not she wished to remain single or get married and be a follower of his so he didn't in reality require marriage, he just required that you didn't sin and if you did, you stopped. Therein lies the problem. Doing sex outside of man and woman was always considered a sin in Judaism and Christianity and other religions except paganism. Civil unions are law marriages not church marriages. No matter what the government says, my niece is still not married, just giving sex freely to a jerk who won't give her the title of wife. Christianity has given more freedom to women than any other religion especially when Jesus is truly followed. Jesus didn't allow abuse or any mistreatment of women or man for that fact, it's the abuser involved in the relationship committing the sin who is not following the teachings of Jesus, not Jesus. Just out of curoisity, Gregory, who abused you so badly that you have so much anger against Christianity. As a woman, if I have to follow anyone, it is going to be Jesus.

I was happily raised a United Methodist. The church was our second home and I once vaguely entertained the idea of becoming a minister myself. I don't have a lot of anger towards Golden Rule informed Christianity at all.

I do have a lot of anger towards hypocrites, however, the smug, clobber verse spouting religious-right sort, acquired while I served in the military during the Nixon Vietnam era (wasn't sent there, but as a graphics illustrator, I prepared classified top secret briefings for officers).

While I had a very sheltered upbringing in a somewhat multicultural family, my eyes were certainly open about religious conservatives, in general, when I went to a college in the Bible Belt after my enlistment was up.

Really, by the mi-Seventies, the religious rightists had learned nothing, repented of nothing, and judging from their response to citizen equality today, have still learned nothing...except to say "I love my homosexual friends" instead of "I love my Negro friends." I know what kind of love religious conservatives had back then, nothing has really changed with their kind of "love." It's still morally and intellectually perverted in the extreme.

Reading CT decades later...little has changed. The religious right is still morally and intellectually bankrupt, just as it was in the Civil Rights era.

While I've been distracted and busy and kind of enervated from a very treatable but incurable genetic disease, to do the necessary research for writing...w

When I did, however, I read most every issue of CT and have written on CT's long history of smarmy, passive-aggressive racism. CT hasn't changed all that much, it's still officiously bigoted, just less passive and more aggressive about "homosexuals," a word apparently used mostly by officious bigots these days.

I also covered a so called 'state sovereignty rally' not long before the Oklahoma City bombing, where the invocation was given by a locally prominent and disgustingly bigoted preacher, now gone off to spread his moral depravity in Africa, last I've heard.

An Illuminati conspiracy theorist was the big draw. Jeffrey Baker, if memory serves. He had been given considerable air time on a local religious TV station. He repeated a lynching joke from "a friend," who turned out to be a militia leader who had surfaced in the post-bombing investigations. The other speaker was a racist bigot from Colorado...carelessly racist about Native Americans.

I've also written on popular homeschooling and religious right school textbooks...which it is safe to say, are simply moronic, morally and intellectually depraved as you could predict. I recently bought a ten year old one from a thrift store to remind me how truly pathetic they were. No moral person would inflict them upon innocent children, but then, religious rightists have never exhibited much in the way of morality. Just read CT to see that.

David Hardy

You all really have to make up your minds. Either you live by the Old Testament or you don’t. This picking and choosing of things is really making my head spin.
Don’t stop at Leviticus 18:22. How about the whole chapter which talks about the shall nots? Let me pick Leviticus 18:11” Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father.” Apply this “do not” to Abraham who was known as the friend of God now.
Leviticus 20:17 A man who marries his sister is to be cut off from amongst the people.
Leviticus 20:9 and Leviticus 20:10. Adulterers and children who dishonor their parents are to receive the death penalty. John McCain and Ronald Reagan would have been put to death amongst countless others. And practically there would hardly be a child left in America today.
I won’t go into the other things as fish without scales etc etc.
Now your Roman quotes. I have a cousin who is now in his late 30s. From a child of 6 or perhaps 7 years, we all thought that he would turn out to be homosexual. And he did. When did he as Romans 1:21-22 state deny the nature of God, so that God then enacted Romans 1: 26-27?

"I do have a lot of anger towards hypocrites, however, the smug, clobber verse spouting religious-right sort," --- Gregory Peterson

I must admit Gregory, that I am with Anna in her question to you... "Just out of curiosity, Gregory, who abused you so badly that you have so much anger against Christianity"... You did say... "I was happily raised a United Methodist.".... So I am curious... Who burned your biscuits?..... And do you not see that your obvious contempt for Christians does nothing but weaken your "argument" of justifiable self-righteous anger... It is good to remember that when one points the finger, there are three pointing right back towards the accuser....

"Really, by the mi-Seventies, the religious rightists had learned nothing, repented of nothing, and judging from their response to citizen equality today, have still learned nothing...except to say "I love my homosexual friends" instead of "I love my Negro friends." I know what kind of love religious conservatives had back then, nothing has really changed with their kind of "love." It's still morally and intellectually perverted in the extreme." --- Gregory Peterson

I find it interesting that you claim to have such insight into the thoughts and motivations of so many.... Only God Himself truly knows the heart.... However, we are called upon to be fruit inspectors...

Matthew 7:16 You can detect them by the way they act, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit. You don't pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles.

I get the distinct impression that there are no grapes to be had from you except for the bitter grapes of self-righteous wrath...

"When I did, however, I read most every issue of CT and have written on CT's long history of smarmy, passive-aggressive racism. CT hasn't changed all that much, it's still officiously bigoted, just less passive and more aggressive about "homosexuals," a word apparently used mostly by officious bigots these days." --- Gregory Peterson

Homosexual is an apt descriptive term.... Would you prefer the term coprophiliac instead?

"I've also written on popular homeschooling and religious right school textbooks...which it is safe to say, are simply moronic, morally and intellectually depraved as you could predict. I recently bought a ten year old one from a thrift store to remind me how truly pathetic they were. No moral person would inflict them upon innocent children," --- Gregory Peterson

Something tells me that your jaundiced eye inhibits you from being objective in your book review capabilities...

"but then, religious rightists have never exhibited much in the way of morality. Just read CT to see that." --- Gregory Peterson

And of course, you are a pillar of moral self-righteousness.... Without so much as a speck of sawdust in your own eye.....

Fun criticism, David. However, the religious right isn't the whole of Christianity, not even the majority of Christians, I think, for which I certainly thank God. I'm not criticizing "Christianity," just the part of it with a long history of spreading oppression, intolerance, physical and mental violence, and which widely publish and broadcast that fact. I have a large research library easily available, and a card for it. I also have a little library of horrors of my own, as well as the usual mainstream Christian sources for proper comparisons.

I've written extensively here on why "homosexual" isn't an acceptable word normally used by moral people anymore.

The "coprophiliac" remark is beneath you, a very cheap shot, and you should be ashamed. In any case, sexual paraphilias aren't the sole "thing" of Gay/MSM people. If nothing else, as there are considerably more "straight" people, they're the group with considerably more people with paraphilias of all sorts. Gay is not a paraphilia anymore than "straight."

Looking "white" has given me considerable protection from all sorts of things that my friends and relatives have experienced for not being so. You should hear what an inlaw says about his journey's through the Bible Belt in the Fifites, as a soldier. He's neither Black or "white" looking...confusion reigned.

Still, I was often stopped by the police during my own, later sojourn in the Bible Belt, for dubious reasons but at least they gave excuses...and I was always treated professionally. I was never jailed or ticketed.

Not so with my Black and Hispanic college friends, however. One experience we did share was having our pets poisoned. They weren't accused of being a "race traitor," but my mother and I were.

I've read all the religious right textbooks I could get through interlibrary loan, have you? I may have jaundiced eyes, but they're not blind. I do have a modest Bachelors of Science degree if nothing else, so I'm not completely in the dark about such things.

If you think I'm outrageous, wait until you read my historian/archaeologist brother's religious themed novel in progress, likely out sometime next year. He also spent some time deep in the Bible Belt, not that long ago, and also left with "jaundiced eyes."

That's interesting, my security words are German and Spanish names, fortunately without umlauts and tildes.

As far as morality, I won't confess my sins to you, they're none of your business and your sins, if you've committed any...who am I to judge your sins, are none of my business. But, I do know what morality is and isn't.

I was raised a moderate United Methodist, after all...the concepts of the burden of responsibility, speak for yourself and the Golden Rule were deeply embedded in me...morality is our "thing," as is being annoying about it...lol.

Justin: Most states have laws against adultery and fornication. I wouldn't blame you for being surprised because no one ever gets prosecuted. There is lots of hypocracy in that, I agree. Still, what you are advocating is that the states pass laws SUPPORTING AND PROMOTING sexual sin.

Steve

No that is not what I'm supporting at all. What I want to support is for Christians to paint all sins with the same brush. NOT THE ONES THAT NICELY FIT INTO THIER PREJUDICES AND BIGOTRIES! I find to do so unworthy of what it is called to be a christian and I want no part of it. And when I do see Christians doing that I will speak out against it.

Laws on adultery- Perhaps I was not clear or perhaps you misunderstood; I just hope you are not trying to be disingenuous. The adultery laws you refer to, are not laws prohibiting the practice of this God awful, bible condemned practice! The laws on the books are for how an injured party seeks restitution should there be a requirement for dissolution of marriage if adultery is the reason. There are no laws on our books that have adultery as an offense punishable in any form. Yet, the word of God takes major issue with this practice. It’s right up there with men lying with men. Why is there no talk and condemnation and marches about this? How come Christians themselves are now practicing this? How come leaders that evangelical Christians support practice this and yet evangelical Christians do not take offense with this? Why is there not a march to say that adultery is an abomination in the sight of God and if you are an adulterer you will not be allowed to be married again?

I hope you understand that wrapped up in this adultery topic is divorce. Do you remember Jesus’ discourse on divorce? How come there are no laws prohibiting divorce? And with 60% of marriages ending in divorce ….

Why is there this overriding focus on what two consenting adults do to the exclusion of everything else by evangelical christians?


====================================================
Justin: Most states have laws against adultery and fornication. I wouldn't blame you for being surprised because no one ever gets prosecuted. There is lots of hypocracy in that, I agree. Still, what you are advocating is that the states pass laws SUPPORTING AND PROMOTING sexual sin.

Join into MarriageNewsNow.com debate: How Does Gay Marriage Law Hurt Heterosexuals and their Families? http://tinyurl.com/qs7vfy

"I'm not criticizing "Christianity," just the part of it with a long history of spreading oppression, intolerance, physical and mental violence, and which widely publish and broadcast that fact." -- Gregory Peterson

Like it or not, no movement is the sum of its parts... To say that Christianity is guilty of anything is pointless generalizing.... While individuals, or even groups of individuals may have been oppressive; that does not bring the cause of Christ into disrepute.... Anybody can quit a cause, out of frustration with human administrators... The only thing that is proven, is that they are quitters

"Gay is not a paraphilia anymore than "straight."-- Gregory Peterson

So you are in effect stating that heterosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior?.... I don't think so...

"Still, I was often stopped by the police during my own, later sojourn in the Bible Belt, for dubious reasons but at least they gave excuses...and I was always treated professionally. I was never jailed or ticketed.."-- Gregory Peterson

Here is what I have to say about "colored" vision....

"Take a look around where you're sitting and find five things that have blue in them. Go ahead and do it.

With a "blue" mindset, you'll find that blue jumps out at you: a blue book on the table, a blue pillow on the couch, blue in the painting on the wall and so on. Similarly, whenever you learn a new word, you hear it six times in the next two days. In like fashion, you've probably noticed that after you buy a new car, you promptly see that make of car everywhere. That's because people find what they are looking for. If you're looking for conspiracies, you'll find them. If you're looking for examples of man's good works, you'll find that too. It's all a matter of setting your mental channel."
-Roger von Oech from A Kick in the Seat of the Pants

If you have a victim mentality.... You will always attempt to justify your victim-hood...

"As far as morality, I won't confess my sins to you, they're none of your business and your sins, if you've committed any...who am I to judge your sins, are none of my business. But, I do know what morality is and isn't." -- Gregory Peterson

You contradict yourself... While you claim to be no one's judge, you also claim enlightenment on just what constitutes morality... And who is to say that you are not guided by situational ethics?

"I was raised a moderate United Methodist, after all...the concepts of the burden of responsibility, speak for yourself and the Golden Rule were deeply embedded in me...morality is our "thing," as is being annoying about it...lol." -- Gregory Peterson

Again you appear to contradict yourself.... Most of what I have read from you is very light on introspection and very heavy on "clubbing" as you fondly refer to it.... Let your light shine.... If those around you are truly in darkness.. They won't be able to hold a candle to you...

"David Hardy

You all really have to make up your minds. Either you live by the Old Testament or you don’t. This picking and choosing of things is really making my head spin.
Don’t stop at Leviticus 18:22. How about the whole chapter which talks about the shall nots? Let me pick Leviticus 18:11” Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father.” Apply this “do not” to Abraham who was known as the friend of God now.
Leviticus 20:17 A man who marries his sister is to be cut off from amongst the people.
Leviticus 20:9 and Leviticus 20:10. Adulterers and children who dishonor their parents are to receive the death penalty. John McCain and Ronald Reagan would have been put to death amongst countless others. And practically there would hardly be a child left in America today.
I won’t go into the other things as fish without scales etc etc."--- justin

Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.

Matthew 5:18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.

Matthew 5:19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the law... All who look to him are under his grace and keeping.. To all who deny Christ... The full weight and penalty of the law will be levied against them on the day of judgment... For they will have denied the one advocate who can save them... Jesus..

Since the resurrection of Jesus.... All of humanity is under God's grace....

Luke 6:35 "Love your enemies! Do good to them! Lend to them! And don't be concerned that they might not repay. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting as children of the Most High, for he is kind to the unthankful and to those who are wicked.

And for what reason?.....

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord isn't really being slow about his promise to return, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for everyone to repent.

"Now your Roman quotes. I have a cousin who is now in his late 30s. From a child of 6 or perhaps 7 years, we all thought that he would turn out to be homosexual. And he did. When did he as Romans 1:21-22 state deny the nature of God, so that God then enacted Romans 1: 26-27?."--- justin

I would say when he indulged his desire to have sexual relations with other men....

Just because you don't want to believe in gravity, doesn't get you a free pass from injury or death, if you choose to jump off of a cliff...

A poster has just pointed out that this is an evangelical geared site. I didn't realize this. Had I known this I would not have made any comments here. So I wish to express my apologies to everyone for my postings.

Forgive my intrusion. God bless each and everyone of you no matter where your path may lead.

In other words, I can't criticize people, but you can, right David?

I don't accuse people of being sinners, just of not apparently bringing Golden Rule morality to their reading of the Bible, hence, they don't extract Golden Rule morality from the Bible...just clobber verses.

I have no idea how you came up with this.
"Gay is not a paraphilia anymore than "straight."-- Gregory Peterson

So you are in effect stating that heterosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior?.... I don't think so...

I'm stating that at all. Gay is not a deviant sexual behavior. It's uncontroversial in truly moral circles to say that only a vicious bigot would claim that these days. There is no reasonable scientific excuse to say that, and there has never been a Golden Rule reason to say that either. No high integrity Bible translation will have the word "homosexual" in it. Those that do are put together and published by the morally and intellectually bankrupt with a very suspect agenda of blatant hate. That's not a controversial statement, but an obvious truism. Moral people don't quote from those Bibles. They certainly don't buy them.

Not following the Golden Rule in one's sexual relations is a sort of rape, or very much a rape, that's what I'm saying, I guess. Gay people can follow the Golden Rule as well or as poorly as anyone else.

You want to love Gay people? Just wake up one day and decide that you're going to be Gay for a day. You don't have to actually do anything "Gay," there is no "Gay lifestyle" anyway, just people trying to live with some sort of integrity in a country where too many have never much respected the innate human dignity of the "other."

Just think about your imaginary Gay identity as you go about your daily routines. As there is no "Gay Lifestyle," your average workday and hobbies are likely quite representative of a typical Gay person. For instance, what would your boss say if you brought Steve to the company picnic? Would you go to the Gay Pride Parade later this month? Why or why not? Could you talk comfortably with your minister for some advice about taking Steve to that picnic for the first time?

Then, the next day, you're not Gay. Nobody need know...not that any moral person would have cared if you actually were Gay.

"In other words, I can't criticize people, but you can, right David?

I don't accuse people of being sinners, just of not apparently bringing Golden Rule morality to their reading of the Bible, hence, they don't extract Golden Rule morality from the Bible...just clobber verses." -- Gregory Peterson

What is apparent to you is not so apparent to others... No human has absolute revelation, wisdom and/or knowledge.... If you disagree with someone tell them..... Personally.... Judgmental generalizations are used by those with an "Oh poor me" victim mentality....

"I'm stating that at all. Gay is not a deviant sexual behavior. It's uncontroversial in truly moral circles to say that only a vicious bigot would claim that these days. There is no reasonable scientific excuse to say that,-- Gregory Peterson

You might tell that to this guy...

“There are some basic ethical problems with this kind of therapy that need to be discussed. The first problem is the use of the psychiatrist to enforce social conformity. LoPiccolo does not mention homosexuality in his article in spite of the fact that homosexual acts are illegal in the state where LoPiccolo lives and that sodomy no doubt is the most common of all sexual crimes in the USA. There is no theoretical reason for not including homosexuality among the paraphilias; there is only the pragmatic reason that the gay organizations are politically strong. The very fact that LoPiccolo recommends the treatment of transvestites and fetishists but not homosexuals indicates that the normality criterion he enforces is indeed arbitrary. ”

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/98-053r_fog_eng.htm

"and there has never been a Golden Rule reason to say that either. No high integrity Bible translation will have the word "homosexual" in it. Those that do are put together and published by the morally and intellectually bankrupt with a very suspect agenda of blatant hate. That's not a controversial statement, but an obvious truism. Moral people don't quote from those Bibles. They certainly don't buy them." -- Gregory Peterson

Ohhhh... Gotcha... As long as they don't specifically say Homosexual.... It must be OK to be Homosexual..... So any translation that outright says homosexual, must be a bogus translation..... I don't think so.....

King James Version

Leviticus 20:13 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.

New King James Version

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

New Living Translation

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

New International Version

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

Revised Standard Version

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

Young's Literal Translation

Leviticus 20:13 `And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.

King James Version

Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

New Living Translation

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

New International Version

Romans 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Revised Standard Version

Romans 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Young's Literal Translation

Romans 1:27 and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.

I don't know how many ways one has to say that homosexuality is not pleasing to God in order for you to believe that the message is there, no matter how you translate it....

"Not following the Golden Rule in one's sexual relations is a sort of rape, or very much a rape, that's what I'm saying, I guess. Gay people can follow the Golden Rule as well or as poorly as anyone else." -- -- Gregory Peterson

Following the Golden Rule... Will not get you into Heaven

Isaiah 64:6 We are all infected and impure with sin. When we proudly display our righteous deeds, we find they are but filthy rags. Like autumn leaves, we wither and fall. And our sins, like the wind, sweep us away.

Ephesians 2:8 God saved you by his special favor when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God.

Ephesians 2:9 Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.

Matthew 7:21 "Not all people who sound religious are really godly. They may refer to me as `Lord,' but they still won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The decisive issue is whether they obey my Father in heaven.

"You want to love Gay people? Just wake up one day and decide that you're going to be Gay for a day. You don't have to actually do anything "Gay," there is no "Gay lifestyle" anyway, just people trying to live with some sort of integrity in a country where too many have never much respected the innate human dignity of the "other."

Just think about your imaginary Gay identity as you go about your daily routines. As there is no "Gay Lifestyle," your average workday and hobbies are likely quite representative of a typical Gay person. For instance, what would your boss say if you brought Steve to the company picnic? Would you go to the Gay Pride Parade later this month? Why or why not? Could you talk comfortably with your minister for some advice about taking Steve to that picnic for the first time?

Then, the next day, you're not Gay. Nobody need know...not that any moral person would have cared if you actually were Gay."

Sorry... I don't need to be "gay for a day," anymore than I need to be "adulterer for a day," in order to appreciate that either one goes against solid Biblical teaching...

Gay men don't lie with a man as with a woman...only "straight" men do. Gay men respect their partners as their equals. Patriarchs didn't. In Patriarchal days, lying with a man as with a woman was to make him submissive, like a woman, a person in a state of submission to you.

What do you have against nuance and context? You really should be ashamed to abuse the Bible the way you do. I pity you, once again.

There is no such thing as "homosexuality" in humans.

I'm not sure why you're so afraid of empathy. I feel sorry for you. You have my pity. What are you going to do with it?

Who cares about going to religious right heaven? I don't. My friends grimace at the thought of spending eternity with Jesse Helms and Jerry Falwell. They can have heaven all to themselves....no doubt antebellum style mansions and streets paved with gold. They can have it, as I don't want it.

I'll take a ripe peach and a good book over that, any day.

I don't want to spend eternity in your heaven. I'd just as soon just not be, to sink into nothingness...at least I wouldn't know that I had died. In your heaven, I'd be bored to death, and I would hope that a merciful God would have pity on me.

The Golden Rule is about living in the now. Preparing for the future is wise, but we don't live in the future, we live in the now. The dead will bury the dead. It's today that I would like to make more alive and nourishing for my friends, neighbors and myself.

I like a comment attributed to Tim Keller in the latest CT: We are all a mixture of good and bad, such that non-believers are very often better than believers and believers are very often worse than non-believers (apologies to Keller, this is my flawed memory's recollection). Gregory: It isn't my heaven or "your" heaven, but God's heaven. By the grace of God, lots of people I don't particularly like will be there and lots of people I love may not be there, due to their own choice. It's God who will judge. Don't say you don't want to be there, as I am trusting that it will be the best experience (in every way) of my life and in the lives of all who are there. We can't even imagine how good it will be ...sort of like rolling into one place and experience all of the best highlights of our "through the glass dimly," lives on earth. Please want to be there enough to lay all your burdens on Christ, as I would like to see you there, despite differences in how we view God's rules for sexual practices. There is room for you at the table, and if Jerry Falwell says anything against you, I'll be happy to lovingly punch him in the nose. Probably won't have to do that, as Jerry will be blown away by the goodness of the place and won't feel a need any longer to harp on sin. He might even need to ask for forgiveness from you...now there's a thought. God hasn't given up on you, now you don't give up on him!


Jesus condemned greed in the strongest possible terms, yet we have holidays for it (our commercialized Christmas), we have plaques in churches celebrating rich people/donors, and we in general celebrate -- worship might even be a better word -- people who have transferred enough wealth to themselves to be rich.

We've even founded our entire society upon dog-eat-dog capitalism, where everything from justice to education to health care to political representation is based on a person's income.

This is totally contrary to both the OT and the NT. But do we worry? Nah, it's easier to pick on gay people than to examine the beam in our own eye.

Ironically, secular nations act in a more Christian manner than the U.S. Those despised Samaritans -- showing us important religious figures up once again!!


I am stunned by this action taken by our President….. To me it is in direct violation of the first amendment….

Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For I see it as governmental respecting an establishment of religion… Religion 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith…

The first paragraph of the Presidential proclamation, establishes the fact that the honorees are in fact members of a separate society and a religion… Who are being afforded special consideration based solely upon their free-will sexual preferences.

“Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.”

Homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism are as much free-will choices, and are no more worthy of special recognition and/or celebration, than are adultery, fornication, exhibitionism, voyeurism,
sadomasochism, or swinging.

Giving oneself over to unbridled sating of whatever sexual desires that enter the mind, with the blessing of our President, is as destructive to the fabric of democratic society as is total anarchy…..

You're simply wrong, David. There is no such thing as "homosexuality" in humans, people don't choose to be Gay.

As Kinsey exposed sixty years ago or so, sexual orientation is a sexual continuum, of exclusively same-sex on one end of the continuum, and exclusively other-sex on the other end. In between, there are people who are more flexible in their orientation.

Some people can switch side, so to speak, but that's a social construct in our society, that one has to be either "straight" or "same sex" oriented. But, such a dualism is a social construct.

As bigotry is usually nuance and context free, and forbids it's self to lose, that some people have switched sides... the bigot's false correlation conclusion is that "homosexuality" is a choice. That is wrong, for two reasons.

Humans don't do homosexuality, and many people aren't able to be as flexible in their sexual orientation as others. Others can be situationally flexible, such as usually other sex oriented prisoners, but other are not even that flexible.

So, there are Gay people who are simply Gay in every way, every day, and Gay people who are Gay simply because their first love was same-sex, but it could have been other-sex...and might be so later in life.

In any case, moral people don't care if someone is Gay, born that way, accidentally, or chose to be. Why not chose to be Gay? Gay makes life a little more interesting, and you find out who actually loves you, or the greed and oppression of religious bigots who have long exposed their illegitimacy on matters of morality....as long ago as the pro-slavery denomination schisms.

Gay is neither good or bad, it's how one follows the Golden Rule, which you have boldly denounced as the way to a heaven, that makes one good or bad, or more likely, somewhere in between, depending...

That the Golden Rule won't get you into Heaven is not in my reading of the Bible. Heaven is obviously a social construct. We know that Heaven doesn't exist in reality, which the Bible would seem to agree.

But, we don't know what, if anything, is beyond the reality in which the universe and ourselves exist...or exactly what reality is. Our senses are always predicatively fooling us, as any optical illusion illustrates handily. We can't trust what we see, what we hear, what we touch, what we think.

Yet, with science, we know that some things are probable and reliable, within parameters. The Sun will rise over the mountains east of my house this morning. It will set over the volcanoes to the west.

Some day, however, the Sun won't rise over the mountains to the east. The mountains will have eroded away, and even further in deep time, the sun will expand and swallow the Earth altogether, likely billions of years from now...that's apparently a reliable "prophecy" of God's plan for Earth...things will all go away in the fullness of deep time. So enjoy life, in a responsible and Golden Rule manner while you can.

Jesus, after all, promised a lighter yoke of religion, and took him at his word. I won't speak for God, unlike the religious right leaders, who have very inventive minds, but I say...just don't care about stuff like other people's race and sexual orientation, for starters. Care about the Golden Rule, kindness, justice, mercy, charity...

If I may indulge in a clobber verse myself, since many people here do little else...

But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Not to mention that the Bible doesn't condemn same-sex orientation, but idolatry and real and imagined threats to ancient patriarchy.

As that's not controversial in respectable scholarly circles...one wonders why the religious right is so afraid of intellectual integrity and continues in it's quite immoral Gay bashing spree. What does the religious right activist get from both the sort of Gay bashing CT practices, and the violent crimes stuff that the religious right is defending in its opposition to hate crimes and and bullying legislation and such?

Our idolatry today is different that it was in ancient days, but I would say it's still very powerful in it's own way, such as celebrity and status worship. Patriarchy has largely eroded away in the fullness of time and modern society, at least in my identity communities...and good riddance.

For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

And the will of God is...?

As near as I can tell: to love God, whatever love is, and whatever God is, and the Golden Rule...which is less ambiguous, but likely harder to do...and both of which Gay people can do as well or as poorly as anyone else.


pastol wrote...

Cassandra, are you married? What does the marriage contract that you signed include that a gay marriage contract would not? Enlighten us, please. Or if you are not married, what will your contract include? Please tell us. We are waiting with bated breath.

Cassandra Wrote.....

"The marriage contract I signed on to specified that my partner and I were exchanging an exclusive right to sexually reproductive activity and agreeing to partner on the decades-long project of raising the babies produced from that sexual activity. That was the enforceable legal agreement and guarantee of long-term financial and economic stability.

Marriage law written generically so as to include homosexuals would not specify any such thing and therefore is an economic death trap for women and their children, ensuring divorce, poverty, and broken unstable homes for well over half of us. We’ll continue having billions of babies worldwide, but we won’t have any legal guarantee to steady labor and economic help from the partners who produced those babies with us. That law will ensure the mass legal economic victimization of women and our children."

http://marriagenews.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/how-gay-marriage-hurts-heterosexuals/#comment-48

Cassandra.... You make perfect sense to me....

What this obsession that christians have with sex? Homosexuality is not about sex. There are countless kids who get beaten up for being gay who've never even kissed another person. Why are they considered gay then? People get abused in the street for being gay by people who could not possibly know if they are having sex or not. Get it into your heads: being gay is not about sexual behaviour. You can abstain from sex (if you really want to). You're still going to be gay.

Here is some interesting information.....

Statistics prove that homsexual marriage only exacerbates the problem of relational breakups…

“We have seen some of the evidence for a disproportionately high rate of non-monogamous behavior in male homosexual activity. What about female homosexuality? Are there any special problems associated with lesbian relationships? While homosexual females, for their part, do not experience anything near the number of sex partners lifetime or rate of sexually transmitted disease averaged by homosexual males, they are not without their own special problems. Studies to date suggest that female homosexual unions are of even shorter-term duration than male homosexual unions. For example, a 2004 study of divorce rates for same-sex registered partnerships in Sweden from 1995 to 2002 indicates that female homosexual couples were twice as likely to divorce as male homosexual couples (see also the discussion in the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy). Even the quote that Peterson and Hedlund give from Stein, cited above in III.B., indicates that lesbian unions are twice as likely to dissolve before reaching the ten-year mark as even male homosexual unions.

Moreover, relative to both heterosexual females and homosexual males, homosexual females experience a higher level of some psychiatric disorders such as major depression and substance abuse. Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse compare the “National Lesbian Care Survey” by J. Bradford et al. (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 [1994]: 228-42) and the work of L. Robins et al. (Psychiatric Disorders in America [Free Press, 1991]) to show that lesbian women show a threefold increase in the incidence of serious personal distress as compared to heterosexual women (Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Moral Debate [Intervarsity, 2000], 104-105). An important 2001 Dutch study of “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders” (Archives of General Psychiatry 58.1: 85-91) showed that homosexual females were significantly more likely to experience mood disorders (49%) such as major depression (44%) than were homosexual males (39%/29%; compare rates for heterosexual females [24%/20%] and heterosexual males [13%/11%]).”

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/ho…mRespPart2.pdf

david hardy, shame on you! shame! shame! shame!

only 49%???? can you re-check you figures? i expected it to be in the 70 percentile. i mean, what do you expect to be the case if the majority of society and until most recently all institutions tell them how abominable they are? do you expect perfect mental health?

is this an attempt to once again categorize being attracted to same sex as a mental illness as was done in the 60s? we've moved past that quite a while now david.

this reminds me of what was done to black people during and after slavery. black people on point of death were barred from learning to read and write and receive an education. do you remember this?
then emancipation took place and they were suddenly thrown out to fend for themselves and then they were accused of being lazy and shiftless and unintelligent.

but listen, according to the american psychiatric association, 1 in 5 women will be depressed sometime during their life. seeing that gay people only make up at most 5% of the population seems very clear to me therefore that there are more depressed men and women who are straight. Just imagine if more people were gay – there would be less depressed people.

right so at 11 when he had his first sexual experience with our neighbors' boy. and at 13 when i caught him going at it he had already done that so God gave him over. just imagine that??.

come on david, surely you can do better than that.

and btw the way you still have not answered the abraham being considered a friend of God yet did the very thing that is an abomination in the sight of God. and oh btw he flat out lied about in on two different occasions.

well then david you and many christians who hold to the same sex issues with a death grip and break and ignore all the others laws- according to your quote of Jesus are in quite a bit of trouble aren't you?

so when are same sex focused christians going to start preaching and talking about racism, fornication,lying,greed,adultery, hypocrisy, hate and violence? or do you think God has given a pass on these items?

and to quote something that homosexuals often say - it's interesting how the author of our faith had nothing to say about same sex unions. but had quite a bit to say about straight ones. hmmmmmm i wonder why

====================================================
"David Hardy

"--- justin

Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.

Matthew 5:18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.

Matthew 5:19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the law... All who look to him are under his grace and keeping.. To all who deny Christ... The full weight and penalty of the law will be levied against them on the day of judgment... For they will have denied the one advocate who can save them... Jesus..

Since the resurrection of Jesus.... All of humanity is under God's grace....

Luke 6:35 "Love your enemies! Do good to them! Lend to them! And don't be concerned that they might not repay. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting as children of the Most High, for he is kind to the unthankful and to those who are wicked.

And for what reason?.....

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord isn't really being slow about his promise to return, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for everyone to repent.

"Now your Roman quotes. I have a cousin who is now in his late 30s. From a child of 6 or perhaps 7 years, we all thought that he would turn out to be homosexual. And he did. When did he as Romans 1:21-22 state deny the nature of God, so that God then enacted Romans 1: 26-27?."--- justin

I would say when he indulged his desire to have sexual relations with other men....

Just because you don't want to believe in gravity, doesn't get you a free pass from injury or death, if you choose to jump off of a cliff...

funny that ... where do you live Cassandra. when i married my wife in nyc in 87 we signed no such contract. hmmmm perhaps we were both insensate during the whole process.

anyhow seems like a civil contract to me. consequently, if this is the case religious organizations have no input if two mean want to marry each other.

curious about something - those infertile couples... are their contracts then made null and void?

====================================================
Cassandra Wrote.....

"The marriage contract I signed on to specified that my partner and I were exchanging an exclusive right to sexually reproductive activity and agreeing to partner on the decades-long project of raising the babies produced from that sexual activity. That was the enforceable legal agreement and guarantee of long-term financial and economic stability.

gregory, The bible does state that men lying with men is an abomination. What however is not known is whether or not passages were changed/interpreted to suit one’s prejudices.

It also says many other things are abominations as well. My concern is, how come all these other things are not mentioned in our modern day discourse? Is it because we feel that we would be scorned and mocked to mention them? And if this is the case, is it not hypocritical and a sin to not do so? After all, aren’t we being deceitful by not doing so?

oh come on david - and when exactly are you going to talk about the 60% divorce rate amongst opposite sex marriages? and this is a figure with the blessing of the church and society thrown into the mix! such a shame!! please don't do what the pharisees are known for doing. you know what The Lord thought of them.

i say let them get married so that they can find out marriage is not a bed of roses as it appears to be.

give them the the blessings and let's see if they can do any better coz opposite sex couples have certainly made a mess of it.
===================================================
Here is some interesting information.....

Statistics prove that homsexual marriage only exacerbates the problem of relational breakups…

“We have seen some of the evidence for a disproportionately high rate of non-monogamous behavior in male homosexual activity. What about female homosexuality? Are there any special problems associated with lesbian relationships? While homosexual females, for their part, do not experience anything near the number of sex partners lifetime or rate of sexually transmitted disease averaged by homosexual males, they are not without their own special problems. Studies to date suggest that female homosexual unions are of even shorter-term duration than male homosexual unions. For example, a 2004 study of divorce rates for same-sex registered partnerships in Sweden from 1995 to 2002 indicates that female homosexual couples were twice as likely to divorce as male homosexual couples (see also the discussion in the Institute for Marriage ..."

hmmmm wasn't it just the other day when it was solid biblical teaching that God ordained the enslavement of black people?

and while i'm at it - when are we going to return to the good ole days of women keeping their mouths shut in church!!!

so when joyce myers et al get up on a sunday morning to preach - how come they don't realize they are doing "a detestable thing" according to paul. or perhaps they realize it and think that it doesn't matter.


=====================================================
david henry: "Sorry... I don't need to be "gay for a day," anymore than I need to be "adulterer for a day," in order to appreciate that either one goes against solid Biblical teaching..."

Barth's Typology: There are two types of people: those who divide people into two types and those who do not. Is it really true that persons are so defined by their 'sexual orientation' - so-called?? This is resting upon some very ill-defined science, in its rudimentary phase at best. The 'civil rights' arguement - that 'gays' constitute as defineable a category as race - simply does not fly. At some future point in time scientific find may state otherwise. Yet it seems to me that this is a deterministic position that in and of itself is inimical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


This is interesting.....


5) The destruction of marriage. Granting civil union status or, worse, marriage to homosexual unions will ultimately weaken marriage for everyone. The introduction of same-sex registered partnerships in Scandinavia has coincided with a sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births. Granting gay marriage or its functional equivalent has not helped marriage in these countries; it has made marriage increasingly superfluous. When eroticism is perceived as merely "more intimacy" rather than as a means to a "one-flesh" reintegration with a sexual other into a sexual whole, when the only requisite for sexual unions is commitment and fidelity (and a truncated definition of commitment and fidelity at that), when "lifelong" becomes "long-term" and "long-term" is thought of as a 5-10 year-union, when even the concept of "serial monogamy" is called into question by the high incidence of "open relationships" among male homosexual unions, when sexual unions are once and for all severed in society's perception from a commitment to have and raise children, and when society rejects as bigotry the notion that a mother and father are both needed for the optimal development of children--when all these elements are in place, consistent with the pro-homosex agenda, the general public will cease to value marriage as a special and even sacred institution. "The profanation of marriage" will have gone full circle--both its secularization and debasement. Imagine society granting marriage licenses to any union that met the conditions of a committed friendship and ask yourself how long marriage can survive as an institution.

http://www.robgagnon.net/SecularCase.htm

So how are same sex unions going to weaken opposite sex marriages exactly? Is this like how instead of considering black people fully human instead of only 2/3 human was going to weaken the human race? David, the sky didn’t fall then! Don’t worry – it won’t fall now either.

Are you married David? So Steve and Paul get married. Are you honestly going to tell me that they doing so is going to weaken your union? How is it going to do this? I know it won’t weaken mine. And I’m just an average Joe trusting in the Lord.

Let’s have a survey here – Anyone who are married, can you let us know yes or no if same sex marriages will weaken your own marriage. And if you say yes that it will, can you tell us how it will do this.


Hmmmmmmm so same sex unions are causing more out wedlock births. You have got to be kidding me. David, I would advise you to stop reading and quoting that nonsensical website or at least take the time to read other information with other P.O.V. We don’t have to go to Scandinavia to find out how superfluous marriage is. Don’t you understand that the 60% divorce rate here in opposite marriages already did this. But let me guess, you are going to blame same sex unions for this as well, huh?

I've taken the liberty of providing you with a website. I've even copied some of the information for you.

http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/


This week, Massachusetts began handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Amid the cheers, there are the doomsayers who predict that same-sex weddings will mean the end of civilization as we know it. Conservative religious leader James Dobson warns that Massachusetts is issuing "death certificates for the institution of marriage." And conservative pundit Stanley Kurtz claims to have found the "proof" that the institution will see its demise: Gay marriage helped to kill heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia. Indeed, Kurtz has become a key figure in the marriage debate: He and his statistics have been taken up by conservatives to support their argument that gay unions threaten heterosexual marriage.


But Kurtz's smoking gun is really just smoke and mirrors. Reports of the death of marriage in Scandinavia are greatly exaggerated; giving gay couples the right to wed did not lead to massive matrimonial flight by heterosexuals.

Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged.

Of course, the good news about marriage rates is bad news for Kurtz's sky-is-falling argument. So, Kurtz instead focuses on the increasing tendency in Europe for couples to have children out of wedlock. Gay marriage, he argues, is a wedge that is prying marriage and parenthood apart...."

Feel free to read the rest for yourself

And Anna

Let's be real here - if marriage was not re-defined over the years, in this instance 1967: our current president's parents could not have married in at least 16 states.

And let me further add that there could not have been marriage amongst blacks themselves - if marriage was not re-defined.

But marriage was re-defined and look- the sky didn't fall!!!!!!

David, I did find it interesting. But not in the way you hoped, I'm sure. It just shows that people who oppose same sex marriages have no real facts except for their hatred of all things homosexual.

It's a lot of hogwash actually. It attempts to show causal relationships that do not exist no matter how much you try to stretch it. Your "proof" shows nothing to support the fact that homosexual marriage will have any effects on heterosexual marriage, nor does it show homosexuality to be harmful. It is just full of opinions with no hard scholarship. And we know what they say about opinions….

Women are more susceptible, in general, to “mood disorders,” You can check this fact with the American Mental Health Association. And lesbians would have to deal with the usual issues of being a woman as well as added issues of being persecuted by people like you who think they are an abomination. No to mention the increased chance of rape due to men thinking that forcing them to have sex will “straighten” them out. And you wonder why they are depressed? I'm surprised they've not all committed suicide!

Your attempt at a causal relationship does not meet the test.
====================================================
David:"This is interesting.....


5) The destruction of marriage. Granting civil union status or, worse, marriage to homosexual unions will ultimately weaken marriage for ..."

justin..... You obviously reject God and the Bible.... Therefore, we will never agree in any way on the issue of homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of God...

This verse applies here...

Matthew 7:6 "Don't give what is holy to unholy people. Don't give pearls to swine! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.

Hi Justin, glad to see you're still posting. Okay, nationally, marriage wasn't actually redefined in 1967 except maybe in certain states, I'm figuring you're talking about intermarriage between black and white. The color of your skin wasn't a factor until recent centuries covering western slavery from Africa. Africans themselves had different kinds of marriages depending on where you lived, communal, kings, regular people, the buying of girls, one man many women, etc. until Christianity discovered that continent but all those different styles of marriage were still between man and women. The same in European countries and over here. Judaism preferred that marriages were between Jews or converts to Judaism but they were still between man and woman. And, yes I believe in the Ten Commandments but as Jesus interpreted them not as the Jewish Law with its additional 400 Jewish laws or whatever interpreted the Ten Commandments. There are laws against sins, the law of divorce because the adultery has to be done after marriage not before and all those involved pay a high price for adultery that the law doesn't even answer to. That sin and many others are paid for on this Earth in the destruction of relationships, families, jail time, emotional problems, etc. Ask any incest victim. Not just the sinner pays. Women are more susceptible to moods, please, have you ever lived with a man. There's a reason why women say they've raised four children when they only gave birth to three.
If those posting on this site wish to change homosexual to the Bible term, abomination, we can, but that sounds as if it needs to be outlawed in the real meaning of outlawed. Let's use the term homosexual. Gay means a overly happy person and that type of person can be very annoying. Gay really has nothing to do with sex but a mood of extreme.(pun here) I also don't care about Denmark, etc. as statistics can be arranged by those wanting statistics to show what they want, unfortunately. Adding different components to marriage to change the definition of marriage has the danger of leading to other components added in the future as others insist on their rights to be married i.e. Sister and Brother, two involved in incest, men having many wives, or as in Pakistan, between a two year old niece and 50 year old uncle, dogs, etc. etc. You're opening a can of worms simply because of the ability of changing laws so easily in this country. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it, whatever-goes-marriage which will mean sex any way you want it or back to paganism. Great for men but not for women. Of course women are already having the babies by themselves and raising them without the man, so maybe marriage is not necessary for anyone anymore. Life is not as hard nowaways with the government wanting to support the "family". Men aren't really needed by women anymore so maybe men should marry each other. Just thinking.

Traditional marriage wasn't about a man and a woman, but about a property transfer of a female who was certified as unused.

The purpose of that property transfer was to create a "legitimate" male heir to property, privilege and duties, and a labor pool consisting of closely related relatives.

Love wasn't a necessary component of marriage, though I would imagine that some people did develop a loving relationship.

A woman committed adultery if she slept with a man, any man. However, a man only committed adultery if he slept with another man's personal female human property. Adultery was a property theft crime.

However, patriarchy is dead. Women aren't owned by anyone, but themselves. All children of a man or a woman are considered to be "legitimate" heirs to their estates...but do not inherit state privileges and duties. Love between consenting adults is considered to be the prime reason for marriage...an heir is optional...and of one's children are heirs, not just males, or even confined to first born males.

As marriage had become a union of lovers, not a property transfer of human chattel, there is no reason to restrict marriage from same-sex lovers who want to love, honor, cherish and be help mates to each other until death do them part...or divorce.

In any case, the religious conservatives are once again reviving racist arguments about the inherent sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility of the "other" to keep people oppressed, repressed and uncompetitive...which is what all the hysteria is about...threats to their greedy delusions of alleged God ordained privilege and hegemony. After all, God likes white conservative evangelicals best, right?

People who oppose marriage equality should be quite ashamed of themselves for bringing a very racist-like mindset into the 21st Century. You have my pity.

david, your comment is specious at best. did you miss where i told gregory patterson that the bible does state that men lying with men is an abomination: and that it was for him to determine whether or not men have changed wording to suit their prejuidices.

david, i reject your view of god and your interpretation of the bible. i reject your hypocrisy that gives a pass to other sins, but condemns the one that doesn't ascribe to your chosen point of view. Jesus was clear about what he thought about hypocrisy

Matt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Matt:23:28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceful, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

at the end of the day you are free to reject my view as well. But His Will, will still be done.

and i'm still interested in your view of how abraham committed an abomination yet was still known as a friend of God.

i'm not going to touch the other abominations.
=====================================================
justin..... You obviously reject God and the Bible.... Therefore, we will never agree in any way on the issue of homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of God...

This verse applies here...

Matthew 7:6 "Don't give what is holy to unholy people. Don't give pearls to swine! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.

Hi Anna, thank you. J

I’m not quite sure I agree with you. And I think I’ve finally figured out the reason why. As long as marriage is been between opposite sex, you do not see any changes to it as re-defining . I on the other hand take a broader view of re-defining.

My saying that women are more susceptible to moods was not my words, they are from the American Psychiatry Association. I will have to defer to their expertise.

Sisters and brothers have already been married and blessed by God as a matter of fact. Abraham and Sarah is just one example of this.

Men having many wives was the norm in biblical times. The Patriarchs all had more than one. Solomon it is said had over 800.

1 Corinthians 6:9 - New International Version
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...

1 John 1:9-10 - New International Version
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

I think I made a mistake about Solomon. I think he had 700 wives and 300 women on the side. The bible called them concubines. But in modern day language we would call them whores.

justin -- david, your comment is specious at best. did you miss where i told gregory patterson that the bible does state that men lying with men is an abomination: and that it was for him to determine whether or not men have changed wording to suit their prejuidices. -- justin

Here's your comment...

justin -- gregory, The bible does state that men lying with men is an abomination. What however is not known is whether or not passages were changed/interpreted to suit one’s prejudices. -- justin

My question to you would be did you not read my posting where I quoted from no less than five different translations of the Bible, where all were in agreement that God does not approve of homosexuality?

justin -- david, i reject your view of god and your interpretation of the bible. i reject your hypocrisy that gives a pass to other sins, but condemns the one that doesn't ascribe to your chosen point of view. -- justin

I give no "pass" to actions that are contrary to Biblical directive... None of them are worthy of admiration.... And I resent the effort to celebrate the sin of homosexuality, by our president...

justin -- 2. Abraham was married his own sister. The fact that we don't do it now indicates that there was a change. Now do you understand where I'm coming from? -- justin

The law was given to Moses... Not Abraham....

Genesis 11:29 Abram married Sarai... This was done prior to God calling Abram...

Genesis 12:1 Then the LORD told Abram, "Leave your country, your relatives, and your father's house, and go to the land that I will show you....

There were severe consequences for how Abram represented Sari in Egypt... Genesis 12:20 Pharaoh then sent them out of the country under armed escort--Abram and his wife, with all their household and belongings....

Abram was not considered righteous until this point... genesis 15:6 And Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD declared him righteous because of his faith...

God did not establish a covenant with Abram until Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; serve me faithfully and live a blameless life.. Notice that God was not retro... He admonished Abram to live a blameless life, he did not condemn him for the past...

God did not change Abram's name to Abraham until, Genesis 17:15 What's more, I am changing your name. It will no longer be Abram; now you will be known as Abraham, for you will be the father of many nations.

To condemn Abraham according to laws that he was unaware of and were laid down after his lifetime, is a bit of a legalistic stretch...

justin -- "well then david you and many christians who hold to the same sex issues with a death grip and break and ignore all the others laws- according to your quote of Jesus are in quite a bit of trouble aren't you?" -- justin

Who has said that Christians "ignore all the others laws" or encourage others to acy in an immoral fashion?

justin -- so when are same sex focused christians going to start preaching and talking about racism, fornication,lying,greed,adultery, hypocrisy, hate and violence? or do you think God has given a pass on these items?" -- justin

Believe me... If they were forcing any of the above actions down the throats of the American people, like they are homosexuality... I would be just as vocally against that as well...

justin -- and to quote something that homosexuals often say - it's interesting how the author of our faith had nothing to say about same sex unions. but had quite a bit to say about straight ones. hmmmmmm i wonder why -- justin

Because there is no need to regulate a conemned behavior... It would be a ludicrous as giving instructions on how to commit murder...

justin -- So how are same sex unions going to weaken opposite sex marriages exactly? -- justin

Here are some thoughts on that....

Cassandra -- Next, no one cares what homosexuals choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, for the most part; what really matters here is the legal marriage agreement and the devastating impact it is having on women, kids, and society. Gay marriage revisions do nothing to fix the problem, and do much to worsen the problem for heterosexuals, who have long-range economic risks associated with their sexuality.

Finally, kids have a normative natural right to both a mother and a father. Intentionally and institutionally depriving kids of developmental input from both genders of the human race is a cruelty I can’t believe anyone could accept in a civilized society where plenty of opposite sex couples exist. In only the most desperate of situations would it be ethical to intentionally deprive kids of a mother or a father. -- Cassandra

1 Cor 6:9-10

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderes nor swindlers.

Aren't you curious why it says homosexual offenders and why not simply homosexuals?

We will all interpret this as we will. But for lots of you Christians who think its your divine right to be rich and horde your wealth at the expense of all others. To those who somehow think that capitalism and its ills are divinely inspired. Guess what- you've got your place in the lake of fire reserved for you as well. Right next door to the male prostitues and homosexual offenders it seems.

justin -- Aren't you curious why it says homosexual offenders and why not simply homosexuals? -- justin

But it does simply say homosexuals...

1Corinthians6:9 Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

1Corinthians6:10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers--none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God.

justin -- for lots of you Christians -- justin

How many is "lots?".. If we are to understand you... You have perfect knowledge and the ability to read thoughts and weigh motives....

I don't think so...

Your army of "lots".. Is no more than straw, blowing in your conjectural wind...

David; “My question to you would be did you not read my posting where I quoted from no less than five different translations of the Bible, where all were in agreement that God does not approve of homosexuality?”

I don’t understand your point. Who exactly translates and interprets the bible? I’ve never known an atheist to do so. One can argue that people who have a particular worldview to maintain interpret the bible. As an example, take slavery in the bible. A look at the KJV or earlier versions of the bible, slave and slavery were the words used. However, that’s a taboo topic for Christians to deal with. So to get around it, almost all modern day versions of the bible have replaced slaves and slavery with the word “servant”: a concept that does not transmit the same sort of repugnance as slavery does.


David; "I give no "pass" to actions that are contrary to Biblical directive... None of them are worthy of admiration.... And I resent the effort to celebrate the sin of homosexuality, by our president..."

You do? Well then why not just say it is a sin and move on. Just like we tend to do with all other sins. Especially, those that are so embedded in our culture and religion that we don’t even pay them any mind any more. Or conversely, why don’t you resent the fact that all of these other sins are not brought to the fore on a daily basis and discussed right alongside homosexuality so that the world sees that Christians pull no punches and will paint all sins with the same brush.

David hardy “The law was given to Moses... Not Abraham....
Genesis 11:29 Abram married Sarai... This was done prior to God calling Abram...
To condemn Abraham according to laws that he was unaware of and were laid down after his lifetime, is a bit of a legalistic stretch...”

Oh I’m not condemning Abraham. Abraham did not say he was a friend of God. God was the one who said that he was a friend of His. The only people I will admit to condemning are hypocrites and child molesters.
So you are then stating that God has changed his mind on what is considered an abomination. Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I changeth not”

David Hardy:“Who has said that Christians "ignore all the others laws" or encourage others to acy in an immoral fashion?”

Who said? I live in America where this and the abortion issue are being trashed out. Look around and tell me one other transgression that has come to the forefront of the American psyche pushed by religious organizations in the last 20 years as much as this and abortion. While at the same time the sanctity and institution of opposite sex marriage that is supposed to be protected is being destroyed by opposite sex couples with divorce rates of over 60%.
How come pastors and religious right organizations have not preached about the un-adulterated greed and lying that is endemic in Wall Street and our economy that has practically brought our country to its knees? After all the liars and greedy too shall have their part in the lake of fire 1 Cor 6:9-10. Do you need me to go on?


David: ”Believe me... If they were forcing any of the above actions down the throats of the American people, like they are homosexuality... I would be just as vocally against that as well...”

I am going to have to shake my head at this in consternation! If you call yourself a Christian and is led by the Holy Spirit, all these other things would be just as offensive to you. The fact that they are not and they would only raise a reaction if they were forced down your throat speaks loudly to me. But that's between you and God. But I have to ask: is it that you are interested in marrying a man that has you so upset? Because once again I don’t understand how this one particular sin has you so upset and others don’t. Did your wife leave you for another woman, perhaps? Listen David, if you don’t want to marry a man then don’t. It’s as simple as that.

David:” Because there is no need to regulate a conemned behavior... It would be a ludicrous as giving instructions on how to commit murder... “

Eh David, have you skipped over the parts where Jesus “regulated” the condemned behaviors of divorce and adultery, false witnessing, taking of a life etc? What are you saying?


David:" Here are some thoughts on that....”

I wanted reasoned logical thought. I would simply ask you- who have produced all the people who identify themselves as homosexuals? Certainly not homosexuals themselves since they cannot produce as you so quickly like to point out. Further, who have produced all of the murders known to man, you know people like Hitler et al? I dare say we opposite sex couples have done a spanking good job of it, haven’t we?
Children deprived of mother and father cruel? Hmmmmmm I would argree that a one parent home is not ideal, but in this case there are two parents anyhow who are willing to provide the love that a child needs. Where in the bible or anywhere else does it say that same sex couples cannot give children love. And you know what – I’m not even going to touch the one parent house hold issue.

Who is this Cassandra? Show me documented evidence from a reputable body that shows opposite sex house holds are any better at turning out a decent human being than a same sex household.

1 Cor 6:9

KJV states: nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind. This to me does not indicate same sex relationships.

NIV: wording has been changed to male prostitutes and homosexual offenders.

Darby Translation” Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men.

Young’s: have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

Several other translations kept the King James's wording.

There is no "opposite" sex. All mammals, female or male, have an "X" chromosome, after all (The A Beka science textbook I have says that us humans aren't mammals, though we have "many characteristics of mammals"...like all of them.).

What is the opposite of a "Y" chromosome anyway? There are people of the "other" sex, not the "opposite" sex. And if we have two obvious "other" sexes...why not more "other" sexes that are less obviously classified?

We humans give to our societies much more than the next generation's genes in new mixes. We also/or give them our "memes." I don't have children, I have a genetic disease that stops with me, but I partially preserve and make that available, and as much as humanly possible, the rest of the world's database for your children. We'll even find a translator if needed.

I don't know about "homosexuals," as people don't do homosexuality, an obsolete Victorian era theory, but Gay people certainly can and do reproduce...though they shouldn't count on having Gay children anymore than anyone else. I know six, non-adopted children with Gay fathers or Lesbian mothers, for starters. And they're all great kids...or great adults doing important work, and giving their Gay parents grandchildren to dote upon.

It takes a male and a female to make babies, of course, but that only means that Gay people have to make more arrangements to have children, if they aren't married to someone of the other sex. There are also, in this sometimes cruel world, lots of children who need new loving parents as their biological parents are dead or unable to care for them.

Sexual orientation is on a sexual orientation continuum, as Kinsey demonstrated, so there are people who can be more flexible in their sexual orientation behaviors than others.

So, while Gay people are less likely to have children, they can if they're married to a person of the other sex, or if they should want to make arrangements to have children... and many do or want to do just that.

Bibles that have the word "homosexual" in them are likely to do so because of the prejudices and political agendas of their translators and editors. The word is a 19th Century sexology coinage, after all, and is now abused by bigots with an unconscionable and illegitimate greed for Gay property, wealth, influence and jobs on their agendas.

So, how is a 19th Century, now obsolete sexual/science theory word, somehow retroactively now the inerrant, literal and ancient "word of God?"

If memory serves, the word Paul likely used, that is sometimes translated as "homosexual," is literally (more or less, as if "literally" is actually possible), translated as "men-beds"...rather an ambiguous coinage. It could be translated, and has, as "men who have sexual patrons...male or female." In other words, gigolos and other "kept" men.

The ancients obviously had a great fear, with some hospitality cultural obligations exceptions to other high status men (see the story of Abraham), of their patriarchal individual leaders being in what they regarded as submissive, female and/or slave jobs and positions. Only an inferior person could sleep with a superior person, and two free men of equal status sleeping together was/is a threat to patriarchal philosophies of hierarchical power structures allegedly ordained by the deity/deities.

In any case, it's uncontroversial in respectable scholarly circles, that the ancient monotheist leaders thought that idolatry was the cause of same-sex sexual intercourse. That the ancient monotheists thought that all men had one sexual orientation, as it were, but that idolatry lured some morally weak men to chose to participate in idolatrous, same-sex sexual rites.

But, that's unlikely as any sexual orientation causality, wouldn't you think? The ancients only acknowledged one male orientation sexuality, and all other sexual actions by men were regarded as caused by a morally weak choice or lie to worship abominable false idols and gods.

Regardless of one's sexual orientation, God's will is, as near as I can make out in the Bible, to love God, and for Christians, that one God has three persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost; and to love the Golden Rule with all one's capability to love...something GLBT people are quite capable of doing just as well, or as poorly, as anyone else.

I partially preserve the world's database, and make that available. A friend stopped the publication of his new book because his editor and proofreader missed the odd mistake like that. Unlike me, however, the correct wording was actually in his manuscript and in his preliminary galley. What's my excuse? Well, this isn't a book written for the ages, or even this age, but a hasty post on a website I regard as deeply immoral.

Ya know justin.. your "arguments are no more than generalizing vociferous conjecture... You spew your smug self-righteous condemnation of Christians in general and then demand this of me...

justin -- Show me documented evidence from a reputable body that shows opposite sex house holds are any better at turning out a decent human being than a same sex household. -- justin

If you were half the intellectual that you pretend to be you wouldn't have to resort to smear tactics and splitting semantic hairs, to get your point across...

Blather on breezy... Your continued insistence in using empty-headed, twisting in the wind logic, ain't worth any more of my time...

@ gregory peterson,
i've used opposite sex in salute to ms. Carrie prejan the beauty contestant. i no longer put it in quotation marks, but i'm usuing it purely as a tongue in cheek referenced manner.

Here is some interesting data...

"Commitment" in Male Homosexual Couples

Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.

· A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."[16]

· The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern."[17]

· In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:

Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[18]
As the following chart shows, the extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men dramatically contrasts with the high rate of fidelity among married heterosexuals.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Here's a bit more....

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships
Research indicates very high levels of violence in homosexual and lesbian relationships:

· A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[46]

· In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that slightly more than half of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The researchers found that "the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."[47]

· A study of lesbian couples reported in the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention "indicates that 54 percent had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time."[48]

· In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, Island and Letellier postulate that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."[49]

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Just a tad more...

A POLITICAL AGENDA: REDEFINING MARRIAGE
By their own admission, gay activists are not simply interested in making it possible for homosexuals and lesbians to partake of conventional married life. Rather, they aim to change the essential character of marriage, removing precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home:

· Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so....Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."[53]

· Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile speaks approvingly of those who advocate replacing monogamy with sexually "open" relationships:

For these men the term "monogamy" simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity....The term "open relationship" has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.[54]
· The views of Signorile and Ettelbrick regarding marriage are widespread in the homosexual community. According to the Mendola Report, a mere 26 percent of homosexuals believe that commitment is most important in a marriage relationship.[55]

Former homosexual William Aaron explains why even homosexuals involved in "committed" relationships do not practice monogamy:

In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to "absorb" masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently the most successful homophile "marriages" are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.[56]
The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual and lesbian "committed" relationships are not the equivalent of marriage. In addition, there is little evidence that homosexuals and lesbians truly desire to commit themselves to the kind of monogamous relationships as signified by marriage. What remains, then, is the disturbing possibility that behind the demands for "gay marriage" lurks an agenda of undermining the very nature of the institution of marriage.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Data is not interesting.

All this proves is that some homosexual couples are just as licentious as straight couples. And that same sex couples go thru the wear and tear of relationships just as straight couples. Ergo, since both couples are so similar in nature they should be allowed to marry.

And this does not reflect my cousin's relationship status. They have been together almost as long as I've been married and he and his partner have 3 adopted children: and they are all straight btw. I've told him that he should adopt a gay kid.

I'm concerned about you David. You have quite a bit of information on being gay, more than the norm I would say. Are you gay and hate your gayness? Are you from Focus on the Family? Are you James Dobson posting under a pseudonym?
You seem unbelievable passionate and focused on this. I’m learning more from you about the gay world than my cousin who I’ve known for more than 36 years.

And don't you understand that if we continue to demonize this segment of the society, that you will indeed get the self-fulfilling prophecy. I pointed this out to you with slavery and black people and lesbians. But apparently, it didn't sink in. So let's use something biblical. It's like what Jesus said. A fig tree can bear nothing else but figs!

Has it not occurred to you that if perhaps we were to provide a way to legitimize these relationships then we wouldn't have such licentious behavior? Or perhaps you are using the behavior of straight couples as the example and recognizing that we, with “legitimate” relationships are just as licentious – heck even more so.


=====================================================
David Hardy: "Here is some interesting data...

"Commitment" in Male Homosexual Couples

Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.

· A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."[16]

· The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern."[17]..."


http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

justin -- I'm concerned about you David. You have quite a bit of information on being gay, more than the norm I would say. Are you gay and hate your gayness? Are you from Focus on the Family? Are you James Dobson posting under a pseudonym? -- justin

No need to be concerned.. I am not, nor have I ever been, homosexual.. I do not work for Focus on the Family... I am not James Dobson... And David Hardy is my given name...

I am just one American who is sick to death of the militant homosexual agenda.. Pushing homosexuality like it is normal.. And forcing society to accept there perversion under threat of criminal prosecution with bogus hate crime legislation... All crimes are hate crimes... What makes being queer so special?

I make no excuses for any behavior that is presented as wrong in the Bible... I am also revolted by the idea of setting aside the month of June to celebrate sexual perversion... What next?.... Pedophile pride month?.... Peeper pride month?... Bestiality pride month?

Homosexuality is a cancer on society... Only God can fully cure it.... Only those who oppose God support it...

Here is one family's story...

For years, my wife and I have watched the media and homosexual activists work together to redefine family and marriage in our society. The consistent message has been that homosexual "marriage" will hurt no one, and that those of us who support marriage only between one man and one woman will not be impacted. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Our hearts go out to people caught up in homosexuality. The destruction and pain that homosexuality leaves in its wake is deep and impacts so many more than just the individuals caught up in the activity. We now know several other couples who are struggling with a son who chose to engage in homosexuality. We know the pain they endure, and understand when they reach out for help. One person's homosexuality causes stress and strain on every friend and relative who truly cares about them.

For the Iowa Supreme Court to sanction homosexual "marriage" is to encourage and underwrite the negative results that naturally come from the homosexual "lifestyle." Aside from the physical destruction inflicted on those who practice homosexuality and the incredible stress homosexuals cause their extended families, society often pays a hefty price as well. Randy lost his job when he was no longer strong enough to work. With the loss of that job, he lost his ability to insure himself. As a result, you the taxpayer paid for more than $250,000 in medical bills for this one AIDS patient.

For those still uncertain about homosexual "marriage," please understand that the more accepting we are of homosexuality as a society, the more likely it is that your family, and society in general, will suffer the pain that ultimately results. Homosexuality took the life of our son. We oppose homosexuality and homosexual "marriage" in the hope that we might help another family avoid the pain that we have endured.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090428/opinion01/904280350

A bit more info.....

2. HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS DESTRUCTIVE TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE

One often-repeated adage says, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.” Homosexual activists argue as if they are entitled to their own facts when they assert that there is no appreciable difference between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. Homosexual marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan, for example, writes, “[Gay marriage] says for the first time that gay relationships are not better or worse than straight relationships.”10

The real fact, however, is that some relationships are better than others. People may be equal, but their behaviors are not. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural design and compatibility of the human male and female bodies; therefore, homosexual marriage can neither function the same way nor birth the same benefits as traditional marriage. In fact, homosexual marriage would actually hurt society at large. In addition to its inability to bring about procreation, homosexual behavior results in the following:

· It increases health problems among those who practice it, including AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), colon and rectal cancer, and hepatitis.11

· It shortens the median life span by 20–30 years. (One study showed that the median age of death for gay men and women without AIDS is in the early 40s.) 12

· It spreads disease to innocent people. (Some have died of AIDS after having a blood transfusion and thousands of heterosexuals have contracted STDs via sexual contact with bisexuals.)

· It costs Americans millions of dollars in higher medical insurance premiums because of the increased costs of covering health problems related to homosexual behavior.

The bottom line is that homosexual behavior is unhealthy and has negative consequences on society. Innocent people are affected by homosexual behavior.

Most homosexual activists become angry when someone cites these facts. Why would anyone become angry over facts? Augustine said we love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us.

A few homosexual activists, however, acknowledge the negative health effects mentioned above, but use them as a reason to support their cause. This “conservative” case for homosexual marriage suggests that homosexual monogamy would be encouraged by the legalization of homosexual marriage and would alleviate these health problems. Sullivan writes, “A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social trend. It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure.”13

There are, however, at least three reasons why health problems and life span are not likely to improve significantly in so-called “committed” homosexual relationships.14 First, the main issue is not homosexual monogamy, it is homosexual behavior. Homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy, whether done with one partner or many. This is especially true of sexual acts between males. Anal intercourse, for example, causes a host of inherent health problems simply because the organs involved do not tolerate this act well.

Second, coupled homosexuals tend to practice more anal intercourse and more anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. They also forgo safer-sex practices because they are “in love.”15 In other words, coupled homosexuals tend to engage in more risky sexual contact than their single counterparts.

Finally, strict monogamy is the exception rather than the rule among homosexuals. A recent survey found infidelity in about 62 percent of gay couples, which led researchers in the Journal of Family Psychology to write, “The practice of sexual nonmonogamy among some gay couples is one variable that differentiates gay and heterosexual couples.”16

Sullivan would not be surprised by this. He asserts that gay marriage might help make homosexuals more monogamous, but, paradoxically, he doesn’t believe monogamy is “flexible” enough for homosexuals. He calls monogamy a “stifling model of heterosexual normality” and thinks homosexuals have a greater “understanding for the need for extramarital outlets.” Incredibly, he believes heterosexuals could learn from homosexuals’ example in this matter. He writes, “Something of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”17

One wonders how the “flexibility” to engage in “extramarital outlets” could “strengthen” any marital bond. The last thing our society needs, certainly, is for more married men and women to avail themselves of extramarital outlets! If, moreover, this is the kind of relationship homosexuals want to extol, then they need to call it something other than “marriage.”

Even if homosexuals stopped their “extramarital outlets,” and even if homosexual marriage could reduce some of their health problems, those unlikely possibilities do not justify making homosexual marriage the legal equivalent of traditional marriage. The ability to procreate belongs uniquely to the heterosexual relationship that accompanies traditional marriage; therefore, traditional marriage should be the only sexual relationship our society encourages legally. The law does matter.


http://www.equip.org/articles/homosexual-marriage

Another interesting point....

How Would Homosexual Marriage Hurt Children?

If government endorses the idea that marriage is just a legal contract between consenting adults of any gender, regardless of procreative realities, then marriage will no longer be seen as a prerequisite for bearing and raising children. Marriage will be seen as nothing more than coupling. In fact, that’s exactly how Sullivan sees marriage now. He writes, “Coupling — not procreation — is what civil marriage now is.”19

If Sullivan’s view of marriage prevails — as it will if homosexual marriage is legalized — many more couples in our society will forgo traditional marriage and have more children out of wedlock. That will hurt children because illegitimate parents (there’s no such thing as illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those parents who simply live together break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. When illegitimacy rises, not only do children suffer, but the rest of us are forced to pay high social costs to deal with the problems that result from it, including increases in the number of neglected and troubled children, as well as in crime, poverty, and social spending.

Are these just the hysterical warnings of an alarmist? No. We can look at the results in Norway, a country that has had homosexual marriage (without legal sanction) for about a decade. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly gay “rainbow” flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared. In Nordland, more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time do so out of wedlock and nearly 70 percent of all children are born out of wedlock! Across the entire country of Norway, the out-of-wedlock birth rate rose from 39 percent in 1990 to 50 percent in 2000.20

Social anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.”21 Homosexual marriage is probably not solely responsible for this growing problem, but it is certainly a contributing factor. “Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage,” says Kurtz, “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”22 When the entry standards for marriage are weakened to include same-sex couples, the perception of marriage will also be weakened; marriage and childbearing will just be considered incidental. That’s one reason why the number of illegitimate parents is exploding in Norway and it’s a major reason why we shouldn’t bring homosexual marriage to America.

http://www.equip.org/articles/homosexual-marriage

Ok david, i get where you are coming from now. Your allegiance with FRC and FOTH indicates the paranoia under which you operate: and the fact that you manage to work pedophilia and bestiality into the equation lends credence to this fact.

Who is forcing whom to accept what? So a law is passed that would stop you from beating someone or killing someone because you don't like their lifestyle. You see this as a bad thing! I see it as a good thing. Our constitution, which is based on principles from the bible, guarantees this freedom to each person living in America. We already did that with black people a couple hundred years ago. Please let's not revert to those dark days again.

But David even if a hate crime bill is passed – it doesn’t stop you from hating gay people or their sin. It just simply means that you are not allowed to kill them. That if you do so you will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. You are free to continue to despise them. This is America and we all have this freedom.

I'm always amazed at how each of us have our version of what our country should look like. I’ve got to tell you David, your version of America scares the living daylights out of me. But what you have to remember David, is that America is not a theocracy. It’s a representative democracy.

Why don’t you and I go about sharing the good news with sinners, changing their hearts and let God take care of the rest. His Will, will be done after all

==================================================
david: "

No need to be concerned.. I am not, nor have I ever been, homosexual.. I do not work for Focus on the Family... I am not James Dobson... And David Hardy is my given name...

I am just one American who is sick to death of the militant homosexual agenda.. Pushing homosexuality like it is normal.. And forcing society to accept there perversion under threat of criminal prosecution with bogus hate crime legislation... All crimes are hate crimes... What makes being queer so special?

I make no excuses for any behavior that is presented as wrong in the Bible... I am also revolted by the idea of setting aside the month of June to celebrate sexual perversion... What next?.... Pedophile pride month?.... Peeper pride month?... Bestiality pride month?

Homosexuality is a cancer on society... Only God can fully cure it.... Only those who oppose God support it...

Justin -- So a law is passed that would stop you from beating someone or killing someone because you don't like their lifestyle. --- justin

Ummm.. Duhhh... There are already laws on the books pertaining to murder.. We don't need more laws that favor homosexuals based solely upon their sexual perversion, that will only give them the full weight of the law to prosecute anyone who looks at them crosseyed... Which they will

Canada is a model of what could happen in America if the so-called hate crimes legislation becomes the law of the land, and the Democrats will doubtless make this a priority if they win the presidency. Barak Obama has said that he will use the “bully pulpit” to promote homosexual rights and will make this one of his highest priorities.

Such laws are used by homosexuals and Muslims and other enemies of the Christian faith to exact vengeance upon and shut the mouths of Christians.

Since Canada enacted “hate crimes” legislation at the provincial and national level, gave special protected status to homosexuals, and set up human rights commissions and tribunals, the persecution against Christians has grown steadily.

There are 10 human rights commissions in Canada, the national commission, known as the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and a provincial commission for each of Canada’s 10 provinces, except British Columbia (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008). These nine provinces also have human rights tribunals. British Columbia lumps its commission and tribunal into one body.

Complaints brought before the human rights commissions are investigated, and if deemed worthy, are sent to a tribunal for prosecution.

The commissions and tribunals are “quasi-judicial bodies” that have the full power of government behind them, but they operate separately from the court system and do not provide their victims even the basic due process protections that rapists and murderers enjoy in the courts. All an activist must do is file a complaint claiming that his feelings have been hurt and that he is offended by something that a Christian has said or done, and the tribunals bring governmental authority to bear against the “offender.” There is no cost to the complainant, but the accused is forced to pay his own legal costs, which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars. If found guilty he must pay “damages” to the offended party, plus he must pay his accuser’s legal fees. There is a presumption of guilt and the accused must labor under adverse circumstances to prove his or her innocence.

An outspoken Christian has no real protection under this system. It is a grossly discriminatory, lose-lose situation from beginning to end.

As Ezra Levant, a lawyer who is defending himself before a human rights tribunal, observes, “Even if we win, we lose--the process has become the punishment. It is procedurally unfair. Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence don’t apply. Rules of court don’t apply. It is a system that is part Kafka, and part Stalin.”

In 1997 the Ontario Human Rights Commission fined the City of London and its mayor, DIANE HASKETT, $10,000 for refusing to proclaim Gay Pride Day. It also ordered Haskett to make a public statement praising the “valuable contributions of gays and lesbians to her community,” which she refused to do. She said, “I will not bow down to the ruling of the human rights commission and I am willing to bear any consequences of that. If this ruling is left unchallenged, any Canadian can be forced to say what they don’t believe ... The implications are so staggering it should be a matter for legal review” (“Gay Pride Fallout,” The Interim, February 1998).

In 2001 in Toronto, Ontario, printer SCOTT BROCKIE was fined $5,000 for refusing to print homosexual-themed stationery for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives. The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

In 2002 in Saskatchewan the StarPhoenix newspaper of Saskatoon and HUGH OWENS were ordered to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the newspaper in 1997 quoting Bible verses regarding homosexuality. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages (Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side comprised of two males holding hands with the universal sign of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over the top. Owens bought the ad and the StarPhoenix merely printed it. The Human Rights Commission’s ruling was appealed to the courts. In February 2003 the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan refused to overturn it, with Justice J. Barclay saying the advertisement was an incitement to hatred. But in April 2006 the ruling was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals (“Court Reverses Ruling,” WorldNetDaily, April 14, 2006).

In 2005 a British Columbia KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS council was ordered to pay $2,000 to two lesbians, plus their legal costs, for refusing to allow its facility to be used for their “wedding.” The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

In January 2006, Catholic city councilman JOHN DECICCO of Kamloops, British Columbia, was fined $1,000 and required to apologize for saying that homosexuality is “not normal or natural” (LifeSiteNews, Jan. 19, 2007). In his remarks, which were made in a city council meeting, DeCicco was expressing the official doctrine of his church. The fine goes to two homosexual activists who brought the complaint. DeCicco was also forced to issue a public statement that his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” DeCiccco told LifeSiteNews, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.”

In January 2002 the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal levied a fine of $7500 against the VANCOUVER RAPE RELIEF SOCIETY for its refusal to allow a male-to-female “transsexual” named Kimberly Dawn to train as a rape and abuse hotline counsellor. In an article at its web site dated April 16, 2000, the society argued that it operates as a women-only society and that it is not wrong to exclude an individual who has grown up as a man and who its clients might not accept as a woman. The original complaint was brought in 1995. The tribunal commissioner who imposed the heavy-fisted sentence was Heather MacNaughton.

In 2005 in Alberta FRED HENRY, Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, was subject to two complaints before the Alberta Human Rights Commission after publishing a pastoral letter defending the traditional definition of marriage earlier that same year. (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008). Bishop Henry told Zenit: “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police.”

In February 2007 complaints were brought before the Human Rights Commission targeting CATHOLIC INSIGHT magazine and priest ALPHONSE DE VALK, a well-known pro-life activist, for quoting from the Bible and church documents to refute “same-sex marriage.” The complaint was brought by homosexual activist Rob Wells, a member of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Pride Center of Edmonton. He accuses the magazine of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals. de Valk says, “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” adding that opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008).

http://www.wayoflife.org/files/706fe196bc5dd6068bb1a96eefc8b4be-109.html

"My heart goes out to people caught up in bigotry. The destruction and pain that bigotry leaves in its wake is deep and impacts so many more than just the individuals caught up in the activity. We now know several other couples who are struggling with a son who chose to engage in bigotry. We know the pain they endure, and understand when they reach out for help. One person's bigotry causes stress and strain on every friend and relative who truly cares about them."

Do you know what you actually wrote? Being Gay doesn't cause pain, it's the bigotry around the people who are Gay that causes pain, and not only to the Gay person. What you're making is a wish for, an encouragement, to people to perpetuate and ramp up the anomic bombing of Gay people and their real loved ones, as opposed to the people who condescend to say that they "love" them, no matter how closely related.

I got that sort of thing when I lived in the Bible Belt in the Seventies, and even once in the Air Force before I finished college. So disgusting.

"But, what about your children. Children of mixed marriages (mixed what...Martian and Human? We're all very human) will be rejected by both races...and the pain you will inflict upon everyone who loves you, it will be all your fault (My parents didn't care about the "race" of their many children's spouses).

What about the stress and strain caused by your unnatural lust towards each other? How could you chose to inflict that on your loved ones, your naturally inferior and no doubt friendless future children who would be doomed to a lonely, sickly and miserable life? How could you think so little of traditional American marriage and family? What are your real motives for this unnatural abomination of you call love? The Bible says your children will be under the curse of Ham...so on and so forth...with Bible verses, chapter and verse. Deeply pathetic, right?

Of course, one could well take that as thinly veiled threats against my future children...and while I never had children for reasons that are none of your business, almost everyone I know had a dreadfully anti-God, Bible hating and un-American "mixed" marriage of some sort, and did have children.

Their children, and my children by marriage, turned out to be adults to be proud of, with adequately happy childhoods despite some under pinched financial circumstances or divorce (far fewer than in the general public). All are now gainfully employed, most are college graduates, if they're not in undergraduate or grad school and making good grades.

Nobody I care about cares if anyone is Gay or not. We learned something, after all. Marry whom you love, honor and cherish, if they'll consent to have you...and of course, it's love and uncoerced consent that is key to the concept of marriage in our age and place...quite unlike with marriage in other ages and/or places...or apparently the marriages that anti-marriage equality activists claim will happen with marriage equality, what with marriage to nonconsenting rabid wombats and embryos sure to be legalized the day after marriage equality's way overdue appearance in all of America.

Obviously, the concept of informed and free consent between adults to marry is quite foreign to religious right activists, as you would predict from a movement with roots deep in defending patriarchy, enslavement and/or Jim Crow...which might well explain their dubious and duplicitous hard sell propaganda, examples of which Mr. Hardy has kindly supplied to us.

Hey, Gay makes life a little more interesting. Count yourself as lucky if you have an "interesting" child or grandchild or relative or child of a close friend or neighbor. Your life has been enriched...if you let it be enriched.

And, a Gay child might need some help against the witless, relentless, mindlessly greedy and hateful anomic bombing of his or her psyche and of those who actually love him or her...Help maybe, even against actual violence against his or her person. You can be truly brave, right? Or just the smarmy sounding, passive-aggressive type of person, to put it politely, that many postings suggests to me?

Canada sounds much more civilized and moral than the United States, doesn't it, Mr. Hardy?

But, while I kind of like the challenges of bad weather, I was raised on the northern Great Plains, of Norwegian ancestry, I do love my Southwest. I've lived here since graduating from college.

Even if us Norwegians aren't really "designed" for the climate and geography here, I'm planning on sticking it out to the end...if I can. But, us Norwegians are reasonably smart people, at least on occasion, modest too, and we learn and we adapt.

Almost sixty, now, and despite having a once very horrible and all too slowly fatal genetic disease (of which some dreadfully evil, anti-God evolution believing scientists, and multi Nobel Prize winners, have found effective and affordable treatment), I'm still here...and you really appreciate that, right? I do. Thanks.

What do you do with a security word with an umlaut? Why would "George" even have one, and over the last "g?" How would you pronounce it?

Since I have a few minutes...don't ask me why...I frankly don't believe for a minute that anti-marriage equality activists actually "love the sinner," anymore than I believed that race segregationists loved "the Negro," despite their sinful nature, inherited from their ancestor Ham. What self righteous idiots...but I won't condemn them as sinners...sin is what I do, what other people do is merely stupid, ill advised, dangerous, fattening and/or deeply immoral...if I don't approve of it, anyway.

As with the alleged sinful nature inherited from an alleged ancestor, the alleged sins don't even exist. Black people are merely people, not any more sinful, or less sinful, then thou. As for the sin of "homosexuality, humans don't do "homosexual acts." Only non-human animals do...and do they ever..and everything else as well. Get off my leg, Fido.

What humans do is identity, community, society, metaphysics, pataphysics ... meta-meaning for every little and great action and reaction. That's great fun, though exhausting sometimes.

What bigots often do, as CT illustrates so well, and has done so for so long, is to try to dehumanize the "other" with dehumanizing language, of which an obsolete science coinage is about as dehumanizing, and at once about as insultingly and pretentiously dehumanizing as that language can get...at least in America's allegedly polite society.

The Canadian Catholic priest should be alarmed at finding himself following a very unhallowed 'white' conservative Protestant American tradition of the most truly rank and smarmy sort of bigotry...but I guess, conservatives of a feather really can squawk together. Such an inspiring show of ecumenical unity, don't you think?

Of does sarcasm not suit me? Sorry. I beg your forgiveness...maybe.

Gregory Peterson -- Obviously, the concept of informed and free consent between adults to marry is quite foreign to religious right activists, as you would predict from a movement with roots deep in defending patriarchy, enslavement and/or Jim Crow...Gregory Peterson

You make it sound so simple.. If it feels good do it.. have I got that right?.. If you want to marry whatever you want, or have sex with whatever you want... What does it hurt?... Have I got that right?... Anything goes... Sex, drugs and rock and roll... Let the responsible people out there pick up the pieces of self-indulgent train wrecks.. And pay the bill too...

We live in a democratic republic... Not some leftist, hedonistic, Utopian dream world, where there are no consequences for debauchery...

In his 1979 book, Our Dance Has Turned To Death, Christian sociologist Carl W. Wilson outlined the dangers facing traditional marriage and the family in America's increasingly sexualized culture. Wilson could clearly see what was going to happen to the American family if our society continued to be sex saturated.

Wilson noted that history reveals that nations decline and eventually die when sexual immorality becomes rampant and the traditional family is discarded in favor of group sex, homosexuality,infidelity, and unrestrained sexual hedonism.

He pointed to the writings of British anthropologist J. D. Unwin,whose 1934 book, Sex and Culture, chronicled the historical decline of numerous cultures. Unwin studied 86 different cultures throughout history and discovered a surprising fact: No nation that rejected monogamy in marriage and pre-marital sexual chastity lasted longer than a generation after it embraced
sexual hedonism. Unwin stated it this way, "In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence."

Unwin found that nations that valued traditional marriage and sexual abstinence were creative and flourished. He described this as "cultural energy" that can only be maintained when sexual activities remain restricted within marriage.

Sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, in The American Sex Revolution, found essentially the same thing when he examined sexual immorality as it relates to cultural decline. Sorokin noted in the late 60's that America was committing "voluntary suicide" through unrestrained sexual indulgence. He observed that as individuals began engaging in pre-marital sex unrelated to marriage,
the birth rate would decline and our nation would be
slowly depopulated. He predicted an increase in divorce, desertion,and an epidemic of sexual promiscuity resulting in a rise in illegitimate children. His predictions, unfortunately, have
come true.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/deathofmarriage.pdf

Great job, David. I saved your post on Wilson and Unwin. It says it all well and succinctly.

In response to the comment for gay marriages that "God is Love, and gave men free will to do as they want". I would say it is correct that God's love is so deep and wide that He allows men or women to do whatever they want, whether do good or do bad. But we should not thus draw a conclusion that God does not have a standard of right and wrong. God is not immoral. He has an absolute standard, which will measure us one day.

We should not blame the homosexual group with finger pointing or judgmental attitude. Because God is love. But certainly the cause of today's vast homosexual population has something to do with the collapsing of of American family value in the form of divorce in recent decades. Also the missing of a healthy father and mother's role contribute to this reality today.

We pray that God heals America.

David I was going to ignore what you have to say when you dump verbatim from such disreputable sources. Simply because I have no respect or liking for FOTF and affiliated organizations.

But when you start to blatantly lie about things... That's not good. As a fellow brother in Christ, I must advise you to read 1 Cor 6-9:10. Liars too have their part in the lake of fire. Unless of course you think lying isn't an issue with God.

There are currently 1.2M people suffering with AIDs. Per the CDC it costs $32,000 per year to take care of someone with the disease.

Assuming every one has health care. The cost of AIDs works out to be $38.4B

Do you want to guess at the cost of smokers and drinkers? According to the following two reports. It ranges from $72.7B to $137B for smokers

And $175.9B for alcohol.

http://berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0916/smoking.html

http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/health_care_costs.htm

So my question to you david, if the cost of AIDs to society is an issue for you. Shouldn't you go after smokers and drinkers with the same degree of vehemence?

David I was going to ignore what you have to say when you dump verbatim from such disreputable sources. I have no respect or liking for FOTF and affiliated organizations.

But when you start to blatantly lie about things... That's not good. As a fellow brother in Christ, I must advise you to read 1 Cor 6-9:10 and repent. Liars too have their part in the lake of fire. God - at least the one I serve doesn't give passes.

There are currently 1.2M people suffering with AIDs. Per the CDC it costs $32,000 per year to take care of someone with the disease. Unless of course you are conviced that lying isn't an issue with God.

Assuming every one has health care. The cost of AIDs works out to be $38.4B

Do you want to guess at the cost of smokers and drinkers? According to the following two reports. It ranges from $72.7B to $137B for smokers

And $175.9B for alcohol.

http://berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0916/smoking.html

http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/health_care_costs.htm

So my question to you david, if the cost of AIDs to society is an issue for you. Shouldn't you go after smokers and drinkers with the same degree of vehemence?

justin --- So my question to you david, if the cost of AIDs to society is an issue for you. Shouldn't you go after smokers and drinkers with the same degree of vehemence? --- justin

How do you know that I don't?.. In case you haven't noticed.. This is a conversation about Homosexuality... For me to begin to debate the relative demerits of smoking and drinking here, would make about as much sense, as discussing football at a baseball game...


Gotta love yor blatant liar smear attempt... Typical bleeding heart liberal... No brains... No intellect... No common sense... But all touchy-feely emotion... And hatred for all who disagree with you...

Go peddle your papers...

But Cheney didn't endorse same-sex marriage, as seen in this video of his comments: http://tinyurl.com/qakqrv

That should be, "God is not amoral," right? There is a difference between immoral and amoral, I think.

In any case, I wouldn't make declarations on God's nature, myself. As the medieval rabbi put it, "If I could know God, I would be God."

It is a fun question to ponder, though...what is morality to that which is all powerful, all knowing and omnipresent?

I don't know how you can twist my postings into me being an advocate for hedonism, the philosophy of making pleasure to be that which is of the prime importance in one's life...that the only two things that motivate people are pleasure and pain.

I wrote that we had learned to: "Marry whom you love, honor and cherish, if they'll consent to have you..." Does that sound like hedonism? Really? Did I say, marry whomever, whatever gives you pleasure? I did not.

If I were a hedonist, I would say: "Why marry at all, unless marriage brings financial gains to further facilitate the acquisition of pleasure?" I said marry an adult capable of informed consent, whom you love, who is your soul of souls, as the old Mexican love song goes.

Is marrying a consenting adult that you love, honor and cherish any more hedonistic than the "traditional marriage" of contracting for human property to establish male heirs to one's static, Divinely ordained position in society? I think not.

I have frequently and constantly urged people to think about, and try to practice, the Golden Rule as best one can. Is that a hedonistic philosophy? I don't think so.

In any case, I've read J. D. Unwin's "Hopousia, or, The sexual and economic foundations of a new society" after CT published a piece by Phillip Yancy in 1994, which has been endlessly, and mindlessly recycled, if not ripped off, by religious-right organizations ever since. I read it because I didn't trust CT or Yancey's interpretations and conclusions about most everything.

If I were a religious right organization endlessly quoting Unwin out of context, I might have actually been curious enough taken the time to actually check Unwin out. The lack of curiosity by religious right propagandists has always amazed me. In fact, I have the Unwin book on my desk at this very moment.

I haven't reread it, I don't have the time today, if nothing else, but I did reread the introduction by Aldous Huxley. He points out that Unwin was talking mostly about the sexual restraint of the "ruling classes of society."

Unwin proposed two classes of marriage, an "alpha marriage, strictly monogamous and proceeded by pre-nuptial continence; and a beta marriage, terminable at will and for which pre-nuptial continence is not a necessity."

That, if sound, "would make it possible for people to lose the world for love, of love for the world with the minimum of friction and and discomfort and the maximum awareness of he consequences of choice, the privileges and penalties accruing to them once their choice was made. Up to the present, no class or society has consented to suffer sexual restraint for very long. But then, up to the present, no class or society has know what precisely was the point of suffering sexual restraint... in every generation, enough people would select the alpha way of life to allow their society to go on displaying energy indefinitely."

I would say that Unwin wasn't even talking to the ruling classes, but was rather telling the alpha males of the ruling classes to restrain their females' sexuality.

Thanks for reminding me of Unwin, and inadvertently about his two classes of marriage. That was great fun.

I don't advocate two types of marriage, but one type of marriage with equality in access. But if the religious right wants to put their non-Christian hero's proposal of alpha and beta marriages into law...I might support it as a lesser evil to what the religious right is, in general, advocating now, a dubiously advertised status quo ante which has become manifestly immoral.

For anyone who is interested....

J.D. Unwin's Book Available for Download!

Folks,

For those of you who have spent any time at all on MRA or MGTOW sites such as this one, you've no doubt heard of the book, Sex & Culture, by J.D. Unwin. It was published in 1934, and has long been out of print. Today, copies are rare; when they're available, they cost a PRETTY PENNY-IOW, an arm & a leg! Mr. Unwin was an eminent sociologist of his day, and he studied 80 civilizations. Without exception, he said that once women had full sexual freedom, then that society would decline-without exception! Here is proof that feminism and all its aims are destructive to society; indeed, any society adopting it has already committed cultural and national suicide. Is it any wonder why one can't find this work today?

http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/07/jd-unwins-book-available-for-download.html

I can't find any strong source that Carl W. Wilson is a "Christian sociologist." The online biography with a self published book is quite vague as to what he has his two degrees in, where got them, or where he taught and/or researched sociology, or from what, who and why he received unspecified honors. He apparently has never published any sociological books.

It does say that he taught theology, however, though not where. As near as I can find, it's only Lou Sheldon who ways that Wilson is a sociologist, and Sheldon isn't considered to all that credible as a reliable scholarly source...not to mention that everyone can make detail biographical mistakes easy enough.

America doesn't have "illegitimate" children. As we were a legal slave holding country when my Grandfather was born, it's not very American to even use the illegitimate word, as the children of an enslaved person, male and/or female, was always born "illegitimate" in the eyes of what passed for the law.

All children, from legal marriages, annulled marriages, even from one night stands, are fully entitled to their share of their parent's estates and to child support. No one inherits aristocratic titles, duties and privileges. The law of primogeniture isn't the law here. Unlike in ages past, paternity can be quite adequately established if there is a question.

The religious right always seems to presume that Gay people who want to be married are not about establishing a family, as they can't "procreate." But, that may well not be true. Gay people can "procreate" if they wish to make arrangements, and they certainly can adopt. I've met many Gay couples with children.

So...marriage between Gay or Lesbians can be about raising children. It's hardly rare for Gay people to have children, just less likely and probably with more organizing. On the plus side, Gay people aren't all that apt to have unplanned pregnancies.

It doesn't matter if Gay people would flock to be married, or few would show up. It's a moot point. Just because I don't drive now, doesn't mean that I should be prohibited from access to acquiring a driver's license in the future. I might change my mind...if I meet the right car.

Some research suggests that the sisters of Gay men are more likely to have more children that the sisters of not-Gay men, if memory serves...but I'm not sure with which how much reliability those studies can be taken. A lot of studies are more about suggestions in directions for further research than are adequately definitive in themselves.

Blaming increasing marriage equality for a decline in marriage in Scandinavia could well be what sociologists call a "false correlation." Kurtz properly brings up some factors, but they may well have more weight than what he gave them...if marriage is actually on a precipitous decline in the first place. As opposed to minor demographic and cultural changes in the timing of marriages.

I mean, almost everyone I went to college with cohabited in their senior year and grad school, if they went that far, then married after graduation. Most are still married to the same person and have two children...though one friend calls her ex "the starter husband." Her second marriage seems to be enviably solid, though, and is going on twenty five or so years now. We graduated in the mid to late Seventies.

Of course, personal experience is not indicative of general trends, but may illustrate them, or perhaps present alternatives to general trends.

Show me two posts that you’ve made on those other two. The same sex marriage fight seems to be your passion. I am very comfortable that you do nothing else but this. I am quite willing to be proved wrong, though. Feel free to…

It was a conversation started out as our president recognizing that we all may be different but we are created equal. You and a couple of others worked in the sin angle to his proclamation. Sin is sin. And at the attempt to dice and slice what fits with your paranoia – all bets are off.

You really have to stop with the bad analogies, btw

So I have no brain, no intellect and no common sense. And this coming from a man who dumps verbatim illogical arguments taken from sites that are so far to the right they are almost left?!

David, do I have to remind you that you say you are a Christian and therefore you are held to a higher standard? Even if I were to descend to name calling you are not supposed to. Remember David you are supposed to at a minimum turn the other cheek.

And if you think me a liberal, I thank you very much for this. When I look at Jesus’ life and his opposition to the status quo, and the wealthy, and the rulers, and the abusers of the poor, and the down trodden of his day – well he could have been nothing but a liberal as well. I’m truly honored that you would place me in this category with Him.

And someone explain to me – why do some sectors of the country think that calling someone a liberal is some bad thing like a curse or something? Is this supposed to be like calling black people the N word?
====================================================
justin --- So my question to you david, if the cost of AIDs to society is an issue for you. Shouldn't you go after smokers and drinkers with the same degree of vehemence? --- justin

How do you know that I don't?.. In case you haven't noticed.. This is a conversation about Homosexuality... For me to begin to debate the relative demerits of smoking and drinking here, would make about as much sense, as discussing football at a baseball game...


Gotta love yor blatant liar smear attempt... Typical bleeding heart liberal... No brains... No intellect... No common sense... But all touchy-feely emotion... And hatred for all who disagree with you...

Go peddle your papers...

Anna,

The following should be of interest to you.
I would copy and paste the article but the site does not allow this. You will however note from point 1, that the RC blessed same sex unions just as they did man/woman unions from the 5-14th century

The whole article is to show you how marriage has been re-defined over the centuries.

If you note point
http://www.buddybuddy.com/peters-1.html

justin -- David, do I have to remind you that you say you are a Christian and therefore you are held to a higher standard? Even if I were to descend to name calling you are not supposed to. Remember David you are supposed to at a minimum turn the other cheek.--justin

Calling someone groundless names is one thing... Pointing out just what they are is quite another...

John 8:55 but you do not even know him. I know him. If I said otherwise, I would be as great a liar as you! But it is true--I know him and obey him.

Here are the words of Jesus on the subject of marriage....

Matthew 19:4 "Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning `God made them male and female.'*
Footnote:
* Gen 1:27; 5:2.

Matthew 19:5 And he said, `This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.'*
Footnote:
* Gen 2:24.

Matthew 19:6 Since they are no longer two but one, let no one separate them, for God has joined them together."

I'm going to have to leave this alone. I'm a humble Christian trying to follow the Lord's teaching. I would however never dream of thinking that I am Him or even in the same universe. If you think that you are or as great as, and obviously you now indicate that you do, well - I absolutely have no comeback for that. That is more that I can possibly contend with.
====================================================
justin -- David, do I have to remind you that you say you are a Christian and therefore you are held to a higher standard? Even if I were to descend to name calling you are not supposed to. Remember David you are supposed to at a minimum turn the other cheek.--justin

Calling someone groundless names is one thing... Pointing out just what they are is quite another...

John 8:55 but you do not even know him. I know him. If I said otherwise, I would be as great a liar as you! But it is true--I know him and obey him.

Unwin didn't quite really say "decline without exception" in my readings, so much as lose cultural energy...whatever he meant by "energy." I'll call it "Unwin energy." A low Unwin energy state isn't necessarily a failure, but can be an inward focusing one.

Not to mention that I can't think of a society where anyone really has had 'full sexual freedom,' except maybe an emperor or two, and they are always subject to assassination. Et tu, Brute?.

Unwin's theory was also mostly about the sexuality of the ruling elite in society. They're the real movers and shakers, or the sexually satiated and slackers of society. Us peasant types will do as we've always done...tug our forelocks, then game the narrow parameters in the system that we're condescendingly allowed to inhabit, probe the cracks in the metastructure, peek into the elites bedrooms...and demand our bread and circuses or else we'll start to get unruly and really smelly.

Unwin's theory is cyclical. He says that people will get tired of sexual languor, or whatever the low Unwin energy state is, and start to become more sexually conservative again. This means more conversion of sexual frustrations into cultural innovations, expansions...more Unwin energy.

Not to mention that he says that people will inevitably revolt against a period of sexual repression.

Of course, I'm taking that from the later book where he expands upon your earlier linked one, but my book was interrupted by Unwin's death, and was later redacted by others. Had he a few more years to work on it, his interpretations and conclusions may have been different still...or maybe abandoned.

justin -- If you think that you are or as great as, and obviously you now indicate that you do, well - I absolutely have no comeback for that.-- justin

I do not consider myself in any way, to be equal with Jesus... I am but a human, falliable man... I do not claim perfect understanding... And yet...

2Timothy 1:12 I know the one in whom I trust, and I am sure that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until the day of his return.

Here is something interestimg...

174. Human Entropy. . Such, in brief but sufficient outline, were the postnuptial

regulations of these vigorous societies ; such were their methods of

regulating the, relations between the sexes. In each case they reduced their

sexual opportunity to a minimum by the adoption of absolute monogamy ;

in each case the ensuing compulsory continence prodUced great social energy.

The group within the society which suffered the greatest continence

displayed the greatest energy, and dominated the society. When absolute

monogamy was preserved only for a' short time, the energy was only expansive,

but when the rigorous tradition was inherited by a number of generations

the energy became. productive. As soon as the institution of modified

monogamy, that is, marriage and divorce by mutual consent, became part

of the inherited tradition of a complete new generation, the energy, either

of the whole society or of a group within the society, decreased, and then

disappeared.

Sometimes a man has been heard to declare that he wishes both to enjoy the advantages of high culture and to abolish compulsory continence-. The inherent nature of the 'Annan organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory.

Pgs 411-412 -- Sex And Culture -- J.D.Unwin

This sounds a lot like the militant homosexual agenda...

The reformer may be likened to - the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it. Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom ; the evidence is that it cannot do both- for more than one generation.

Page 412 -- Sex And Culture -- J.D.Unwin

Matthew 19 is about questions of divorce, not marriage, and would apply, therefore to same sex marriages...not as a prohibition of them. There is no prohibition of same sex marriage in the verses, after all, but a general statement about most marriages, but not all, as there is the qualification of infidelity (which some say is a latter addition to the verse.)

The verse on eunuchs has been extended as an acceptance of men born with the desire to have a woman.

Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning `God made them male and female.'*
Footnote:
* Gen 1:27; 5:2.

Matthew 19:5 And he said, `This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.'*
Footnote:
* Gen 2:24.

Matthew 19:6 Since they are no longer two but one, let no one separate them, for God has joined them together."

justin -- Matthew 19 is about questions of divorce, not marriage, and would apply, therefore to same sex marriages...not as a prohibition of them. There is no prohibition of same sex marriage in the verses, after all, but a general statement about most marriages, but not all, as there is the qualification of infidelity (which some say is a latter addition to the verse.)--justin

Ofuscate to your heart's content... I does not change the fact that homosexuality is detestable in the sight of God...

Jesus said...

Matthew 15:19 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all other sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander.

Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.

Matthew 5:18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.

Matthew 5:19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

If your Bible has the word "homosexuality" in it, it is assuredly an evil thing that should be thrown away.

It's was put together by obvious bigots for an obvious evil purpose, to get you to hate your neighbor for no reason except unreasoning prejudice, rank greed, unearned hegemony and delusions of entitlement, scorn for the Golden Rule, a near pathological need for a scapegoat and an addiction to unconscionable conspiracy theories. In other words, American racism lightly revised for the 21st Century.

You really don't know what shame is, do you?

You say this....

justin-- I'm going to have to leave this alone. I'm a humble Christian trying to follow the Lord's teaching. I would however never dream of thinking that I am Him or even in the same universe. If you think that you are or as great as, and obviously you now indicate that you do, well - I absolutely have no comeback for that. That is more that I can possibly contend with.--justin

Than you say this...

justin--If your Bible has the word "homosexuality" in it, it is assuredly an evil thing that should be thrown away.

It's was put together by obvious bigots for an obvious evil purpose, to get you to hate your neighbor for no reason except unreasoning prejudice, rank greed, unearned hegemony and delusions of entitlement, scorn for the Golden Rule, a near pathological need for a scapegoat and an addiction to unconscionable conspiracy theories. In other words, American racism lightly revised for the 21st Century.

You really don't know what shame is, do you?--justin

Yus say that you are not anywhere near thinking that you are on par with Jesus... Yet you condemn Scripture... Your problem is with God... Not men... For you are saying that God himself is an "obvious bigot" and that his Word is an "assuredly an evil thing"

justin-- I'm going to have to leave this alone. I'm a humble Christian trying to follow the Lord's teaching. I would however never dream of thinking that I am Him or even in the same universe. If you think that you are or as great as, and obviously you now indicate that you do, well - I absolutely have no comeback for that. That is more that I can possibly contend with.--justin

My apologies to you justin for misquoting you here.. While you did say the above.. It was Gregory Peterson who said the following.. What is posted below his quote still stands...

Gregory Peterson --If your Bible has the word "homosexuality" in it, it is assuredly an evil thing that should be thrown away.

It's was put together by obvious bigots for an obvious evil purpose, to get you to hate your neighbor for no reason except unreasoning prejudice, rank greed, unearned hegemony and delusions of entitlement, scorn for the Golden Rule, a near pathological need for a scapegoat and an addiction to unconscionable conspiracy theories. In other words, American racism lightly revised for the 21st Century.

You really don't know what shame is, do you?--Gregory Peterson

You are condemning Scripture... Your problem is with God... Not men... For you are saying that God himself is an "obvious bigot" and that his Word is an "assuredly an evil thing"

I am not condemning scripture. I very clearly condemned publishers and translators who unethically manipulate translations and paraphrases with clear intent to incite hate, in quite racist-like ways.

Take your defiled Bible back to the bookstore and get your money back. Then buy a real one.

I also condemn reading the Bible without constantly thinking about the Golden Rule. If you don't bring the Golden Rule to the Bible, you'll be blind to much of what the Bible can teach.

Gregory Peterson--I am not condemning scripture. I very clearly condemned publishers and translators who unethically manipulate translations and paraphrases with clear intent to incite hate, in quite racist-like ways.

Take your defiled Bible back to the bookstore and get your money back. Then buy a real one.--Gregory Peterson

Should I give you a call first, so that I am suer to get a translation that only contains what you have personally approved... Sorry... I do not believe you to be a Greek and/or Hebrew scholar..

I personally look at many translations simultainiously.. That is possible you know.. And when I am in doubt.. I go to the Hebrew and/or Greek lexicon... Everything I have studied points to homosexuality as being an abomination in the eyes of God... I do not require your personally biased blessing for Biblical translation selection...

Gregory Peterson--I also condemn reading the Bible without constantly thinking about the Golden Rule. If you don't bring the Golden Rule to the Bible, you'll be blind to much of what the Bible can teach.--Gregory Peterson

You know.. for someone who is so big on "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Luke 6:31... You sure are wanting to be condemned, aren't you...

So, you deliberately chose the Bible versions that quite likely deliberately, and quite unnecessarily, use now pejorative labels to incite hatred of your neighbors, instead of the versions that try to have scholarly integrity?

Good point on my "condemning," thanks. I do stand condemned of hypocrisy with that. My apologies.

I should have written: "I also ENCOURAGE reading the Bible WHILE constantly thinking about the Golden Rule. If you don't bring the Golden Rule to the Bible, you COULD MISS much of what the Bible can teach."

Nothing in my Bibles points out that "homosexuality" is an abomination to God. Only idolatry associated things and actions are abominations to God, as near as I can make out. Gay is quite probably not caused by idolatry. Not to mention that there is no such thing as human "homosexuality." It's an obsolete sexology theory.

What other obsolete sociological/scientific coinages can you find in your "homosexual" Bible versions? Likely, none, so why is "homosexual" in your favorite versions? Why are they your favorite versions?

There are likely reasons for continuing to publish and distribute a Bible version that uses racist-like labeling of a minority group, and they likely have nothing to do sex, beyond, that is, the religious right's prurient, perverse and fevered fascination with Gay people's sex lives. (Which is much like their former(?) prurient, perverse and fevered fascination with Black people's sex lives, and for the same disgusting reason.)

And the cue is "racist-like." A desire to dominate, exploit, steal from and abuse with with impunity, discriminate against, dehumanize, and segregate, if not exterminate, a minority group.

I take that back...there is no "if not," it's "the religious right definitely wants to exterminate the Gay community." For the moment, with "ex-Gay" therapy which looks like unadulterated quackery, constant, racist-like anomic bombing, of which CT contributes its share (as it did in the Fifties and Sixties against Black people and liberals), tawdry Fifties "Massive Resistance" political tactics, and unconscionable and anti American efforts to deny Gay people from petitioning their governments and courts for redress of their grievances.

Of course, a difference with "Gay" from the social construct of "race, is that Gay people are from every ethnicity, everywhere.

But then, so are women, another group that many in the religious right wish to dominate, discriminate against in positions of authority and power, exploit, scream clobber verses at to cowl them into submission, deny them equality in human dignity, segregate in a different way...but at least, definitely not exterminate, merely to treat them like property that can be legally used for sexual purposes and manual labor.

I wish there was a "homosexual" Bible publisher in my town, so I could organize an informational picket of what is undoubtedly corporate hate mongering.

Gregory Peterson-- So, you deliberately chose the Bible versions that quite likely deliberately, and quite unnecessarily, use now pejorative labels to incite hatred of your neighbors, instead of the versions that try to have scholarly integrity?--Gregory Peterson

No... I deliberately choose translations that are more easily understood... The message is the same.. It is just written in plaia english... Usage of thee and thou .. Doesn't make the words in the Bible any more Holy...

Gregory Peterson--Nothing in my Bibles points out that "homosexuality" is an abomination to God. Only idolatry associated things and actions are abominations to God, as near as I can make out. Gay is quite probably not caused by idolatry. Not to mention that there is no such thing as human "homosexuality." It's an obsolete sexology theory.--Gregory Peterson

So what is your excuse for these verses?

Colossians 3:5 So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual sin, impurity, lust, and shameful desires. Don't be greedy for the good things of this life, for that is idolatry.

Colossians 3:6 God's terrible anger will come upon those who do such things.

Gregory Peterson--There are likely reasons for continuing to publish and distribute a Bible version that uses racist-like labeling of a minority group, and they likely have nothing to do sex, beyond, that is, the religious right's prurient, perverse and fevered fascination with Gay people's sex lives.--Gregory Peterson

Homosexuals are no more a minority group than pedophiles are a minority group... Homosexuals are homosexual by free-will choice..

Gregory Peterson--Of course, a difference with "Gay" from the social construct of "race, is that Gay people are from every ethnicity, everywhere.--Gregory Peterson

Homosexuals are no more a race of people than adulterers are a race of people.... Homosexuals are homosexual by free-will choice...

Gregory Peterson-- I wish there was a "homosexual" Bible publisher in my town, so I could organize an informational picket of what is undoubtedly corporate hate mongering.--Gregory Peterson

can I set up my protest of heterosexual hate mongering, next to your hate mongering protest of heterosexuals...

For the sake of the Golden rule, of course... I know that you would want it that way... Because you are the epitome of peace, love and fairness...

Three is no such thing as a "homosexual." That's a label from an obsolete sexology/science theory, a faded social construct that's been twisted and abused by a group with a very long American history of oppression and opposition to basic civil rights.

Where were "white" conservative evangelicals during the Civil Rights movements? What was CT doing? I can tell you...attacking Martin Luther king Jr. and fretting about the erosion of states' rights, the political theory of white privilege.

For civil rights purposes, it doesn't matter if people should choose to be "homosexuals."
Civil rights isn't just about skin color, which, by the way, can be changed if one really want to do such a silly thing.

If I choose an an unpopular religion, I still have civil rights. I have joined a minority group, members of a small, unpopular religious group. I have a right to petition my governments and courts for redress of my grievances, something that CT had opposed for Gay people, with it's endorsement of the morally and intellectually bankrupt anti-marriage equality amendments.

Which is about what I would expect from an organization co-founded by the infamous bigot, J. Howard Pew.

Pedophilia is rape. Comparing consenting, law abiding adults to child rapists is unconscionable, almost beyond forgiving, certainly not a Christian thing to do, I would think (But then...as you did it, I guess it is a Christian thing to do, right?). You should be ashamed of yourself.

While one chooses to identify with the Gay community of not, think Sen. Craig, there is little reason to think that one's core sexual orientation is "chosen" or all that mutable, though people are somewhat flexible up to the point that they're not. The claim that Gay people choose their sexual orientation is just the most illegitimate, pathetic, shabby, self serving excuse for the religious right's delusions of moral absolutes that justify a disgraceful, immoral campaign of slander, oppression, scapegoating and repression of a small minority group.

Not to mention that it's a minority group that a loved one just might be a part of, if not now, someday. Don't hate on people you might need someday.

Gregory Peterson-- Three is no such thing as a "homosexual." That's a label from an obsolete sexology/science theory, a faded social construct that's been twisted and abused by a group with a very long American history of oppression and opposition to basic civil rights.--Gregory Peterson

With your use of the word three... I'm not certain if you are referring to homosexual menage a trois as being non-existent... However, I can assure you that homosexuality does exist... And it is a cancer on society.. The Bible condemns it, no matter which version that you read, in both Old and New Testaments... Your claims that it doesn't exist, that it is not a free-will choice and that it is not an urge that can be controlled is ludicrous conjecture...

God gave mankind a free-will... God himself, will not enter a heart that refuses him entry... You are free to justify your behavior... In the end... We must all give an account... On that day, you will not be able to say to God.. "Nobody told me that homosexuality was wrong"...

I'm very curious about this. When do someone make the choice to be a homosexual?

I assume you are straight - when did you make that choice to be straight? At 5, 10, 15, 20 perhaps 25 years of age? Did you first have sexual relations with a man and then determined that it wasn't for you and so you made the decision to be straight. How does this work exactly.

I know I'm straight, but I don't recall ever making the decision to be so.

Please shed some light


=====================================================
David: Homosexuals are no more a race of people than adulterers are a race of people.... Homosexuals are homosexual by free-will choice..."

justin--I'm very curious about this. When do someone make the choice to be a homosexual?--justin

When they make the consious choice as to how they will express themselves sexually...

There are many ways to copulate... That does not mean that you are free to engage in that activity on the public square in broad daylight...

Humans exercise free-will, in their choces of with whom/with what, where and when, to engage in sexual activity... Coitus is an activity engaged in by free-will personal choice.... Not by mandatory compulsion...

Just as I suspected.

So in other words - you don't have a clue what you are talking about. But will yet spew your nonsense. You really should stop. No wonder people think that people who call themselves Christians are brain dead.

So when did you make the conscious choice as to how you would express yourself sexually. What was your thought processes at that particular time? Did you view play girl pictures of naked men to determine that it wasn't for you? Did you fool around with the neighbor's boy child? Was it at lunch one day. Was it in the showers after gym class? Was it an instantaneous decision or was it done over time? Did you test a boy or a girl first in order to help you decide which way you would go?

I never made a conscious choice. So are you telling me that since I have yet to make this choice, that I may yet choose to be homosexual? Hmmmm my wife will absolutely not be pleased with that. Can you guide me as to what I should look out for? Is this choice preceded by hot flashes or cold sweats or shivers or something? A change in the sense of smell or night vision perhaps? I need to know.

"Homosexual" is a popular label with the haters because it's has "sex" in it, snicker snicker snicker; the shortened word is definitely pejorative, snicker snicker snicker; and since it's of scientific coinage and was used extensively by doctors and researchers until not all that long ago, it's still quite clinical and fairly current sounding...therefore with the tacit suggestion that "homosexuality" is something that is taken to clinics; a pathology, like "a cancer," and maybe even, shudder, contagious.

Of course, comparing generally law abiding, consenting adults to "a cancer" is about the ultimate in attempting to completely dehumanize a person and/or a group of people; to deny their humanity, their human dignity, their productivity and talents, that they are capable of love and feelings, that they can be hurt, that they will be missed when they're gone.

They're "a cancer," just a malignant tumor, without feelings, without human dignity, a mindless enemy to clinically excise, and not really one's neighbor at all.

It's a very disgusting and immoral way to not all that tacitly demand the eugenic extermination of one's neighbors, relatives, even maybe one's child.

So..I would suggest that if upi think that "homosexuals," whatever they are, are an abomination, "a cancer;" then the only ethical thing to do is go out and buy a medic alert bracelet and put a "Do not treat me if you're homosexual" message in it.

After all, if you think the world doesn't need "homosexual" people, shouldn't have "homosexual" people, should dispassionately kill "homosexual" people like doctors kill tumors; then you should be prepared to get along without "homosexual" people at all times, for all reasons, right?

Or, do you just want to abuse, belittle, scapegoat "homosexual" people, and then callously exploit "homosexual" people's training, skills and intelligence if it's opportune?

Don't hate on people you might well need some day.

The Bible condemns idolatry...that's the only absolute that I can find. After the story of Lot and his daughter initiated incest, that's rather clear.

For everything else, we need to read the Bible to learn from what the people in the past, who were inspired by the One God, have to teach us...what they did right, what they did wrong, what is morally unclear, how they thought, what their motivations were, what information they had at their command, what misconceptions they had, what changed even as the Bible evolved, how the world today compares with the world that they lived in...

In other words, you won't get morality out of the Bible unless you bring morality to the Bible (if I may borrow a concept from a contemporary Islamic scholar who's name I forget)...and the core of morality is likely the Golden Rule.

I think that's what Jesus actually did. If it's good enough for Jesus, likely it's not all that bad a thing for me to try...but then again, look at what happened to Him.

I never said that "homosexuals are a race." I did say that "race" was a social construct, in other words, "race" is something that can be, and has, been, defined and redefined over the years.

A "minority" person can be born to a "minority group," can chose to be a member of an already existing minority group -- such as becoming a member of a small sect, can be born outside but then be adopted into the group, can seek out others to form a new -- necessarily a minority group until it isn't one any longer, can be born not within a minority group itself -- but become aware aware of ones' self as a member of a minority group...etc. A minority group is simply a group of people that doesn't constitute a majority in numbers and/or hegemony, power and resources.

In any case, equality in civil rights, "inalienable" or not, are now constitutionally guaranteed to all citizens of America, minority or not. Non citizen residents and visitors also have civil rights in this country.

To further extend the thought of race as a social construct... As I think Bayard Rustin pointed out, "Racism isn't just about black and white." Malcolm X also noted, if memory serves, that "Racism is like a Cadillac, there is a new model every year."

Which is why I often use the phase, "racist-like." Gay isn't a "race," but the Gay community is being treated, or I should say, attempted to treat the Gay community as a "minority race" was(and is still somewhat?) treated not that long ago. And, often by "white conservative evangelicals" that had treated the "minority race" so immorally.

Of course, they aren't/weren't alone, but at least today, in a coalition with others such as Catholic and Mormon ultra-conservatives who share a very racist-like and naked greed and fear about properly sharing authority, privilege, power structures and access to resources with "the other."

justin--So when did you make the conscious choice as to how you would express yourself sexually. What was your thought processes at that particular time? Did you view play girl pictures of naked men to determine that it wasn't for you? Did you fool around with the neighbor's boy child? Was it at lunch one day. Was it in the showers after gym class? Was it an instantaneous decision or was it done over time? Did you test a boy or a girl first in order to help you decide which way you would go?--justin

With your unbridled craving and prying and lusting for details about my sex life, one could easily conclude that you derive some great degree of excitement by engaging in voyeurism... You really should try to excercise some decency and control yourself...

Gregory Peterson---They're "a cancer," just a malignant tumor, without feelings, without human dignity, a mindless enemy to clinically excise, and not really one's neighbor at all.

It's a very disgusting and immoral way to not all that tacitly demand the eugenic extermination of one's neighbors, relatives, even maybe one's child.---Gregory Peterson

Here is the paragraph where I stated that homosexuality is a cancer... Not homosexuals...

However, I can assure you that homosexuality does exist... And it is a cancer on society.. The Bible condemns it, no matter which version that you read, in both Old and New Testaments... Your claims that it doesn't exist, that it is not a free-will choice and that it is not an urge that can be controlled is ludicrous conjecture...

One can indeed make a distinction between the person and their actions...

Gregory... You demonstrate a desperation that knows no restraint... You twist my words to mean something different than what was presented and then you have the audacity to castigate me using your Frankenstein's monster misquote as a linguistic weapon...

Your capacity for prevarication is boundless...


If there was such a thing as a "homosexuality," then a person who does "homosexuality" would be a "homosexual." That's part of the problem with the word.

If a person does "cancer-ality," then that person is a "cancer-ual."

Gay, however, is identity and community, regardless of sexual acts or absence of same. It's a name that came from within the community, adopted by consensus; as opposed to "homosexual" which was imposed by outsiders.

It's clearly disrespectful, immoral even, to use "homosexual," as the religious right uses the word. Homosexuality is what animals do, not humans.

Gay people may do s consensual, same-sex relationships...but only animals actually do homosexuality. We're too meta-everything, too wrapped up in human identity formation, to do anything a clinically simple as homosexuality, in even the most fleeting of human sexual assignations.

We're all sort of like walking crime scenes, to use an analogy. We bring something of us to everyone we meet, and we take something of them when we part. That is a part of identity.

With animals, there is no need for such constant, deep-identity work.

I'd say you're self-prevaricating. The Bible clearly and unequivocally does not say what the religious right says it does about "homosexuality." Only corrupted and defiled Bibles, put together and published by unrepentant bigots out to exploit racist-like beliefs for money and power, use that obsolete and now ever more pejorative word in it.

Respectable people, who at least nod to the Golden Rule, do not use the word "homosexual" in the strikingly racist-like way that religious right activists use the word.

There is simply no reason to respect anyone who uses "homosexual" in the disgusting way the religious right does, except as a free speech right. The activists of prejudice will find themselves ever more ostracized and justly ridiculed by the real pro-morality society.

In any case, "white conservative" Christians, which CT has always claimed as it's main demographic, have a dismal historical record when it comes to morality. Why should anyone listen to them anymore, when they haven't repented, as the current scapegoating and greed based campaign against their Gay neighbors shows as clearly as my best camera lens.

I just happened to have accidentally picked up "My Soul is Rested" this morning, which quite reminded me of a lot of what even I had forgotten. I mean, really. And where was CT during that time? Giving "equal space" to race segregationists, fretting about the erosion of states' rights, the political theory of white privilege, and attacking Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr....and now attacking once more, though less passively, and more aggressively, the concept of equality under the law...and the Golden Rule.

Gregory Peterson--Respectable people, who at least nod to the Golden Rule, do not use the word "homosexual" in the strikingly racist-like way that religious right activists use the word.--Gregory Peterson

You use the term Golden Rule like a club... You virulently bash and bash away at "white conservative" Christians, "the religious right" and Christianity Today... You demonstrate none of the principals of the Rule that you have warped into a weapon to be employed at will and at random, by you in your personal vendetta...

The Bible puts it quite bluntly.... Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God.... And a homosexual by any other name would still be a pervert...

my apologies for any duplicate posts. my wireless router acts up from time to time

See david that's just the thing.
1. vouyersim isn't fun when it's being done to you is it? perhaps you now understand and will leave what two consenting adults decide to do alone. somehow though i don't think you will.

but you still have not answered.

when did you choose to be straight?
what process did you go through to reach that point?
did you have sexual reltions with a man yourself and then decide it wasn't for you?
how exactly did you make the choice?

i readily admit to myself i didn't and therefore don't know.

enlighten me please.


=====================================================
justin--So when did you make the conscious choice as to how you would express yourself sexually. What was your thought processes at that particular time? Did you view play girl pictures of naked men to determine that it wasn't for you? Did you fool around with the neighbor's boy child? Was it at lunch one day. Was it in the showers after gym class? Was it an instantaneous decision or was it done over time? Did you test a boy or a girl first in order to help you decide which way you would go?--justin

With your unbridled craving and prying and lusting for details about my sex life, one could easily conclude that you derive some great degree of excitement by engaging in voyeurism... You really should try to excercise some decency and control yourself...

See david that's just the thing.
1. vouyersim isn't fun when it's being done to you is it? perhaps you now understand and will leave what two consenting adults decide to do alone. somehow though i don't think you will.

but you still have not answered.

when did you choose to be straight?
what process did you go through to reach that point?
did you have sexual reltions with a man yourself and then decide it wasn't for you?
how exactly did you make the choice?
=====================================================
justin--So when did you make the conscious choice as to how you would express yourself sexually. What was your thought processes at that particular time? Did you view play girl pictures of naked men to determine that it wasn't for you? Did you fool around with the neighbor's boy child? Was it at lunch one day. Was it in the showers after gym class? Was it an instantaneous decision or was it done over time? Did you test a boy or a girl first in order to help you decide which way you would go?--justin

With your unbridled craving and prying and lusting for details about my sex life, one could easily conclude that you derive some great degree of excitement by engaging in voyeurism... You really should try to excercise some decency and control yourself...

justin-- See david that's just the thing.
1. vouyersim isn't fun when it's being done to you is it? perhaps you now understand and will leave what two consenting adults decide to do alone. somehow though i don't think you will.-- justin

Homosexuals are the ones who are lobbying for special treatment by the government based solely upon their free-will sexual choices... Homosexuals are the ones who are forcing society to listen to "We're here!!"... "we're queer!!"... "get used to it!!"... Homosexuals are the ones who flaunts their sexuality in the faces of society and then lobby for the passage of hate crimes legislation so that anyone who expresses their disgust will be tried as a criminal...

To verbally copulate in the streets and in the media and then accuse all who are subjected to it as being voyeurs is asinine...

Homosexuals are militant about cramming their homosexuality down the throats of society... I am not a voyeur... I am nauseated.... And I refuse to have my constitutional rights subverted by perverts...

justin-- but you still have not answered.

when did you choose to be straight?
what process did you go through to reach that point?
did you have sexual reltions with a man yourself and then decide it wasn't for you?
how exactly did you make the choice?

i readily admit to myself i didn't and therefore don't know.

enlighten me please.-- justin

You are really a sick and twisted deviant ...

awwwww shucks come on david, it cannot be this hard surely to tell us when you made the decision to be straight.

you've righteously informed us that homosexuals make the decision to be homosexuals.

you see i have a teen age son and i need to know what signs to look out for when the decision is upon him. since i didn't go thru this process and this decision making and you did, surely you can be kind enough to shed some light.

is he going to turn polka dot, green, black, blue? loose his hair, grow vulcan ears?

come on david. ok i tell you what, if you can't remember when you made the decision for yourself how about you go ask one of your buddies at those silly websites that you dump verbatim the hogwash from. surely one of them must know when they decided.

here are the questions again:

when did you choose to be straight?
what process did you go through to reach that point?
did you have sexual reltions with a man yourself and then decide it wasn't for you?
how exactly did you make the choice?


hope to hear back from you.
====================================================
justin-- but you still have not answered.

when did you choose to be straight?
what process did you go through to reach that point?
did you have sexual reltions with a man yourself and then decide it wasn't for you?
how exactly did you make the choice?

i readily admit to myself i didn't and therefore don't know.

enlighten me please.-- justin

You are really a sick and twisted deviant ...

Donald Trump stripped Carrie prejean of her crown..

CNN wants input... http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?33

Here is what I sent them....

While I don't agree with the homosexual "lifestyle".... And while I consider it to be no more normal than Pedophilia, Misanthropic Anthropomorphic Bestiality, Sadomasochism, Necrophilia or any other Paraphilia....

I'm not actively attempting to ferret these perverts out from the ranks of polite society..... However... When someone not only boasts about their sexual perversion... But flaunts it in the faces of those who find it reprehensible..... While demanding their "rights" to openly express and engage in their sexual deviation of choice... I then take issue with it....

To me by engaging in a militant homosexuality that screams in the faces of America...... "We're here! We're queer! Get used to it!"... Is about as revolting to me as being forced and coerced into the acceptance of something sick and twisted, against my will..... To demand constitutional recognition based solely upon a free-will sexual preference, makes no more sense than celebrating adultery and making it legal...

Carrie Prejean is a poster child for the intolerance of the anti-American, militant homosexual agenda... They don't want democracy... They seek an oligarchic overthrow of our country and they are pushing for hate crimes legislation that will outlaw all dissent...

Homosexuals are no more than deviant, perverted...tyrants...

If you're son sprouts Vulcan ears, you might want to forget grandchildren, as your son has taken an unconscious vow of celibacy. Meeting hot babes from Vulcan is unlikely, and most Earth gals like sex more than once every seven years, Mr. Spock's mother excepted.

Learn how to speak Klingon, so that you can communicate with some of your son's acquaintances.

Little is known about same-sex oriented Vulcans, as all Vulcans act, dress, talk and sound pretty much alike...at least to outsiders.

Gregory Peterson-- If you're son sprouts Vulcan ears, you might want to forget grandchildren, as your son has taken an unconscious vow of celibacy. Meeting hot babes from Vulcan is unlikely, and most Earth gals like sex more than once every seven years, Mr. Spock's mother excepted.

Learn how to speak Klingon, so that you can communicate with some of your son's acquaintances.

Little is known about same-sex oriented Vulcans, as all Vulcans act, dress, talk and sound pretty much alike...at least to outsiders.--Gregory Peterson

Yeah, Yeah... Men are from Mars... Women are from Venus.. And homosexuals are from Uranus.....

I use the Golden Rule as a club? Interesting observation, thanks. I'll have to ponder that a bit.

What is applying the Golden Rule to those whom you find disagreeable in fundamental ways?

I don't see the Golden Rule all that much respected, encouraged and practiced in religious right activists circles, as I understand it anyway, and certainly not to me and mine. Being around religious right activists reminds me of that old Temptations song, "Smiling Faces Sometimes." You find the lyrics.

Consequently, I feel a need to point out that the Golden Rule is in the Bible, apparently Jesus thought it important, and I was raised a somewhat moderate United Methodist; being annoying that way is our "thing."

Though it's been out since 2006, I have yet to have gotten around to reading it. However, Karen Armstrong's: "The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions" is something that you might want to check out. From the two books of hers that I've read, it's probably a fun read. I've just been very busy.

I apparently can't reply, but on the CT article of the illegal courthouse 10 Commandments, my understanding is that non-Israelite slaves could be perpetually enslaved and were inheritable property. Captured 'enemies' could be enslaved forever. Daughters were sold into slavery to pay debts. Male Israelite slaves were more like indentured servants than perpetual chattel, but indentured servitude is undoubtedly slavery, just with a time limit.

Having been raised a United Methodist, I've been instructed by the Book of Discipline to "oppose all forms of slavery," and I have a great grandfather was with Sherman's Army which very much helped bring an end to the tyranny of the slaveholder oligarchy...at least temporarily. However, I'm not sure what qualifies for "all forms." However, being sold into slavery, born into slavery, indentured into temporary slavery, debt slavery and/or captured and impressed into slavery, is adequately clear cut as actual slavery, even for my pedantically leaning self.

Here's an interesting read...

Yes, I know there are today some churches that consider themselves to be Christian that accept practicing homosexuals into full fellowship and some who have even elevated the same to positions of authority within the church. Can we say these churches are faithful to the Bible? Can we say they believe the Bible? They are in effect saying a practicing homosexual can inherit the kingdom of God and thus claim to know more about it than the Holy Spirit himself as he spoke through Paul.

In 1 Tim. 1 Paul talks about some who wanted to be teachers of law and he says this, "the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane" and then lists among others "men who practice homosexuality." (1 Tim. 1:9-10 ESV) He wraps up this section by saying "and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel." (1 Tim. 1:10-11 ESV) Thus homosexuality is lawlessness, disobedience, ungodliness, unholy, profane, and contrary to sound doctrine in accordance with the gospel.

In Rom. 1 Paul speaks of history, of years gone by, and says of those who did not honor God as God but went off into idolatry that, "God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves." (Rom. 1:24 ESV) He goes on, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Rom. 1:26-27 ESV)

I would like to ask a question here. God’s stand against homosexuality could not be any clearer. When one takes a stand for gay marriage it is obvious he is taking a stand for, in favor of, homosexuality. How would you like to be that man in the Day of Judgment? Now understand I am speaking of every legislator who votes in favor of such, every judge that gives his blessing to it, every person who knowingly votes into office those who favor the same. Is no one to be held accountable? Yes, I think even us lowly voters will be held accountable for the way we vote when we know ahead what is likely to be the position taken by the candidate once he/she is in office. It is not just the practicing homosexuals who will be held accountable but any who support those who have helped to promote it.

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!" (Isa. 5:20-21 ESV)

Does that not describe what is going on in our country today? We are wise in our own eyes, loving and tolerant, in allowing what God disallows. We are sweeter than he is, kinder, more gracious, more loving. We will call darkness light and that will make it so.

Does no one in this country fear God?

Let someone say that God will punish this country for its evil and he is ostracized. Why? Because we consider ourselves godly, too good for punishment, not deserving, all the while we spit in the face of God’s own word.

Perhaps you have learned this already, you probably have. Words no longer have any meaning. We make them mean whatever we want them to. It is now 2009. It has been approximately 2,000 years since Christ was on earth. In that 2,000 year period of time who would ever in their wildest imagination thought of marriage as a union of a homosexual couple? The answer is absolutely no one until just recently. The consensus through history was that homosexual unions were sin. Now it is blessed matrimony.

http://www.dennysmith.net/Christianit1.htm

when will you people get it right. first it was your claim that homosexuals were driving up health costs. now apparently your demi-god think it's ... well read it for your self. :-)

http://www.theseminal.com/2009/06/11/leader-limbaugh-exercise-freaks-are-driving-up-costs-public-option-will-lead-to-single-payer/

ah come now david - it's been 3 days and holding - i'm thinking of submitting your name to the noble prize committe...

still waiting for your answer. oh btw, i hope you don't think that those silly asides you are making will do anything to the matter at hand.

here are the questions again:

when did you choose to be straight?
what process did you go through to reach that point?
did you have sexual reltions with a man yourself and then decide it wasn't for you?
how exactly did you make the choice?


Gregory Peterson-- For instance, if memory serves, he says a seed that is dead in the soil, somehow becomes a living plant...a very unfortunate analogy, today, to apply to Jesus. A seed that is dead in the ground quite likely simply becomes inextricable from the ground. It becomes soil. It will never sprout. A seed is dormant but viable, living, is not dead in the ground...and that is not the analogy one would want to apply to Jesus.

It would be biblio-idolatry to insist that every word in the Pauline letters, genuine or not, are to be literally treated as the inerrant word of God. God didn't make Paul God. And Paul is very dead, and not someone to resurrect into an infamous, powerful bigot for the most rank and greedy prejudices, as he has been in the not that distant past.--Gregory Peterson

You are so warped, that in your reckless haste.... You try to twist Jesus' own words to condemn Paul...

John 12:23 Jesus replied, "The time has come for the Son of Man to enter into his glory.

John 12:24 The truth is, a kernel of wheat must be planted in the soil. Unless it dies it will be alone--a single seed. But its death will produce many new kernels--a plentiful harvest of new lives.

Jhn 12:25 Those who love their life in this world will lose it. Those who despise their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

Gregory Peterson-- I do like being wrong, I admit,-- Gregory Peterson

You not only like being wrong... You wallow in it...

justin--- still waiting for your answer. oh btw, i hope you don't think that those silly asides you are making will do anything to the matter at hand.

here are the questions again:

when did you choose to be straight?
what process did you go through to reach that point?
did you have sexual reltions with a man yourself and then decide it wasn't for you?
how exactly did you make the choice?--justin

Here's your answer...

Mathew 7:6 "Don't give what is holy to unholy people. Don't give pearls to swine! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.

Jesus said that the seed must be planted in the soil. The wheat grows. When the wheat plant dies, it's time for the harvest.

Jesus, unlike Paul, didn't say that the seed is planted, that it is then dead in the soil, a state that prohibits it from growing and therefore from producing new seeds to be harvested when the mature wheat plant dies.

The other verses...what do they have to do with my claim that Paul likely didn't know how to farm, didn't know what what we today generally know about nature?

Gregiry Peterson-- Jesus, unlike Paul, didn't say that the seed is planted, that it is then dead in the soil, a state that prohibits it from growing and therefore from producing new seeds to be harvested when the mature wheat plant dies.--Gregiry Peterson

Plese reference where Paul spoke about seeds being dead in the soil... Thank you in advance....

come now david - surely you are not calling yourself a swine? I've tried to get you to think, but this is becoming more and more difficult.

to be considered casting pearls before swine - what is said has to have some merit. And nothing you've said thus far has any. What you have said is akin to someone stating that the world is flat!

I wouldn't call you a swine, though - that would not be christianlike at all: deluded, duplicitious, hypocritcal lack of common sense, unintelligent perhahps, but I'm only making that assessment based on your postings.

But that's all besides the point. I'm still waiting David. And it has been 7 days now. And no more silly asides. Let's deal with the matter at hand:

here are the questions again:

when did you choose to be straight?
what process did you go through to reach that point?
did you have sexual reltions with a man yourself and then decide it wasn't for you?
how exactly did you make the choice?--


=====================================================
justin--- still waiting for your answer. oh btw, i hope you don't think that those silly asides you are making will do anything to the matter at hand.

here are the questions again:

when did you choose to be straight?
what process did you go through to reach that point?
did you have sexual reltions with a man yourself and then decide it wasn't for you?
how exactly did you make the choice?--justin

Here's your answer...

Mathew 7:6 "Don't give what is holy to unholy people. Don't give pearls to swine! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.

Gregory Peterson-- I think I was thinking of 1 Corinthians 15.

A seed doesn't die, then sprouts into a plant, but stays viable, and lays dormant until the conditions are adequate for it to start the process of sending out roots etc.-- Gregory Peterson

Paul's analogy that a seed stops being a seed and becones something very different from the seed that was planted makes sense to me..

Die 2 a: to pass out of existence

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/die[1]

It also makes sense that while seeds inherently have little to distinguish them from one another.. After they sprout and form the plant of the same variety of which they originated, they are quite different.. Also a grain of wheat will not become an oak tree.. Makes perfect sense to me... And I have been engaged in agriculture for over 40 years...

1Cr 15:35 But someone may ask, "How will the dead be raised? What kind of bodies will they have?"

1Cr 15:36 What a foolish question! When you put a seed into the ground, it doesn't grow into a plant unless it dies first.

1Cr 15:37 And what you put in the ground is not the plant that will grow, but only a dry little seed of wheat or whatever it is you are planting.

1Cr 15:38 Then God gives it a new body--just the kind he wants it to have. A different kind of plant grows from each kind of seed.

1Cr 15:39 And just as there are different kinds of seeds and plants, so also there are different kinds of flesh--whether of humans, animals, birds, or fish.

That same principal is applied to Jesus' analogy of a seed.. As seed must cease being a seed i.e.. "Die... Pass out of existance".. In order to produce a crop...

Jhn 12:24 The truth is, a kernel of wheat must be planted in the soil. Unless it dies it will be alone--a single seed. But its death will produce many new kernels--a plentiful harvest of new lives.

justin-- I wouldn't call you a swine, though - that would not be christianlike at all: deluded, duplicitious, hypocritcal lack of common sense, unintelligent perhahps, but I'm only making that assessment based on your postings.--justin

Interesting.. your "piety" prevents you from calling me a swine, yet it doesn't prevent you from describing me with the glowing terms that follow... Are you even aware of the meaning of the word duplicitous?

justin-- But that's all besides the point. I'm still waiting David. And it has been 7 days now. And no more silly asides. Let's deal with the matter at hand:--justin

Your broken record inquiry demonstrates that your "argument" in favor of homosexuality, has been proven to be incapable of holding water...

Once again....

Here's your answer...

Mathew 7:6 "Don't give what is holy to unholy people. Don't give pearls to swine! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.

Justin-

Drop the personal questions toward other posters. Future inquisitions will be deleted.

Here is something to consider....

Michael Swift: "Gay Revolutionary"

from Gay Community News, Feb. 15-21, 1987

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.html

Nice of you David to provide a link to a page that informs us that people who quote this text tend to remove the first line of it which explains: This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."

Yet, somehow, you cut that exact same line out. How odd!

fertig ofTim-- Nice of you David to provide a link to a page that informs us that people who quote this text tend to remove the first line of it which explains: This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."

Yet, somehow, you cut that exact same line out. How odd!--Tim

I can see that you have visited the link... I can also see that you realize that the link given was not from a "radical right wing" source...

No matter what the intro line.. The piece was in fact published.. There is no denial of this fact...

To quibble about the assumption that this was merely "satire" is gratuitous... If a converse piece of this nature were published, promoting murder and mayhem against homosexuals.. Would it be dismissed as "satire"?... I think not...

Michael Swift published a detailed blueprint for construction of a working bomb and then claimed that it was only a joke...

Proverbs 26:18 Just as damaging as a mad man shooting a lethal weapon
Proverbs 26:19 is someone who lies to a friend and then says, "I was only joking."

Why am I not laughing?
.

Mr. Moderator

You are quite welcome to delete my questions to David. To do so will prove nothing more than what is believed of this site.

If David can dump entire garbage on this site from discredited organizations that do nothing but lend credence to his silly tirades , bigotry and prejudices and you do not find anything wrong with this. Then this speaks loudly enough of you the moderators and this site.

And notice, no one else do these mass dumpings!!!!!

If he can make statements that gay people choose to be gay and cannot back up this claim to state when they choose to be gay or when he choose to be straight yet continue to dump willy nilly demonizing entire segments of our population and you do not find his dumpings at least even boring: since he’s too lazy to even put his own thoughts together.

Feel free

But it still doesn’t change the fact that I’m waiting to find out when he made the decision to be straight. If you are straight, perhaps you can tell me. Coz I am and I don’t know when I made that decision and I have a teenager son who is straight, but I want to have the heads up when his decision is upon him.

Guys, I hate to say this, but you have definitely gone way beyond me. I'm not getting what you're meaning any more. It sounds as if you guys are deeper into a belief or philosophy I'm not into, you know like the difference between how a KKK member would talk and think and a non KKK member would talk and think. All I know is that Jesus told the men wanting the prostitute to be killed "let those who haven't sinned throw the first stone" and than to the prostitute "go and sin no more". All this other talk sounds like philosophy to me. And God does love us but he does leave you to the devil and your sins so that's his punishment. As for Canada, when the Church wakes up, if it's not too late, it will bring done the control-your-mind-law system. All dictatorships fall eventually because they can't help but breed the same hate against them that they have against the population that disagrees with them because tolerance (not acceptance or control) is the name of the game. Islam is finding that out now. Okay, that's the last I will say because like I said, you guys are too deep into philosophy for me especially since I don't believe in that thinking. I try to follow the Bible as much as I can and it ain't easy. Bye, guys.

According to me the Christians are loving and so humble in all the religion people. If i am a Christian i am agree with all your thoughts in favour of christians.