« Breaking: Senate Rejects Abortion Restrictions in Health Bill | Main | Senate Passes Test Vote as Sen. Nelson Announces Support »

December 15, 2009

D.C. Council Passes Bill Allowing Same-Sex Marriage

The Washington, D.C. City Council passed a measure Tuesday legalizing same-sex marriage, and opponents plan to try to get it overturned in Congress or at the polls, The New York Times reports.

“The City Council’s action today is not the final word,” said Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville and chairman of a group called Stand4MarriageDC.

Mr. Jackson said he would lobby Congress to intervene, but he acknowledged that such a move threatened to upset some of his local supporters, who may be put off by the prospect of subverting local autonomy.

Mr. Jackson’s group is challenging in court on Jan. 6 the city’s Board of Elections and Ethics decision not to hold a referendum on the matter.

Last month, Maine voters overturned the state legislature's passage of a same-sex marriage law. The New York state Senate recently rejected a bill that would have allowed same-sex marriage while New Jersey's legislature postponed a vote on same-sex marriage after the measure seemed headed for defeat.

Comments

I read in the link to the New York Times article that a Washington D.C. Councilman believes that to put the issue to a vote would be demeaning. In other words, what they cannot win at the ballot box will be forced upon others by other means.

It's demeaning to have someone vote on basic civil rights of a group of people. That's not what our constitution is about. You don't have to marry someone of the same sex if you don't want to, you know. I hope you are aware of that

It's saddening to see our nation's capital taking a big step towards the abyss. However, the mess in DC might help to promote vigilance among American Christians, so that they do not get complacent and lethargic over recent victories in Maine, New York, and New Jersey.

Let me see here Peter, its demeaning if the public is allowed to vote on the issue of same sex marriage but it is not demeaning if a government entity tries to give its view the force of law? Marriage is regulated by the states; it is not an absolute right. The argument that I do not have to marry one of the same sex is a bogus one. If same sex marriage is given the sanction of law it affects society and my own civil rights in ways I consider detrimental. It will have repercussions on employers and religious institutions among other areas.

So Johh Guthrie

Beyond your thinking that same sex marriage is detrimental to you. How exactly will it be detrimental to you?

John Guthrie

Do you get to vote on how your taxes are spent? Does not the state determine this without any imput from your good self? Why do you think you should have the right to tell two consenting adults how they may live their lives? Suppose we start telling you how to live yours?

Posted by: Peter: It's demeaning to have someone vote on basic civil rights of a group of people. That's not what our constitution is about. You don't have to marry someone of the same sex if you don't want to, you know. I hope you are aware of that

Posted by: Peter at December 15, 2009

Peter…

Homosexuals have all of the exact same civil rights as all non-homosexual citizens…

There are only two genders in the human race.. Male and female… Homosexuals do not comprise a third gender… A homosexual man may marry a homosexual woman.

Any deference given to homosexuals is unconstitutional, as it would elevate them to preferred citizen status.

And that would simply not be fair...

.

Posted by: Peter: So Johh Guthrie
Beyond your thinking that same sex marriage is detrimental to you. How exactly will it be detrimental to you?

Posted by: Peter at December 16, 2009

Peter…

For starters it would establish a bad precedent of giving special citizen status to a group of people who’s only real difference from the rest of society is the fact that they engage in a godless sexual perversion…

.

Posted by: Peter: John Guthrie
Do you get to vote on how your taxes are spent? Does not the state determine this without any imput from your good self? Why do you think you should have the right to tell two consenting adults how they may live their lives? Suppose we start telling you how to live yours?

Posted by: Peter at December 16, 2009

Peter…

Your logic has a hole big enough to drive a freight train through…

Should it be legal for a spouse to enter into a contract, with another consenting individual, to have sex while their spouses are at work?

Should it be legal for a business owner to contract, with a consenting individual, to burn down their business in order to scam the insurance company?

Should it be legal for a crime family to contract, with a consenting policeman or judge, to look the other way while they conduct their “business.”

.

David Hardy

Please refrain from answering questions that are not addressed to you.

I have read your many diatribes and I have little interest in discoursing with you. Unless of course you and John Guthrie are one and the same persons: until then I was not speaking to you, so forgive me for totally ignoring any response you make on this topic.

Posted by: Peter: David Hardy

Please refrain from answering questions that are not addressed to you.

I have read your many diatribes and I have little interest in discoursing with you. Unless of course you and John Guthrie are one and the same persons: until then I was not speaking to you, so forgive me for totally ignoring any response you make on this topic.

Posted by: Peter at December 16, 2009

Peter, or is it Gregory Peterson, or Anthony, or Evan, or any one of the various nom de plumes of the radical homosexual movement…

In case it has escaped your notice, this is an open discussion…

My opinion counts as much as anyone else's.

Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

Jump on in. The water's deep.

Flotation devices are allowed.

Water wings are acceptable for those who cannot swim.

Watch out for the sharks.

And if ya git bit, you are free to go and seek medical attention…

.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer : Guthrie: "Marriage is regulated by the states; it is not an absolute right."

-- To the contrary, the US Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right and the state has only so much regulatory authority as will not infringe on citizens' constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at December 16, 2009

cl…

Homosexuals already have and enjoy all of the constitutional rights freedoms and privilidges afforded to their non-homosexual counterparts..

There are only two sexes in the human race.. Male and female… homosexuals do not comprise a third gender, nor do homosexual comprise a race of people, as homosexuals come in all shapes, sizes and colors…

To extend to homosexuals, special privileges based solely upon the reprehensible, godless, free-will practice of homosexuality, would be elevating them to exclusive citizen status and it would therefore be unconstitutional…

To say nothing of giving state sanction to the church of Satan…

.

@CL: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942)."
And in what context was this decision made? Answer: Male and female! Not same sex! Progressives are big on "context" until it doesn't serve them.

@Dan

How do you arrive at a contextal decision from these cases? And the quote "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." Was taken from Loving v Virginia IIRC.

Do you consider freedom of association a fundamental right?

Do you consider freedom of speech a fundamental right?
Do you consider equal protection under the law a fundamental right?

To David Hardy:
"Radical homosexual movement?"
To many Christians, Mr. Hardy, there is nothing radical about standing beside the downtrodden (not to say all gays are), the judged, the oppressed. Jesus did so, and so do I and so many fervent, believing Christian men and women.
What to me is "radical" is the politics that you espouse as if they are inherently "Christian." YOU, Mr. Hardy, are part of the reason that more and more Americans are okay with same-sex marriage. People are so turned-off by your hate and ignorance, especially when you use the name of religion and specifically Christianity to do so. (And I, having a gay child, am one of those proud Americans.) You also are part of the reason that fewer and fewer Americans are attending church or believing in God.
So what good are you doing? Keeping yourself from smoldering in the fires of Hell and damnation? Mr. Hardy, it is clear to me to that you are already smoldering in those fires here on Earth. Can I get an "Amen," my Christian brothers and sisters?!

@Carl: First, I was quoting Christian Lawyer. Look several posts above mine. Second, CL was making the case that marriage per the Supreme Court is a fundamental constitutional right while others said it wasn't. My point is this: when the court said that the only kind of marriage arrangement they had in mind was the traditional arrangement - man and woman. Progressive "christians" are wont to make "context" a big issue (sometimes the ONLY issue) when interpreting a text. So, taking a cue from them, I insist that context here would preclude this law from applying to ss marriage as ss marriage wasn't even on the radar screen, Carl. Maybe you want to redefine marriage, but most of us don't. Go live with your significant other if you want to - just like a lot of heteros do. Just don't expect most Americans who still like traditional marriage to buy into the ss marriage nonsense. We believe it is a perversion to be discouraged, not legitimated. The rest of your questions are irrelevent to my post and to this thread.

@Marge: Hey, tell us how you really feel about DH. But seriously, if you want to find gays who are truly oppressed, go to the Middle East, or China, or Russia. But you and the rest of the gay/homosexual posters here remind me of George Orwell's quote:
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." You try to control the agenda through marketing your ideas as "traditional" family values. They are not "traditional" nor family values that most Americans want. You may keep them, thank you. And since you don't like what DH says you malign him. Nice try. Doesn't work. And your " Can I get an "Amen," my Christian brothers and sisters?!" just rings hollow. I mean, Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. What do you think He would have said to two gay men caught in the act of immorality? Hint: the same.

Peter, David Hardy and I are not the same person. The legalization of same sex marriage would affect me in any number of ways. Legalization would force religious institutions to hire people in such a relationship even though these institutions believe that such relationships violate the teaching of God's Word. I could be sued for refusing to rent an apartment in my own house to such a couple, therefore being forced to sanction such a relationship, even though I would be teaching any children I might have that the Biblical model is the only legitimate model for marriage. As a tax payer I would be forced to pay benefits to those who are labeled as spouses. Insurance premiums would go through the roof as companies would be forced to pay benefits to the multiple partners of a deseased "spouse." The fact is that most same sex relationships are of short duration; many who have recently held such a ceremony are filing for divorce and will be free to legally marry another partner. Legalization would be a financial nightmare for the entire country as legal benefits can be claimed by each partner. If two people of the same gender want to live together they can legally do so. I know of no major effort to probit this anywhere in the U.S. It is those who promote same sex marriage who are trying to force everyone else to accept it as the actions in D.C. demonstrate.

Christian Lawyer, your very comment contains the proof of my contention: "While the State Court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relationship subject to the state police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 US 190", its powers are not unlimited by the commands of the 14th Amendment. The States are the primary regulators of marriage and the fact that they have limitations upon them in the exercise of that power does not negate their authority. Marriage is a universal right in that all have the God given right to marry. Yet none of us are free to marry anyone we choose. There is an age of consent in states. A father cannot marry his daughter, a mother cannot marry her son, a brother cannot marry his sister. Multiple spouses are prohibbited by law. If one who conducts the marriage ceremony is not licensed by the state to perform marriages, that marriage is considered invalid. That marriage is subject to state regulation implies that it is not an absolute right. To answer Dan's question concerning the context of the court case, it concerned a Virginia law prohibiting interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court ruled invalid because it violated the 14th Amendment.

@John Guthrie: Thanks for your posts. Enlightening. My "friendly" little dig at CL is that she constantly wants to make "context" a major interpretive principle in interpreting the Levitical texts prohibiting homosexual behavior and by extension those NT texts, too. (Now, context is important - but not always determinative!) Since, as PC's (progressive christians) say, the context in Lev.(and NT, too) was entirely that of idolatry, homosexual behavior outside of idolatry is okey dokey by God. I was merely pointing out to my progressive friends that "context" can cut both ways. You can't cry "But the context matters! But the context matters!" and then turn around and say, The context here doesn't matter. The context of the law referred to above was for opposite gender marriage not same sex marriage. Thinking you could use that law for ss marriage seems to me to ignore (dare I say it) the context in which it was written!I just wasn't sure if people understood my point.

Dan, I reread your comments and see what you were saying; I guess I was too hasty in reading what you wrote.

Peter, Here is a news story illustrating my point. The New Mexico Human Rights Council (or some simular sounding title) has charged a Christian couple who own a phtography business with discriminating against a same sex couple. The photographers were asked if they would photgraph a wedding but refused when they found out it was a same sex wedding. A judge has found the Christian couple guilty of violating the rights of those holding the ceremony and fined them, even though New Mexico does not recognize same sex marriage. The case is being appealed. http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=5156 . As I wrote earlier, it is not Evangelicals who are trying to force a lifestyle upon unwilling citizens, it is the other way around.

New Mexico was integrating its "Little Texas" area racially segregated schools before the Supreme Court's "Brown" decision, and passed an anti-discrimination statute in after the Supreme Court's "Brown" decision. It's a "minority majority" state." It's prided itself on being multicultural long before the word came into usage. Breaking anti-discrimination statutes is taken very seriously there.

John, we've heard that all before...back when "other race" marriages were often illegal, and piecemeal forbidden or allowed by different states. I heard a lot of that once, and I can live without hearing it again, with just a name substitution. At least let's hear something new. By the way, you missed...the children of "those" marriages will be ostracized, confused and miserable. They won't know "what" they are.

While rare, there are "intersex" people, David. Nature isn't as rigid as you might think. We all have an X chromosome, the "female" chromosome. Which would mean that everyone has some "female" hard wiring in our brains. Perhaps more in some males more than others? And, as male is partially hadwired in the X chromosome scheme of things, perhaps more so in some females than in others?

Some species have individual sex changes depending upon environmental changes. Some species have the environment determine the sex of their young. Some species have only females. Some organisms can't really be said to have a "sex."

Why not a "third sex" brain, or more sexes, even if the body is usually masculine or feminine? Our species is especially notable for its densely complex and very flexible brain power, despite our unusual genetic similarity, for a species.

Our sex is usually assigned by nature to the sheer chance of having a "YX" or "XX" sex chromosomes. But, our minds are capable of empathy towards the other sex. Writers can write "other sex" characters. Acting use to be confined to only males in places. Men can design items for females, and vice versa. "Let's pretend" makes for healthy children.

Empathy and same-sex friendships/working relationships are as necessary for our species' survival as making babies. They might make same-sex orientations happen...extreme friendship? Without the "Gay" in humanity, we could be...well...not be.

Gay happens because humans happened along. Gay makes life a little more interesting.

Of course, don't think of all Gay men as being effeminate...or all cross dressers as Gay. Transgender people often have other-sex marriages before they have a gender reassignment...and same-sex marriages afterward. Life is interesting.

Gay people are already "forced to pay benefits to those who are labeled as spouses," as do single people, Gay or not. Straight people aren't the only one's who pay taxes. It's civic responsibility to help your neighbors, even if you don't like some of them. You might need their help someday, if nothing else.

I'm not a lawyer, but the anti-Gay constitution amendments and so called and unethical DOMA laws are put forward to take away Gay people's right to petition their government for redress of their grievances about discriminatory marriage laws.

And at a federal level, to prohibit states that take justice seriously from fully legalizing same-sex marriages.

As in "Plessy" (Separate but Equal)," those amendments, especially a Federal Constitution amendment should that evil day come to pass, could be just the tip of the disfranchisement iceberg.

Look at how "don't ask, don't tell" has been reportedly been abused with near impunity against Gay soldiers and to the detriment of national security, for a more recent analogy.

@CL/GP et al: The homosexual lifestyle is a perversion. Ask any medical professional if male gay sex is healthy compared with hetero. sex. As one doc said: the human anatomy was not designed to be used as such. And say what you will CL, JG's reference above where "A judge has found the Christian couple guilty of violating the rights of those holding the ceremony and fined them, even though New Mexico does not recognize same sex marriage." makes your assurances of no harm done by legitimizing this particular perversion ring hollow. The more gay activists plead the gay cause the sillier their arguements sound.
addendum: "Public accommodations civil rights laws have for decades required those engaged in providing public accommodations to provide those services without regard to religion, race, or national origin." So which civil rights protected group did this couple offend: religion? race? national origin?
Don't see "gay" there.

Posted by: Marge To David Hardy:
"Radical homosexual movement?"

To many Christians, Mr. Hardy, there is nothing radical about standing beside the downtrodden (not to say all gays are), the judged, the oppressed. Jesus did so, and so do I and so many fervent, believing Christian men and women.

What to me is "radical" is the politics that you espouse as if they are inherently "Christian." YOU, Mr. Hardy, are part of the reason that more and more Americans are okay with same-sex marriage. People are so turned-off by your hate and ignorance, especially when you use the name of religion and specifically Christianity to do so. (And I, having a gay child, am one of those proud Americans.) You also are part of the reason that fewer and fewer Americans are attending church or believing in God.

So what good are you doing? Keeping yourself from smoldering in the fires of Hell and damnation? Mr. Hardy, it is clear to me to that you are already smoldering in those fires here on Earth. Can I get an "Amen," my Christian brothers and sisters?!

Posted by: Marge at December 17, 2009

Marge..

Textbook post…

You must have really studied the book!

From "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s." - Penguin Books, 1989 pp. 147-157.
by Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen

"PUSHING THE RIGHT BUTTONS: HALTING, DERAILING, OR REVERSING THE 'ENGINE OF PREJUDICE' "

In the past, gays have tinkered ineptly with the engine of prejudice. Is it possible to tinker more favorably? We present (in order of increasing vigor and desirability) three general approaches [which are vastly better than what we've tried in the past].
These approaches, once understood, will lead us directly to the principles upon which a viable campaign can be erected.

I. DESENSITIZATION

We can extract the following principle for our campaign to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can't shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.

2. JAMMING

The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and a**holes--people who say not only 'fa**ot' but 'ni**er,' 'k**e,' and other shameful epithets--who are 'not Christian.' It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary. The attack, therefore, is on self-image and on the pleasure in hating.

Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering. It would be impossible to make him believe any such thing. Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.

3.CONVERSION

It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us--we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this.

We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.

Conversion makes use of Associative Conditioning, much as Jamming does--indeed, in practice the two processes overlap-- but far more ambitiously. In Conversion, the bigot, who holds a very negative stereotypic picture, is repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs, in magazines, and on billboards and TV, of gay- explicitly labeled as such!--who not only don't look like his picture of a homosexual, but are carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any one of his other stereotypes of all-right guys-- the kind of people he already likes and ` admires. This image must, of necessity, be carefully tailored to be free of absolutely every element of the widely held stereotypes of how 'faggots' look, dress, and sound. He--or she--must not be too well or fashionably dressed; must not be too handsome--that is, mustn't look like a model--or well groomed. The image must be that of an icon of normality--a good beginning would be to take a long look at Coors beer and Three Musketeers candy commercials. Subsequent ads can branch out from that solid basis to include really adorable, athletic teenagers, kindly grandmothers, avuncular policemen, ad infinitem.

But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us,

http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm

.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer "Legalization would force religious institutions to hire people in such a relationship even though these institutions believe that such relationships violate the teaching of God's Word."

-- This would NOT affect churches. It would only affect church-affiliated institutions in the same way that church-affiliated institutions already have to deal with hiring fornicators, adulterers, divorced/remarried people, etc.

"As a tax payer I would be forced to pay benefits to those who are labeled as spouses."
-- You are already forced to pay for benefits for fornicators, adulterers, divorced/remarried people. Why are gay couples any different?

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at December 17, 2009

cl…

Baloney…

As citizens and employers we have every right to selectively discriminate…

We have a right to decide that it would not be in the best interests of a munitions plant to make Osama bin Laden the plant manager…

Employers are not required to pay benefits to live in lovers, mistresses, or ex spouses… Your point is moot…

Shall I go on?

.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson While rare, there are "intersex" people, David. Nature isn't as rigid as you might think.

Why not a "third sex" brain, or more sexes, even if the body is usually masculine or feminine? Our species is especially notable for its densely complex and very flexible brain power, despite our unusual genetic similarity, for a species.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at December 18, 2009

Gregory…

You usual verbose rendering is nothing more than saying that in humans there is only male or female…

Homosexuals have every constitutional right and protection as every other non-homosexual citizen of this country…

A homosexual man may marry a homosexual woman… Outside of that would be grossly unfair to heterosexuals and a violation of the constitution...

To even attempt to equate homosexuals with hermaphrodites is as ridiculous as it is gratuitous…It could even be considered incredibly ingenuous and extremely cruel for you to drag hermaphrodites into this conversation, like zoo specimens, in a convoluted attempt to justify homosexuality by holding them up as an example…

How do you sleep at night Gregory?

You, the standard bearer and incessant bell ringer of the Golden rule of all people!

For shame Gregory… For shame!

.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson I'm not a lawyer, but the anti-Gay constitution amendments and so called and unethical DOMA laws are put forward to take away Gay people's right to petition their government for redress of their grievances about discriminatory marriage laws.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at December 18, 2009

Gregory…

You are correct on one thing...

You are no lawyer...

.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at December 17, 2009

"Legalization would force religious institutions to hire people in such a relationship even though these institutions believe that such relationships violate the teaching of God's Word."
-- This would NOT affect churches.

I hear a hollow ringing sound in my ears and my baloney (variant of bologna) detector is going crazy.

And yet over and over again university Christian ministries are being threatened to be booted off campus b/c the the parent-organization leaders will not allow gay students to be in leadership positions. Yes sir, Orwell's boot in action: "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
(read: "a conservative, evangelical face")
http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=481


A back and forth between Dan and CL a while back caught my eye.

Dan wrote: "Marriage is a universal right in that all have the God given right to marry. Yet... [since] marriage is subject to state regulation... it is [implicitly] not an absolute right."

CL responded: "No rights, including freedom of speech or religion are absolute. ... [But] the Supreme Court has held, as I said, that marriage is a "fundamental right" which the state has only LIMITED authority to regulate. Specifically, the state cannot enact any marriage regulations that violate a person's equal protection rights."

Hmmm... If no rights are absolute, but only fundamental, what do we do when rights seem to contradict each other (i.e., the right to be given a service vs. the right to refuse service?). SCOTUS uses ingenious devices to make it seem rights never conflict, but it is obvious they do. Mustn't there be a framework beyond O'Connor's "reasonable person" criterion to decide such cases? This is aimed especially at CL, but I welcome whoever else wants to chime it.

Correction: that was John Guthrie, not Dan. My apologies.

Preach it Marge

Let the church say amen!

Amen Amen Amen

----------------------------------------------------
To David Hardy:
"Radical homosexual movement?"
To many Christians, Mr. Hardy, there is nothing radical about standing beside the downtrodden (not to say all gays are), the judged, the oppressed. Jesus did so, and so do I and so many fervent, believing Christian men and women.
What to me is "radical" is the politics that you espouse as if they are inherently "Christian." YOU, Mr. Hardy, are part of the reason that more and more Americans are okay with same-sex marriage. People are so turned-off by your hate and ignorance, especially when you use the name of religion and specifically Christianity to do so. (And I, having a gay child, am one of those proud Americans.) You also are part of the reason that fewer and fewer Americans are attending church or believing in God.
So what good are you doing? Keeping yourself from smoldering in the fires of Hell and damnation? Mr. Hardy, it is clear to me to that you are already smoldering in those fires here on Earth. Can I get an "Amen," my Christian brothers and sisters?!

I wrote a reply to Christian Lawyer earlier today but it appears it did not post. Whatever protections religious institutions NOW enjoy concerning who they hire would be threatened if same sex marriage were made the law of the land. In Canada,Europe and increasingly in the U.S., individuals and institutions who oppose it find themselves under assault by government entities. It hardly matters whether the Christian couple were prosecuted under a same sex marriage law or an anti discrimination law. The original point I made is that it is those promoting the the legitimization of same sex relationships who are trying to have their way even if they have to subvert the democratic process and the actions in DC are a case in point. Those filing suit in New Mexico do not have an absolute right to force photographers to photograph the ceremony. They suffered no injury, all they had to do was hire another one. But the Christian couple have the right to refuse to participate in what violates God's teaching. The anti disrimination law is another example of giving the same sex lobby power to force those they oppose into submission, all the while claiming that Evangelicals are trying to set up a theocracy. If same sex marrige is given legal sanction, then other laws will be enacted to forbid opposition to it under the guise of outlawing discrimination.

Dan writes: "The homosexual lifestyle is a perversion. Ask any medical professional if male gay sex is healthy compared with hetero. sex."

You might want to become more educated on the facts, Dan. Heterosexual women are at higher risk for sexually transmitted disease than lesbian women -- a fact which is verified by the medical profession.

So, we can therefore conclude that the heterosexual lifestyle is a perversion, correct?

@Kathleen: First, I referenced gay men - YOU EVEN QUOTED ME. Next time you might actually respond to my post rather than trying to be clever. Second, briefly observe the human anatomy and ask yourself this: what were these parts designed for?

Kathleen, after reading your post I examined the topic on Google. I found a website produced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which demonstrates not only the incorrectness of your claim but the danger of such a belief: http://www.womenshealth.gov/FAQ/lesbian-health.cfm

When you stop an think about it, this article - D.C. Council Passes Bill Allowing Same-Sex Marriage - is merely a political stunt - or payback. Given the public's antipathy (even the liberal public!) for homosexual behavior, it is doubtful that it will stand.

Dan, I'd like to spend a little time on your comment concerning CL's contention that the Old Testament's prohibition against homosexuality was directed solely at pagan idolatrous practices and therefore all homosexual acts done outside that context are permitted. It is true that many if not all Old Testament references to homosexuality occur in passages denouncing idolatry (Lev. 18:21, 20:13). Yet these passages also include prohibitions against adultry, incest, bigamy and beastiality. Is it ok according to God's Word to engage in these acts as long as they are not associated with pagan religious practices? Lev. 18:21 prohibited Israel from allowing any children to "pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the NAME (caps. mine) of your God: I am the LORD." Pagans ritually worshipped the god Molech by burning their own children in fire, children were also turned into temple prostitutes as part of the worship of Molech. Other pagan religions surrounding Israel had similiar practices. The root word for "name" is shem, literally meaning branding. In Old Testament times people marked their bodies permanently to identify with the God they worshipped; the use of our bodies today also signifies whether we worship the God of the Bible or make an idol of ourselves and our bodies. That is one reason why idolatry, homosexuality and other sexual acts prohibited by God appear together in the same passages. Also, God in His Word links all sexual relations outside of marriage to idolatry. Some deny that Paul was refering to homosexuality in ICor 6:9,10, yet the Greek words he uses to denote such activity refer to passive partners in such acts (malakos) as well as active homosexuals (apsenokoitas). In 6:11, Paul uses to Greek imperfect indicative to state that for those he was addressing, those who formerly practiced such a lifestyle, they no longer lived that way. He uses the word apelousasthe to state that God had cleansed them of their sin, a complete and decisive action, they were given the desire and power to overcome their sin. This power is available to all who would repent of sin and allow the Holy Spirit to cleanse and empower them; no one need be condemned to a homosexual/lesbian lifestyle.

John, Christian Lawyer pretty much said what I was going to say, probably much better than I could, but I’m still going to add my two cents worth to some of your points.

I have read your response and examples carefully and all of them are inextricably linked to the fact that Same sex marriages will impact on your religious beliefs. That you don’t think homosexuality is right

Are you sure you are not David Hardy?

Guess what John, you are quite welcome to your religious beliefs. The 1st amendment allows each of us that. You however do not get the right to discriminate using them when operating in the public sphere. And that John is the issue!

Does an atheist who does not believe in God also gets the right not to hire Christians who believe in God? How about a Muslim or Buddhist do they also get the right not to hire any Christians?

And John, as Christian Lawyer so cogently said; do those same Christian religious institutions hire people who are liars, adulteres and fornicators? Yes or no?

You could be sued for refusing to rent an apartment –well and so should you be!!! What next? Do you or someone then determine it is against your religious right not to rent to black people?
How about if bill gates and Steve jobs who have clearly stated they do not believe in God, decide that they will not sell any computers to Christians?

So your children will see a homosexual couple and think what or do what? breathe the air they breathe and they'll turn homosexual? Do they see liars and adulterers and fornicators?

Well the rest of your post is a just straw man argument after the next and Christian Lawyer dealt with them quite well already.

John Guthrie

Where in the website of the link that you provided does it contradict what Kathleen is stating? Perhaps I missed it. Do you mind copying the exact passage for me
Kathleen stated a higher risk for hetrosexual women. she did not state no risk for lesbian women.
Aren't you aware that any and everyone is at risk if there is sexual activity?

Are you sure you are not the one David Hardy. I took your denial at face value at first, but I'm not so convinced now....
................................................
"Kathleen, after reading your post I examined the topic on Google. I found a website produced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which demonstrates not only the incorrectness of your claim but the danger of such a belief: http://www.womenshealth.gov/FAQ/lesbian-health.cfm"

Posted by: Peter
Guess what John, you are quite welcome to your religious beliefs. The 1st amendment allows each of us that. You however do not get the right to discriminate using them when operating in the public sphere. And that John is the issue!

Baloney!…

We do get to use our religious beliefs in the public sphere… That is why they are called freedoms… And that Peter, Gregory, Evan, is elementary….

Posted by: Peter
Does an atheist who does not believe in God also gets the right not to hire Christians who believe in God? How about a Muslim or Buddhist do they also get the right not to hire any Christians?

Nope!….

Freedom of religion is a constitutional protection so Mr. Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, would be violating the constitution…

Posted by: Peter
And John, as Christian Lawyer so cogently said; do those same Christian religious institutions hire people who are liars, adulteres and fornicators? Yes or no?

Don’t know…

That is their business to hire who they will in regards to free-will personal behavior…

Posted by: Peter
You could be sued for refusing to rent an apartment –well and so should you be!!! What next? Do you or someone then determine it is against your religious right not to rent to black people?

Blacks are a protected class.. So in the case of not renting to Blacks on religious grounds there arises a conflict between two protected classes… However, since landlord is privy to laws regarding racial discrimination, religion would be trumped by racial discrimination, by virtue of religion putting it’s toe into an area of open responsibility…

Not so with free-will behavior… A landlord has the right to not house someone who does not meet the moral criteria, so long as the moral criteria is not restricted to a particular protected class… Red, yellow, black or white, reprobates can be denied access by virtue of their chosen free-will behavior… i. e…. No child molesters, rapists, murderers, or practicing homosexuals allowed..

Posted by: Peter
How about if bill gates and Steve jobs who have clearly stated they do not believe in God, decide that they will not sell any computers to Christians?

Unconstitutional…

Posted by: Peter
So your children will see a homosexual couple and think what or do what? breathe the air they breathe and they'll turn homosexual? Do they see liars and adulterers and fornicators?

Gratuitous, disingenuous questions…

.



•Sexual Health. Lesbian women are at risk for many of the same STIs as heterosexual women. Lesbian women can transmit STIs to each other through skin-to-skin contact, mucosa contact, vaginal fluids, and menstrual blood. Sharing sex toys is another method of transmitting STIs. These are common STIs that can be passed between women:

•Bacterial vaginosis (BV). Although we don’t know for sure that BV is caused by a sexually transmitted agent, BV occurs more commonly among women who have recently acquired other STI’s, or who have recently had unprotected sex. For reasons that are unclear, BV is more common in lesbian and bisexual women than heterosexual women, and frequently occurs in both members of lesbian couples. BV happens when the normal bacteria in the vagina get out of balance. Sometimes, BV causes no symptoms, but over half of affected women have a vaginal discharge with a fishy odor or vaginal itching. If left untreated, BV can increase a woman’s chances of getting other STIs such as HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and pelvic inflammatory disease.

•Human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV can cause genital warts and abnormal changes on the cervix that can lead to cancer, if it is not treated. Most people with HPV or genital warts don’t know they are infected until they have had a Pap test because they may not have symptoms, but the virus can still be spread by contact. Lesbians can transmit HPV through direct genital skin-to-skin contact or by the virus traveling on hands or sex toys. Some women and their doctors wrongly assume that lesbian women do not need a regular Pap test. However, the virus can be spread by lesbian sexual activity, and many lesbians have been sexual with men so it is recommended that lesbian women have a Pap test. This simple test is an effective method of detecting abnormal cells on the cervix that can lead to cancer. Begin getting Pap tests no later than age 21 or sooner if you’re sexually active. These recommendations apply equally to lesbians who’ve never had sex with men, as cervical cancer caused by HPV has been seen in this group of women.

•Trichomoniasis “Trich”. It is caused by a parasite that can be passed from one person to another during sexual contact. It can also be picked up from contact with damp, moist objects such as towels or wet clothing. Trich is spread through sexual contact with an infected person. Signs include yellow, green, or gray vaginal discharge (often foamy) with a strong odor; discomfort during sex and when urinating; irritation and itching of the genital area; and lower abdominal pain in rare cases. To tell if you have trich, your doctor or nurse will do a pelvic exam and lab test. A pelvic exam can show small red sores, or ulcerations, on the wall of the vagina or on the cervix. Trich is treated with antibiotics.

•Herpes. Herpes is a virus that can produce sores (also called lesions) in and around the vaginal area, on the penis, around the anal opening, and on the buttocks or thighs. Occasionally, sores also appear on other parts of the body where the virus has entered through broken skin. Most people get genital herpes by having sex with someone who is shedding the herpes virus during periods when an outbreak is not visible. The most common cause of recurrent genital herpes is HSV-2, which is transmitted through direct genital contact. HSV-1 is another herpes virus that usually infects the mouth and causes oral cold sores, but can also be transmitted to the genital area through oral sex. Lesbians can transmit this virus to each other if they have intimate contact with someone with a lesion or touching infected skin even when an outbreak is not visible.

•Syphilis. Syphilis is an STI caused by bacteria. Syphilis is passed through direct contact with a syphilis sore during vaginal, anal, or oral sex. If untreated, syphilis can infect other parts of the body. Syphilis remains uncommon in the general population, but has been increasing in men who have sex with men. It is extremely rare among lesbians. However, lesbians should talk to their doctor if they have any non-healing ulcers.

What other STIs can lesbian women get?

Symptoms Of STIs STI Symptoms

Chlamydia Most women have no symptoms. Women with symptoms may have:
•abnormal vaginal discharge
•burning when urinating
•bleeding between menstrual periods
Infections that are not treated, even if there are no symptoms, can lead to:
•lower abdominal pain
•low back pain
•nausea
•fever
•pain during sex
•bleeding between periods

Gonorrhea Symptoms are often mild, but most women have no symptoms. Even when women have symptoms, they can sometimes be mistaken for a bladder or other vaginal infection. Symptoms are:
•pain or burning when urinating
•yellowish and sometimes bloody vaginal discharge
•bleeding between menstrual periods

Hepatitis B Some women have no symptoms. Women with symptoms may have:
•mild fever
•headache and muscle aches
•tiredness
•loss of appetite
•nausea or vomiting
•diarrhea
•dark-colored urine and pale bowel movements
•stomach pain
•skin and whites of eyes turning yellow

HIV/AIDS Some women may have no symptoms for 10 years or more. Women with symptoms may have:
•extreme fatigue
•rapid weight loss
•frequent low-grade fevers and night sweats
•frequent yeast infections (in the mouth)
•vaginal yeast infections and other STIs
•pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)
•menstrual cycle changes
•red, brown, or purplish blotches on or under the skin or inside the mouth, nose, or eyelids

Pubic Lice
•itching
•finding lice

Lesbian Health

The government website is saying that Lesbian women are more likely to suffer minority stress than the general population of non-Lesbian women.

In other words, being a Lesbian in a bigoted society is stressful, and stress itself is a health risk. They're hardly the only perceived minority to suffer from minority stress in America, however.

Also, Lesbians are less likely than non-Lesbian women to bear children, which means a higher risk for a certain kind of cancer that is shared with all women who never have children.

However, bearing children is a health risk in itself. Child bearing use to be a very serious health risk, the maternal death rate was scary, but advances in medical science has greatly reduced that risk...thank God.

Take note of one Lesbian health risk:

"Lack of health insurance because of no domestic partner benefits."

While the risk of domestic violence is lower for Lesbians, the tendency by Lesbians to keep silent when it does happen to them, is not healthy.

Being human, Lesbians certainly can get STDs. The "low perceived risk" is a health risk in itself.

Female bisexuality would mean...STDs wouldn't skip over Lesbian communities.

Being a small community, as with other small communities, some health risks can be higher, and others lower, than with the general population. Also, some symptoms might present, or be thought of, differently than in the general population. So, I hope that medical people with Lesbian patients would go out of their way to educate themselves on Lesbian health issues...

...And on other small community patient health issues, for that matter. If I had lived in a heavily Scandinavian area instead of a heavily Hispanic area (all but one of my doctors are Hispanic as well), a diagnosis of a health problem I have, might have been done earlier.

So, my Sisters...try to practice 'safer sex.' Try to get regular, comprehensive health check ups. Try to deal with stress in healthier ways. Try to educate yourself about the health issues of your particular communities...women and Lesbian and... That's probably good advice for everyone, including myself.

I should have added that dealing with stress, minority stress included, can result in risky, fatalistic behaviors, such as excessive drinking and drug use, excessive partying, excessive passivity or aggressive behaviors, more depression etc.

So, if conservative Christians really want to help Lesbians with their particular health issues...A lack of health insurance and dealing with the death of a partner and greedy, bigoted relatives are health hazards. So work for domestic partner benefits, if not full citizen equality, in your workplace, city, state and country.

Don't discriminate on hiring, working with, or contracting services and business dealings with Lesbians. They hardly need the stress...and neither do you, if they should quite properly and understandably make an issue out of discrimination.

Even if you would rather not deal with Lesbians, you're an adult. You can pretend that you don't care. A little, somewhat ethical hypocrisy in working relationships help grease the rough cogs of society.

Forget about the "sin of homosexuality." They're not "homosexuals" anyway. They're Lesbians...and they can be Christian Lesbians.

And, think about the particular health issues of your own communities...and maybe try to educate yourself and address those issues in a healthy manner.

Is your church congregation looking kind of chunky, a common health issue these days?

Youngish or with a high percentage of seniors?

What's the "carbon footprint" of your church...and the parking lot? Global warming will have its particular health issues.

Various ethnicities, such as "Norwegian" often have their particular health issues. If memory serves, Finns discovered that how they usually made their coffee was a heart health hazard.

Poorer people, middle class and wealthier people all have their general group health issues...is your church in a poorer or wealthier neighborhood?

Peter, of course an atheist can refuse to hire a Christian, if his/her organization is dedicated to the promotion of atheism and that purpose is stated in its organizational charter. Muslim and Buddists can also refuse to hire Christians to work at their religious institutions. No one could refuse to hire someone based on race or sex or creed or sexual orientation if their business is secular in nature. Christian institutions do hire people who they later discover commit adultry or commit crimes. These people should be fired for their conduct when it is discovered, or not hired if the behavior is known before they are hired. But the difference here is that religious institutions and individuals are not being pressured to accept that behavior as legitimate. There is no organized lobby for spouses who want multiple partners, no American Association of Adulterers organizing rallys and lobbying Congress and State Houses to enact laws giving their behavior protected status with sanctions against those who refuse to accomodate such behavior. In our movies and TV, men who cheat on their wives with other women are rightly portrayed as clods while married men who have a same sex relationship are portrayed as those who have found themselves. New York school children were made to read "Heather Has Two Mommies", not "Heather Loves Mommy, Daddy and Daddy's Mistress." There are no advocates of adultry posting on the Christianity Today website. When these things happen, you can be assured that the religious organizations will protest pressure from these quarters just as much as it protests the pressure from the same sex community. If same sex marriage is given legal status, then other laws will be put into affect to shore up these rights, laws that will infringe on the rights of religious institutions. This is not just a future concern, this turn of events is happening in Europe, Canada and now,here. Sexual orientation and race cannot be equated and the attempt to compare refusal to accomodate same sex lifestyle with race discrimination is intellectually and morally bankrupt. As for the site, no, I won't copy the site for you. One, I am not technically savy with a computer and copying from one site and posting to another site is not yet one of my acquired skills. I am glad David Hardy copied the site for me. Kathleen tried to paint a picture that lesbians have a lower risk for STD's than heterosexual women, which the site expertly debunks. The site speaks for itself. Gregory, you give a distorted picture of the sites contents, endangering those who do not know better.

@JG: "...CL's contention that the Old Testament's prohibition against homosexuality was directed solely at pagan idolatrous practices and therefore all homosexual acts done outside that context are permitted." Most progressives, from what I've discovered, now believe homosexual behavior is okey dokey with God - regardless of what the bible commands or implies. As you, I've also tried to reason with them from the text, i.e. if Lev. 18:21 is no longer in force then neither are any of the other prohibition. Funny, they never reply to that line of reasoning. Just silence. Side thought: I wonder if they read the back of a medicine bottle through a postmodern/progressive hermeneutic? Yeah, I wonder that. Thanks for your input. Your posts are thoughtful and articulate.

The claim that being a Lesbian is "free will moral behavior" is disingenuous itself. Identifying as a "Lesbian" is "chosen." "Lesbian" is a social construct, like Norwegian, man, American, husband, friend, white, Black Asian....

But having a strong same-sex orientation is a usually a given, a card that one is dealt with by virtue of being born "that way." Probably much the same with a strong other-sex orientation.

I have light skin probably because my ancestors came from an area with a lot of lousy weather, and light skin helps make for health babies in subsistence circumstances...circumstances which I no longer live under...thank God.

That area is now called Norway. "Norway" is a social construct. Being Norwegian means that I probably will have light skin...but that's not what makes me "Norwegian." Having light skin is just raw chance, a card I was dealt. It's just a given in my life. It can even be a health issue in some circumstances, such as living where I live, but cultural adaptions can modify that.

The social construct of "Norwegian" is what I non-biologically inherited, The social construct is what makes me "Norwegian." I can choose to identify as "Norwegian," or repress that social construct in which I was raised. I can say and/or identify as, Norwegian-American, Scandinavian, White, European, Northern European American, European decent, American, Elfish, SER3eresXDREd.

Dark skin doesn't make people "Black." People with dark skin are just people with dark skin. That's a given, chance, a random card. The social construct of "Black" is what makes people "Black."

"Race" based upon skin hue is a social construct. I can "choose" to arrange to have children which don't have light skin. The social construct of "race" based upon skin hue is therefore not really about "immutable" biological characteristics. If it were, that "choice" of having darker skinned children would simply be impossible for me to make.

Skin color is not 'immutable.' It's just difficult for an individual to substantially change their skin color...and usually, but not always so, just silly/unwise to do so.

So, while I can "choose" to modify my skin color, it's difficult for me to do it to myself. I might as well come to terms with it instead.

If I should have darker skinned children, it shouldn't really be about me choosing their skin color, I think. Their skin color should be from sheer chance, like their sex, but given the social constructs in which we live, sheer chance in skin color is an ideal heavily modified by the social constructs we inhabit.

Skin color is an analogy to sexual orientation. Humans are flexible, some more than others, but given the difficulty and the problems that would arise if I tried to change my skin color or sexual orientation, why? It's likely better for me if I develop some personal integrity instead.

I'll try to not care about your sexual orientation and/or skin color if you try not to care about mine. Sexual orientations and skin color should be, I think, merely interesting.

I was born a biological male because of the sheer random chance of being dealt a "Y" chromosome card. But, being a "Man" is a social construct. It's a social construct that I'm personally comfortable with, more or less, but...I'm not everyone.

The social construct of "Man" has been modified over the centuries. I don't have to make some of the "free will moral choices" possible within the social construct of "Man" that my Norwegian area male ancestors thought a "Man" should be a thousand years ago...but, I can make other "free will moral choices" they didn't, couldn't, wouldn't, or couldn't even conceive of making.

I have "free will moral choices" in how I work that social construct of being "Man," but those choices are within the social context of everyone who also has "free will moral choices" in working that social construct we call "Man." As a social construct, I can, if I can get away with it, modify that social construct...as I see fit.

If my modifications of being a Man appeals to someone, he/she/whatever can "choose" to do likewise...if their society doesn't kill them for modifying social constructs.

@JG: "...I am not technically savy with a computer and copying from one site and posting to another site is not yet one of my acquired skills." If I can do it, anyone can. Follow these steps.
1. Find text you want to copy and paste.
2. Hi-lite (left click, hold down, and drag cursor across line you want to copy)
3. Then, right click, let up, click on "copy".
4. Then, move the cursor to the place you want to "paste".
5. Then right click again and click on "paste".
Tadaaaa! It should be there. Good luck.
(Quick - read and practice this. The CT police regularly purge the posts that don't address the topic. Hurry, I hear their jack-boots marching down the hall! They are at the door! NOOOOOooooooo!) ;-P Just kidding CT.

Leviticus 18 clearly states that its about idolatrous practices. Don't do as the Egyptians and Canaanites do.

Consequentially, if you don't do as they did in their fertility cults...good. That doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is to be disregarded and the Bible set on a shelf and forgotten,

For one thing, even if you aren't much tempted to go to the nearest Moloch temple and do a seed sacrifice with a male temple prostitute or male priest, in order to placate Moloch and get him to give you good crops and many sons...it should remind you to think about what idolatry is today. What idols are you and me worshiping, inadvertently or not?

Worshiping the idols of biblio-idolatry, repressive traditions based upon ignorance, and cultivating ill will toward others, might just be some of them.

Don't worship the Bible with literalism, that's idolatry. Respect it. Life isn't simple, and neither is the Bible.

Oh halleujah, preach it sister

talk the talk sister!!

To David Hardy:
"Radical homosexual movement?"
To many Christians, Mr. Hardy, there is nothing radical about standing beside the downtrodden (not to say all gays are), the judged, the oppressed. Jesus did so, and so do I and so many fervent, believing Christian men and women.
What to me is "radical" is the politics that you espouse as if they are inherently "Christian." YOU, Mr. Hardy, are part of the reason that more and more Americans are okay with same-sex marriage. People are so turned-off by your hate and ignorance, especially when you use the name of religion and specifically Christianity to do so. (And I, having a gay child, am one of those proud Americans.) You also are part of the reason that fewer and fewer Americans are attending church or believing in God.
So what good are you doing? Keeping yourself from smoldering in the fires of Hell and damnation? Mr. Hardy, it is clear to me to that you are already smoldering in those fires here on Earth. Can I get an "Amen," my Christian brothers and sisters?!

@GP: "Leviticus 18 clearly states....You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." It is clear about that.
--------------------------
"Life isn't simple....
Nobody ever said it was. But sin complicates life beyond measure. God has given you light for the journey. Ps. 119:105 - Your word is a (A)lamp to my feet And a light to my path.
And His Spirit - John 14:16ff 16"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another (X)Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is (Y)the Spirit of truth, (Z)whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
18"I will not leave you as orphans; (AA)I will come to you.
What is more simple than to love and obey your Father? John 15:1-17; Mark 12:30
-------------------------
"...and neither is the Bible."
Ps. 19:7 - The law of the LORD is perfect... The testimony of the LORD is (K)sure....The precepts of the LORD are (M)right,...The judgments of the LORD are (Q)true.They are more desirable than (S)gold, yes, than much fine gold; (T)Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb...
Jesus said in Matt. 4:4 MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"
------------------------
Your words do not correlate with what God says.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson
The government website is saying that Lesbian women are more likely to suffer minority stress than the general population of non-Lesbian women.

In other words, being a Lesbian in a bigoted society is stressful, and stress itself is a health risk. They're hardly the only perceived minority to suffer from minority stress in America, however.

Perceived being the operative word…

Practicing homosexuals are the ones who are deluded into thinking that they are a legitimate constitutional minority, which they most definitely are not…

The godless, hedonistic practice of Lesbianism is on par with any other form of odious free-will behavior and Lesbians reap what they sow in regards to public disproval and contempt… As well as the infections and diseases that go with it….

Posted by: Gregory Peterson
However, bearing children is a health risk in itself. Child bearing use to be a very serious health risk, the maternal death rate was scary, but advances in medical science has greatly reduced that risk...thank God.

Too bad that with all of the medical advances, they have yet to come up with a cure for the incurable Black Plague of HIV/AIDS, which, for the most part, is willfully spread by the infected vermin who carry it…

Long after his diagnosis, Dugas would sodomize willing partners in dimly lit cubicles, then turn up the lights and point to the purplish Kaposi's sarcoma lesions on his skin. "I've got gay cancer," he would say. "I'm going to die, and so are you."

fumento.com/shilts.html

Posted by: Gregory Peterson
Take note of one Lesbian health risk:
While the risk of domestic violence is lower for Lesbians, the tendency by Lesbians to keep silent when it does happen to them, is not healthy

Gregory…

I disagree...

In their frank but empathetic book, "Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them," (1991) David Island, a homosexual domestic violence victim and psychologist, and Patrick Letellier, his homosexual counselor colleague, report that hate crimes are a homosexual and lesbian domestic way of life.

These authors document "three major health hazards" for homosexual men and lesbians. After AIDS and chemical abuse, same-sex battery is the third major health hazard for homosexual men. Lesbians' first health hazard is cancer, followed closely by chemical abuse and, yes, same-sex battery.

Gay-On-Gay Hate Crimes

.

John Guthrie,

First of all, I commend you for being consistent in your position. I simply didn’t except this at all. Especially not given my thinking that you and David Hardy were the same poster. This is a welcome change to the hypocrisy, outright lying and obfuscation aptly demonstrated by several of the most virulent posters here. Kudos to you!

You can teach your fellows here a thing or two.

As long as you are consistent and hold to the view that each and every group has the right to discriminate against people they they do not approve of - I am good with this. You’ll get no argument from me here.

As long as religious organizations pay taxes like everyone else, then their rights should not be infringed upon. If however they are feeding at the trough of the public largesse then no- they do not have the right to enforce their religious views on the public if transacting in the public sphere.

In other words John, they pay taxes -and hire and fire whomever they want-just like any other private business venture. A simple matter really.

Now with regards to the website... You are going to have to learn how to copy and paste, this is 2009.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear when I asked for the comparative analysis between lesbians and heterosexual women earlier ; and for this I apologize. So here goes again.

Would you admit that every person who has sex open themselves up to the possibility of contracting STDs?

What Kathleen stated John, is that lesbians are at a lower risk of STDs. Kathleen did not state that lesbian are at NO risk. She did not imply or state that they never contract any STDs.

The website that you provided did not say that lesbians are at a greater risks than other women. It simply states the STDs that lesbians can and do contract.

So John once again- I may have missed it – but be so kind as to provide the data that states LESBIAN WOMEN CONTRACT MORE STDs than STRAIGHT WOMEN.

For instance John according to the CDC website

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm

"To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database (K. McDavid, CDC, oral communication…..”

On the CDC website you will also find the following:

"•HIV/AIDS was diagnosed for an estimated 9,708 women [3].
•High-risk heterosexual contact was the source of 80% of these newly diagnosed infections"

That is the sort of information that you need to provide so that we can all do a comparative analysis.

So John, until you have proved differently, you actually owe Kathleen an apology.

Peter, why do you provide a link to a website and them selectively quote it? I will provide the next sentence that follows the one you quoted" However, case reports of female-to-female transmission of HIV and the well-documented risk of female to male transmission indicate that vaginal secretion and menstral blood are potentially infectious and that mucous membrane (for example, oral, vaginal) exposure to these secretions has the potential to lead to HIV infection." Further down the website it informs us of the following: "Despite the absence of confirmed cases of female-to-female transmission of HIV, the findings do not negate the possibility. Information on whether a woman had sex women is missing in more than 60%of the 246,461 case reports-possibly because the physician did not ask or the woman did not volunteer the information." Your selective quotation gives a more benign portrayal of the risks to those who engage in the lesbian lifestyle than the website actually provides. This website, as well as the one I cited earlier in much more graphic detail, points out that the lesbian lifestyle has risks not associated with heterosexual behavior. If the risk factor for such behavior is indeed low, that in no way proves Kathleens point that lesbain women are at a lower risk for ALL STDs, which was what Kathleen erroneously claimed the medical profession has told us. Your arguements on this issue put women who do not know any better at risk; these arguments are deceptive.

Dan, thanks for the comments you made. Your point concerning whether or not Lev. 18:21 was still in force is one that had never occured to me. If those you debate online remain silent concerning the Word, lets hope those reading these exchanges benefit from reading what God's Word says. This is the last time I will post for this particular article, so keep up the good work. Thanks for the instructions on cut and paste. Merry Christmas to you and anyone who reads this!

@JG: Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Is. 9:2 - 2(D)The people who walk in darkness
Will see a great light;
Those who live in a dark land,
The light will shine on them.

John Guthrie

You will note I gave you the direct link to the article. I quoted some of it for you to show as an example what information you are supposed to be quoting. There was no need to quote the whole article. You will note I quoted the first 2 lines

Read the whole entire article and the one that you yourself provided and tell us where either of them say that lesbian women are MORE at risk for contracting any STDs than heterosexual women as you are stating.

Why is this so difficult for you to admit? Why is it so difficult for you to admit that there will always be risk of a STD as long as you are having sex. SO YES IF LESBIANS ARE HAVING SEX THEY WILL HAVE THE POTENTIAL RISK OF A STD. JUST AS IF HETEROSEXUALS ARE HAVING SEX THEY WILL HAVE THE POTENTIAL RISK OF A STD

ANYONE WHO HAVE SEX WILL HAVE THE POTENTIAL RISK OF A STD.

What Kathleen said is as a matter of fact totally correct. Lesiban women have a lower risk. And for you to continue to state the opposite is at best disenguous and at worse ...

STRAIGHT-ON-STRAIGHT HATE CRIMES

http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/statistics.shtml

From: " Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, U.S. Department of Justice, March, 1998"
•Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend each year to 4 million women who are physically abused by their husbands or live-in partners each year.

•While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are 5 to 8 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.

•Violence by an intimate partner accounts for about 21% of violent crime experienced by women and about 2 % of the violence experienced by men.

•46,260 women were murdered by an intimate from 1976-1996.

•Females accounted for 39% of the hospital emergency department visits for violence-related injuries in 1994 but 84% of the persons treated for injuries inflicted by intimates

The National Domestic Violence Hotline has received more than 700,000 calls for assistance since February 1996. Source: National Domestic Violence Hotline, December 2001

It is estimated that 503,485 women are stalked by an intimate partner each year in the United States. Source: National Institute of Justice, July 2000

Studies show that child abuse occurs in 30-60% of family violence cases that involve families with children. Source: "The overlap between child maltreatment and woman battering." J.L. Edleson, Violence Against Women, February, 1999

Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. Source: Commonwealth Fund survey, 1998

About 75% of the calls to law enforcement for intervention and assistance in domestic violence occur after separation from batterers. One study revealed that half of the homicides of female spouses and partners were committed by men after separation from batterers (Barbara Hart, Remarks to the Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect, April 1992)

Each year, medical expenses from domestic violence total at least $3 to $5 billion. Businesses forfeit another $100 million in lost wages, sick leave, absenteeism and non-productivity. Source: Domestic Violence for Health Care Providers, 3rd Edition, Colorado Domestic Violence Coalition, 1991.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson
The claim that being a Lesbian is "free will moral behavior" is disingenuous itself. Identifying as a "Lesbian" is "chosen." "Lesbian" is a social construct, like Norwegian, man, American, husband, friend, white, Black Asian....

Gregory….

It’s not the struggle with feelings of Lesbianism that is the abomination…

It is the free-will practice of Lesbianism, that is the abomination…

Sexual activity is not mandatory for the sustaining of one’s life… It is not like food or water… Sexual activity outside of procreation is nothing more than free-will practice of, personal, physical recreational activity…

One will not die if they do not engage in coitus…

On the other hand, one has a very great potential of dying from STD’s inclusive of the BLACK PLAGUE of HIV/AIDS, by engaging in the free-will practice of, recreational sexual activity…


Posted by: Gregory Peterson
But having a strong same-sex orientation is a usually a given, a card that one is dealt with by virtue of being born "that way." Probably much the same with a strong other-sex orientation.

Gregory…

I disagree…

Once upon a time, the sexualities—heterosexual, homosexual, even bisexual—were categorical and mutually exclusive. Further, sexual attraction/desire, sexual behavior and sexual identity were assumed to be congruent: same-gender sexual attraction/behavior presupposed a gay or lesbian or bisexual identity, and other-gender sexual attraction/behavior assumed heterosexuality. But results of sexuality research over the last 20 years have turned our paradigm of sexuality on its head. What we’ve learned is that while these assumptions may be true for some, they are not true for all.

The truth is, Kinsey was right: sexuality not only exists on a continuum, some people may (and do) move on that continuum across the lifespan. The truth is, sexuality can be fluid, varying across time and situation.

goodtherapy.org/blog/sexual-fluidity/

In summary, SSA is determined by a complex interaction between familial and peer influences, unique events, social and biological factors. An attachment deficit, cross-gender behavior, rejection by same-sex peers, sexual abuse, involvement in pornography and sexual experimentation are associated with SSA for many, but do not unilaterally or universally cause it. In other words, not every person who has these experiences will develop SSA, and not every person with SSA will have a history of these experiences. This is likely where biological influences and unrecognized environmental or societal factors play a role. (1, 2, 13-16) What the current political climate ignores is that the last forty years of data proves only a small biological contribution and a significant degree of sexual fluidity.

acpeds.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=6792&CONTEXT=art&cat=10005&art=167%3Cbr%3E

.

Your source doesn't know history. "Once upon a time"...is the start of fairy tales. "The sexualities—heterosexual, homosexual, even bisexual" did not even exist, "once upon a time."

Apparently, both "homosexual" and "heterosexual" were coined by Karl Maria Kertbeny in 1868. "heterosexuality" often referred to "morbid sexual passion" until the Twenties.
"Invention of Heterosexuality" by Jonathan Ned Katz & Gore Vidal.

"Bisexual" is an older word, by botanists around 1800. According to the Wiki, it's not known when the word became associated with human sexuality.

Saying that "bisexual" was a mutually exclusive category looks like an oxymoron. The author then goes on to demonstrate that they were not mutually exclusive, with the paragraph on Kinsey, since the late Forties anyway.

If I tell people that they shouldn't have a sex life because I find the thought of them doing it is icky and it goes against my personal and controversial interpretation of a religious text they may not accept as an authority in their lives...that would make me childish and insufferably arrogant, not righteous.

What do I care if Lesbians have a sex life? Their sex lives are simply not my business. I don't tell them not to have sex, they don't tell me not to have sex.

If I tell a group of people that they shouldn't have sex, I should fully expect them to tell me something I should do in return.

While the human species is flexible, individuals may not be. One inhabits a point, or a small range of points, on the Kinsey scale, not all points on the Kinsey sexual continuum. The word "Some" isn't the same thing as "Everyone."

The Bible definitely doesn't say that "homosexuality" is a sin. If it does, it's a poor translation or paraphrase and should be pulped for recycling. Why would a Bible use an obsolete, "excessively clinical" word mostly used in the last century?

As I've written before, homosexuality didn't exist in Biblical times, and the excessively clinical word, as the Wiki on Gay correctly states, is being used in a pejorative way by conservatives of ill will.

The Bible says that having sex in fertility cult rites is an abomination. Go read Leviticus 18, for starters. Don't do that. Don't sacrifice children to Moloch either. I won't speak for God, but the authorities won't except freedom of religion to let that go unprosecuted.

Think about what idolatry is today...and try not to do that either.

Be Gay if you understand that you are. Personal integrity is a nice thing to have, I think. I won't speak for God, but moral people just don't care is someone is Gay. They do care about injustice towards GLBT people.

What the author ignores is the last seventy years of sociological research. It doesn't matter if "biology" causes same sex attraction. Nobody, I think, knows why anyone has a sexual orientation of any sort.

Animals apparently don't need a sexual orientation, after all. They just seem to have sex when nature calls. Sometimes it's same-sex sexual activity...or that's what human observers think it is.

We do know that a same sex orientation is a "normal" sexuality. We do know that manipulating people into thinking there is effective treatment for those "struggling with same-sex attraction" is simply unethical. I will say that treatment for those suffering from same sex attraction is expensive and probably immoral...no matter how heartfelt people are when making such claims. Heartfelt doesn't make right. It can make victims.

The author's claim that "last forty years of data proves (sic?) only a small biological contribution" is controversial...and likely premature. I mean, the discovery of significance of micro-RNA is just a few years old. There also may be epigenetic factors...which is inherited biology even if it's not DNA biology. I mean, we know so little about biology. I ought to know. I have a genetic disease. It's very treatable thanks to Nobel prize winning research, but it's also very incurable. If I stop treatment, I die a very horrible death within five years.

Researchers haven't found A Gay gene. They haven't found an intelligence gene either, and they've been looking for that for far longer, I think. That doesn't mean that people aren't intelligent and that biology plays no role in intelligence. It just means more work for those who are intelligent enough to do research on intelligence...and sexual orientations.

I don't understand bringing up domestic violence for a Gay marriage debate. Sure, victims and offenders can be married. They can be in a same sex relationship...though Lesbians apparently experience less domestic violence that other-sex relationship women.

Domestic violence is likely a perversion of authority, I think, like rape...or scapegoating Gays? A new thought...perhaps hate-crimes are also perversions of authority?
See, that's why I participate in...this group.

Hate crimes legislation is really about making our governments seriously investigate and try to do justice about hate crimes. Many groups seeking protections have too often seen little justice done by the state. In the past, some haters thought they could get away with Gay bashing or whatever hate crime they were committing, and they apparently often did.


While person experience can't be used for generalities, most Gay people I know have been victims of hate crimes; various degrees of hate crimes from petty and malicious property damage, to needing hospitalization and physical therapy after being attacked by four men.

My mother was once screamed at in public by a racist neighbor...the offender, a policeman's wife, didn't like it that my parents had a Black house guest. The Bible condemned race mixing, after all, so why was a Christian committing such a flagrant, unforgivable sin? (As with "homosexuality," "race mixing," whatever they might be, aren't forbidden by the Bible, of course. Neither "race" nor "homosexuality" were existing social constructs in Bible times, for starters. As with the "homosexual" clobber verses, the "race" clobber verses were ripped out of inapplicable contexts.)

What if the neighbor had actually attacked my mother? Could my mother, the alleged sinful race traitor and ****lover, have expected that justice would be done?

Posted by: Gregory Peterson
Leviticus 18 clearly states that its about idolatrous practices. Don't do as the Egyptians and Canaanites do.

Gregory…

I would indeed say that those who engage in the practice of homosexuality are modern day Philistines…

Posted by: Gregory Peterson
Consequentially, if you don't do as they did in their fertility cults...good. That doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is to be disregarded and the Bible set on a shelf and forgotten,

Gregory…

Nothing in the Bible is to be disregarded…

2Timothy 3:15 You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus.

2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right.

2Timothy 3:17 It is God's way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do.

Isaiah 55:6 Seek the LORD while you can find him. Call on him now while he is near.

Isaiah 55:7 Let the people turn from their wicked deeds. Let them banish from their minds the very thought of doing wrong! Let them turn to the LORD that he may have mercy on them. Yes, turn to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Isaiah 55:8 "My thoughts are completely different from yours," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.

Isaiah 55:9 For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.

Isaiah 55:10 "The rain and snow come down from the heavens and stay on the ground to water the earth. They cause the grain to grow, producing seed for the farmer and bread for the hungry.

Isaiah 55:11 It is the same with my word. I send it out, and it always produces fruit. It will accomplish all I want it to, and it will prosper everywhere I send it.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is full of living power. It is sharper than the sharpest knife, cutting deep into our innermost thoughts and desires. It exposes us for what we really are.

Hebrews 4:13 Nothing in all creation can hide from him. Everything is naked and exposed before his eyes. This is the God to whom we must explain all that we have done.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson
For one thing, even if you aren't much tempted to go to the nearest Moloch temple and do a seed sacrifice with a male temple prostitute or male priest, in order to placate Moloch and get him to give you good crops and many sons...it should remind you to think about what idolatry is today. What idols are you and me worshiping, inadvertently or not?

Gregory…

If one engages in the practice of homosexuality, they are in effect doing “a seed sacrifice with a male temple prostitute or male priest”… Of the church of Satan… If one is engaging in the practice of homosexuality, they are worshipping Satan.

which is actually what all forms of idolatry are actually doing and have always been doing… Just because one chooses to call their idol Moloch does not change the fact that his real name is Lucifer…

Posted by: Gregory Peterson
Don't worship the Bible with literalism, that's idolatry. Respect it. Life isn't simple, and neither is the Bible.

Gregory…

Trusting God enough to believe his Word is in no way idolatry…

Trusting God enough to take His revealed Word into
our heart, mind and soul is in no way idolatry…

P.S.

Actually..... Understanding the Bible is so simple, even a little child can do it…

Mark 10:15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

.

GP said, "Life isn't simple, and neither is the Bible."
(This seems to be the prevailing thought among those who call themselves "progressive" Christians.)
Jesus said to Saul on the road to Damascus, "It is hard for you to kick against the goads."
For those here who struggle with sin, who cannot reconcile how they feel with what the Bible says, Jesus is your advocate before the Father. He said in Matt. 11:28-30 28"(AM)Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.

29"Take My yoke upon you and (AN)learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and (AO)YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.

30"For (AP)My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
(This doesn't sound too difficult - two things to know and one thing to do.)

You need only repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Savior.


Posted by: markus Oh halleujah, preach it sister
talk the talk sister!!

To David Hardy:

"Radical homosexual movement?"

To many Christians, Mr. Hardy, there is nothing radical about standing beside the downtrodden (not to say all gays are), the judged, the oppressed. Jesus did so, and so do I and so many fervent, believing Christian men and women.

What to me is "radical" is the politics that you espouse as if they are inherently "Christian." YOU, Mr. Hardy, are part of the reason that more and more Americans are okay with same-sex marriage. People are so turned-off by your hate and ignorance, especially when you use the name of religion and specifically Christianity to do so. (And I, having a gay child, am one of those proud Americans.) You also are part of the reason that fewer and fewer Americans are attending church or believing in God.

So what good are you doing? Keeping yourself from smoldering in the fires of Hell and damnation? Mr. Hardy, it is clear to me to that you are already smoldering in those fires here on Earth. Can I get an "Amen," my Christian brothers and sisters?!

Posted by: markus at December 19, 2009

Markus….

I repeat to you what I said to Marge…..

Textbook post…

You must have really studied the book!

From "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s." - Penguin Books, 1989 pp. 147-157.
by Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen

"PUSHING THE RIGHT BUTTONS: HALTING, DERAILING, OR REVERSING THE 'ENGINE OF PREJUDICE' "

In the past, gays have tinkered ineptly with the engine of prejudice. Is it possible to tinker more favorably? We present (in order of increasing vigor and desirability) three general approaches [which are vastly better than what we've tried in the past].

These approaches, once understood, will lead us directly to the principles upon which a viable campaign can be erected.

I. DESENSITIZATION

We can extract the following principle for our campaign to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can't shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.

2. JAMMING

The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and a**holes--people who say not only 'fa**ot' but 'ni**er,' 'k**e,' and other shameful epithets--who are 'not Christian.' It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary. The attack, therefore, is on self-image and on the pleasure in hating.

Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering. It would be impossible to make him believe any such thing. Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.

3.CONVERSION

It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us--we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this.

We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.

Conversion makes use of Associative Conditioning, much as Jamming does--indeed, in practice the two processes overlap-- but far more ambitiously. In Conversion, the bigot, who holds a very negative stereotypic picture, is repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs, in magazines, and on billboards and TV, of gay- explicitly labeled as such!--who not only don't look like his picture of a homosexual, but are carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any one of his other stereotypes of all-right guys-- the kind of people he already likes and ` admires. This image must, of necessity, be carefully tailored to be free of absolutely every element of the widely held stereotypes of how 'faggots' look, dress, and sound. He--or she--must not be too well or fashionably dressed; must not be too handsome--that is, mustn't look like a model--or well groomed. The image must be that of an icon of normality--a good beginning would be to take a long look at Coors beer and Three Musketeers candy commercials. Subsequent ads can branch out from that solid basis to include really adorable, athletic teenagers, kindly grandmothers, avuncular policemen, ad infinitem.

But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us,

http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm

.

Posted by: Peter
SO YES IF LESBIANS ARE HAVING SEX THEY WILL HAVE THE POTENTIAL RISK OF A STD. JUST AS IF HETEROSEXUALS ARE HAVING SEX THEY WILL HAVE THE POTENTIAL RISK OF A STD

ANYONE WHO HAVE SEX WILL HAVE THE POTENTIAL RISK OF A STD.

Posted by: Peter at December 20, 2009

Excellent point Peter!

Thank you for reminding us all of that important truth… Daniel most graciously posed the same observation in another area of the boards…

And as I said to him and now you…… That would be a very good reason for everyone to abstain from sexual promiscuity and all other forms of fornication, adultery and sexual immorality…

This is in keeping with the teachings of Jesus…

Mark 7:20 And then he added, "It is the thought-life that defiles you.

Mark7:21 For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder,

Mark7:22 adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Mark7:23 All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."

And this is also very important to remember…

Hebrews 13:4 Give honor to marriage, and remain faithful to one another in marriage. God will surely judge people who are immoral and those who commit adultery.


.

b>Posted by: Peter

Exactly what is the relation of David Hardy to this site? Is he an employee? Part owner? A plant?

No…

No…

No… I am a human…

Who loves the Lord Jesus, the risen Messiah, who sits at the right hand of God the Father...

.

The heartening news is that the David Hardys of our country are increasingly on the outs. Probably about 5% of my peers (Americans under 30) are opposed to same-sex marriage. It is already legal in Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Spain, South Africa (!!), the Netherlands and recognized elsewhere. Those nations, as far as I know, are still standing. It's not Obamacare, it's not aggressive, unjust war in the Middle-East. It's just two people having a life-long commitment to each other being recognized by the nation they inhabit.

The idea that we should let racists, bigots, and David Hardys regulate who is allowed to marry and publicly proclaim their love is, of course, absurd. What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if the "secular state" decided that Christians were second-class citizens and therefore could not marry? David, would you accept the will of the majority, shrug your shoulders, and go on living as best you could? Something tells me no.

Same-sex marriage will cease to be an issue in a generation, and the fight against it will be regarded as quaint and backwards as "colored" water fountains and denying women the right to vote.

"My yoke is easy and My burden is light..." except if you're Gay. Then, the religious right want to put a difficult yoke and heavy burden upon you. Social isolation, life long celibacy, legal discriminations, kneejerk bigotry, dubiously contextualized clobber verses, expensive and highly dubious therapy to "heal same sex attraction" based upon dubious, bigoted assumptions and low intellectual integrity obsolete, cherry picked and distorted theory...and for what?

Someone said that Jesus had a "few simple rules for complex people," as opposed to complex rules to keep people simple.

"If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live" (Rom. 8.13)



"The famous Puritan John Owen shows the need for Christians to engage in a life-long battle against the sinful tendencies that remain in them, despite their having been brought to faith and new life in Christ.There is no self-mortification we can wrought ourselves, we need Almighty energy. The Holy Spirit is the Almighty energy that works in us only so far as we allow it to work. Mortification is the not the direct cause of life and vigor, yet life and vigor can not be experienced without mortification. We must mortify our flesh to experience the blessings/benefits of our adoption." -John Owens

@GP: ""My yoke is easy and My burden is light..." except if you're Gay."
Jesus included you here. Argue with Him.

"Someone said that Jesus had a "few simple rules for complex people," as opposed to complex rules to keep people simple."
Make up your mind. In an earlier post you said the bible was complex - now your saying Jesus had a few simple rules...What's it going to be?


Reminder:

This is a Christian Web site. While we welcome opposing views you may find what you deem a "suspicious lack of objectivity" in regard to the Christian worldview. Therefore, while the vast majority of opposing viewpoints are allowed, we do maintain the right to unpublish comments that directly attack the service or moderation of these topics. In other words, "Be nice and play nice", and don't ask that we tolerantly accommodate the opposition to the exclusion of those who post in favor of Christianity and the Biblical worldview. After all, we are a Christian website.

Friendly Reminder: Comments with opposing views are to be presented on topic and with respect toward Christianity and toward those who post here.

Christians - when you post comments, remember to do so in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15-16 -In ever readiness to give an answer for the hope that is in us. Engage the world at its foundation—its underlying assumptions and assertions. Prepare yourself by formulating biblical responses and efficiently disseminating them.

To all who post:
CT defines personal attack as "Making of an abusive remark instead of providing evidence when examining another person's claims or comments."
Remember to attack the issue discussed in the article or blog and refrain from attacking the person who posts. Behavior...what a person does... is an action not a person. Behavior may be attacked without name-calling or personal attack. Please refrain from calling others an idiot or homophobe or queer in a derogatory fashion as this does constitute personal attack and such posts will be removed when and if they are noted.

Trust God, don't trust the biblio-idolatry of Bible literal interpretation. It came into being to justify the continence of slavery and to oppose abolitionists, and was then adapted to justify Jim Crow and oppose integrationists. Now it's seeing a third life to justify anti-GLBT activism and anti-intellectualism in general, such as creationism and the religious right's dubious conspiracy theories. (Not that other groups don't have their dubious, sometimes overlapping conspiracy theories...alas.)

A "seed sacrifice" was based upon sexual ignorance. They didn't know about the female ovum, which wasn't discovered until the 19th Century. They thought that the male "seed" was the sole stuff of human life. Life began at the moment of ejaculation. Conception was when the womb accepted the the male's unformed child and began to make it into a solid child. A "barren" woman's womb, to the ancients, was a baby killer.

So, a "seed sacrifice" was sacrificing a life to the fertility god or goddess. It was a human sacrifice to pagan gods. The Bible disapproves of human sacrifices...even liquid unformed humans.

While I think a seed sacrifice to the fertility gods is a really silly reason for sex, I do agree that a human sacrifice is an abomination.

To us, a seed sacrifice is a much better thing to sacrifice to fertility gods than a live child (which Moloch also accepted). It's not like anything much is really sacrificed...more is created all the time. But they thought of it as sacrificing a live child...just an unformed live child.

The concept of life beginning at the moment of ejaculation also explains other curious incidents in the Bible, don't you think?

Equating same-sex sexual intercourse with pagan practices, ignorance and idolatrous killing of people may be a clever debating tactic, but clever debating tactics aren't necessarily moral truths. Gay people simply aren't sacrificing liquefied living humans to idols in exchange for good harvests and more wives and sons.

Gay people are having sex for the same reasons that people practicing birth control, past menopause or are infertile are having sex. Sex is not just about procreation. Just as eating is not just about getting adequate nutrition.

We know that life doesn't begin at the moment of ejaculation, or even at the moment of conception (as if there is a "moment.") Life began a long time ago.

Back to the Leviticus clobber verse: Moloch's priests and male prostitutes dressed as women, apparently to both personify fertility itself, and to facilitate their likely other-sex oriented worshipers' liquid human sacrifices. Hence, lying with a man as with a woman. The priests and male prostitutes may have not had a same-sex orientation either, but were professionals doing what they though was necessary and important work to keep famine, other disasters and just plain bad luck away.

Gay men don't lie with a man as with a woman, either. Why would they want to do that? Why would anyone even think they want to do that? Only a "straight" man might want to do that.

The Leviticus "homosexual" clobber verses aren't remotely about the sex lives of Gay people. They're not about sexual orientation at all..."born that way" or "free will chosen." They're now partially about ancient sexual assumptions based upon their ignorance. We simply know about something of which they didn't know; the existence of the human ovum.

We also know that life began a long time ago. Life does not begin at the moment of ejaculation as they thought, or even with conception, as we understand it today.

The Leviticus "homosexual" clobber verses have always been about ancient pagan human sacrifice rituals. Regulating religious ritual is, after all, the core of Leviticus.

If your pastor is trying to convince you that having sex with him or her will somehow bring you closer to God...then you can extrapolate from Leviticus, I think. God doesn't want religious sex rituals, quite unlike the fertility gods.

God apparently wants kindness to each other instead. What you do in bed...well I won't speak for God, but I would try to do sex with, at a minimum, good will and respect for my partner...other sex or same sex.

The Bible is so simple that even a child can do it? I don't think a child will really understand the "simple" lesson behind the drugging and rape of Lot by his daughters...as just one for instance.

Jesus may bless those with a simple faith, something of which I can't even imagine, but Jesus didn't smite doubting Thomas either.

Children aren't simple creatures anyway. That's being condescending.

Humans don't do "simple" well, I think. Ask any artist. Complexity done well is comparably easy compared to simplicity done well.

Even when something has the appearance of being "simple," that's often just it's surface appearance. A minimalist art work, for instance, has a lot of complex experience, thinking and theory behind it, not to mention the complex technical skills needed to make it. You try making a "simple" cast aluminum cube.

The Golden Rule looks simple enough, but practicing it isn't so simple. Karen Armstrong says that formulating it wasn't so simple either.

@GP: Mark 12: 28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."

32"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God."

Mark 10:15 (New International Version)
15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

It's not our great faith in God that saves us, but our faith in a great God.

Nothing simpler than this, GP.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson
Your source doesn't know history. "Once upon a time"...is the start of fairy tales. "The sexualities—heterosexual, homosexual, even bisexual" did not even exist, "once upon a time."

So because someone uses a literary term to introduce a subject matter, that is not to your liking, they are to be ignored… Especially since they are homosexual affirming and fellow Kinsley sycophants…

And you gripe about Christians not agreeing with each other…

Oh and about your heterosexuality didn’t exist back then…

So Adam and Eve reproduced by osmosis maybe?

Posted by: Gregory Peterson
The Bible definitely doesn't say that "homosexuality" is a sin. If it does, it's a poor translation or paraphrase and should be pulped for recycling. Why would a Bible use an obsolete, "excessively clinical" word mostly used in the last century?

As I've written before, homosexuality didn't exist in Biblical times, and the excessively clinical word, as the Wiki on Gay correctly states, is being used in a pejorative way by conservatives of ill will.

So… It would appear that according to the post-modern “logic” of Gregory Peterson, because the ancient Hebrews didn’t speak the Queen’s English… No pun intended… And the ancient Hebrew language, while leaving nothing to the imagination in regards to the homosexual act itself, because it was not called an act of homosexuality, in the ancient Hebrew language, it was therefore, not an act of homosexuality…

And just because homosexual acts were mentioned in a list of godless sexual acts attributed to the indigenous Canaanites, they were not godless homosexual acts if they were done away from the pagan temples of the indigenous Canaanites….. And just because God forbade fornication, which is sexual contact outside of marriage, not to be confused with adultery, in which one or both participants in the sexual act are married… Homosexual acts, which are always engaged in outside of an actual legitimate marriage of the participants, and yet not outside of the potential realm of adultery, in the homosexual act engaged in, are really not sin in the eyes of God because Wikipedia says so…

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at December 21, 2009
The Bible says that having sex in fertility cult rites is an abomination. Go read Leviticus 18, for starters. Don't do that. Don't sacrifice children to Moloch either.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at December 19, 2009 Leviticus 18 clearly states that its about idolatrous practices. Don't do as the Egyptians and Canaanites do.

Gregory…

Same answer as last time…..

I would indeed say that those who engage in the practice of homosexuality are in effect modern day Philistines…

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at December 21, 2009
Think about what idolatry is today...and try not to do that either.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at December 19, 2009
For one thing, even if you aren't much tempted to go to the nearest Moloch temple and do a seed sacrifice with a male temple prostitute or male priest, in order to placate Moloch and get him to give you good crops and many sons...it should remind you to think about what idolatry is today. What idols are you and me worshiping, inadvertently or not?

Gregory…

Same answer as last time….

If one engages in the practice of homosexuality, they are in effect doing “a seed sacrifice with a male temple prostitute or male priest”… Of the church of Satan… So if one is engaging in the practice of homosexuality, they are in effect worshiping Satan, which is what all forms of idolatry are actually doing and have always been doing… Just because one chooses to call their idol Moloch does not change the fact that his real name is Lucifer…

Posted by: Gregory Peterson
Be Gay if you understand that you are. Personal integrity is a nice thing to have, I think. I won't speak for God, but moral people just don't care is someone is Gay. They do care about injustice towards GLBT people.

I do care about injustice towards homosexuals and other paraphiliacs…

And I also care about justice for the innocent victims of the Black Plague infected carriers of the HIV/AIDS virus….

.

Gregory...

Be advised...

I find that you have little ability in regards to originality..

You use the sane talking points over and over…

From this day forward,as you can already see, I will compile your repetitiousness and lack of will to move to anything of any real substance in your headlong rush to generate sympathy and advocate for the practice of homosexuality…

To use a play on your words…

This should be interesting, don’t you think?

.

I am repetitious, as some obviously don't understand what I'm saying. Maybe someday, I'll figure out how to say it better. Try, try, and try again. Norwegians don't give up easily. Ask the Swedes. Ask the Nazis.

I thought, David, that the rules didn't allow personal attacks, however. I have never advocated the "practice of homosexuality." I don't much respect people who even use the word.

I do not advocate the "practice of homosexuality." I never had, and probably never will. "Homosexuality" is not something that people do, as I've explained over and over and over again. Animals do "homosexuality." People just don't do anything that simple. People do complex social constructs, complex, multilayered identities and complex, interacting communities...if I may repeat myself once again.

What have I repeated said about "homosexuality?" I said that "homosexuality" is excessively clinical, obsolete theory; a wrong medical diagnosis label jettesoned decades ago, but in its short life in medicine, did considerable damage. I said that "homosexuality" was a short lived social construct that's long been left behind. I think that "homosexuality" is a word irresponsibly used in Bible translations and paraphrases by people who should have known better. I said that many people use the word in a racist-like, pejorative way to encourage hate and scapegoating.

Does that sound like I'm advocating homosexuality? I think not. Moral people don't use the word much anymore.

I advocate taking responsibility in your sex life, regardless of your sexual orientation. I advocate not having sex with people you don't love and respect. I advocate only having sex with consenting adults. I have been doing that since the Seventies. I wasn't known as "Professor Condom" for nothing. (I'm not a professor, though, I'm a graphic artist.)

Where were conservative Christians back then? As near as I can remember, in the main, conservative Christians were encouraging unproductive and irresponsible hysteria...avoiding responsibility for their neighbor...they were carefully ignoring good sense and good will...they were blocking research on AIDS and research on sex...I remember them deliberately trying to block the distribution of good-sensical safer sex information. I remember them smirking while people died. I remember them disrespected the dead and dying - the Gay dead, the Haitian dead, and even the dead and dying kids with hemophilia. I remember them publishing the usual low-intellectual-integrity pornography of ill will and hate (which they had perfected in Massive Resistance days, with CT's help). I remember them trying hard to scapegoat Gay people when they most needed kindness.

I remember conservative Christians, in general, doing exactly the opposite of the Good Samaritan. They were the devoutly religious who, like in the parable, could endlessly quote reasons why they could not be bothered to act like the Good Samaritan."

Even when they offered help, it was with quite irresponsible strings attached, such as claiming that God hates condoms. That unless they repented of the sin of "homosexuality," they wouldn't go to heaven...as if any moral person would even want to go to religious right heaven. Even when a few conservative Christians cared for the dying, caring for the ill and dying were their jobs, they couldn't resist making selfish, evil, irresponsible propaganda out of it.

All of which tacitly encouraged fatalistic, unsafe sex. Officials of the Reagan administration had the blood of Gays, Haitians and kids with hemophilia on their hands, for which they were rewarded with lucrative religious-right positions and/ support which they still enjoy to this day.

The more the gay/homosexual activists post here, the more they unintentionally make the biblical case for obedience to God's word. Their whole focus is on gay sex and how the whole world is against them. Compare their rhetoric with that of Jesus. I'll take Jesus any day.

Posted by: Dan The more the gay/homosexual activists post here, the more they unintentionally make the biblical case for obedience to God's word. Their whole focus is on gay sex and how the whole world is against them. Compare their rhetoric with that of Jesus. I'll take Jesus any day.

Posted by: Dan at December 22, 2009

AMEN DAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow!.. That felt so good, I'll say it again...

AMEN DAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The “logic” of the homosexual minions/worshippers of Satan who post here amounts to absolutely nothing more than arguing semantics an nauseam and splitting hairs on hermeneutics to the point of needing an electron microscope….

They epitomize this…

Matthew 23:24 Blind guides! You strain your water so you won't accidentally swallow a gnat; then you swallow a camel!

And most certainly this…

1Timothy 6:4 Anyone who teaches anything different is both conceited and ignorant. Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, fighting, slander, and evil suspicions.

Their theology ends up being no more genuine than a frog’s hair split four ways…

Dan…

I believe that a change in tactics is in order…

I believe that our witness is being compromised to a degree by all of the constant battles going on here… The casual observers are getting what amounts to ringside seats at Gettysburg…

While it is extremely important to follow this…

Proverbs 26:4 When arguing with fools, don't answer their foolish arguments, or you will become as foolish as they are.

Proverbs 26:5 When arguing with fools, be sure to answer their foolish arguments, or they will become wise in their own estimation.

The constant arguing with the homosexual Baal worshippers causes the casual observers to wonder if we are angry all of the time…

Such is not the case at all with me…

I have to laugh constantly at the ridiculous things that pass for logic and reason to the homosexual Baal worshippers who seem to be flocking here in droves to vomit up their vitriolic hatred of all things Godly, righteous, true and holy…

I don’t know about you, however, I shall begin to take a page from the Elijah playbook….

1Kings 18:27 "You'll have to shout louder," he scoffed, "for surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or he is relieving himself. Or maybe he is away on a trip, or he is asleep and needs to be wakened!"


.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at December 22, 2009
I am repetitious, as some obviously don't understand what I'm saying.

Gregory…

Thank you for having the courage to admit that you are repetitious… You do follow it up with yet another laborious attempt a self-justification, but we’ll give you points for making a stab at humility..

Now… Wasn’t that an interesting exchange?

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at December 22, 2009
Maybe someday, I'll figure out how to say it better.

Gregory…

I know that you are all about university and all….

However, out here in the real world we have a definition for insanity that you might find useful in your attempts to say it better…

The definition of insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results…

In my at least six months of association with you on these boards, you have kicked at the same goads of Biblical truth with the same foot as always… A rational person would think that you would have gotten the point by now…

Get it?

Goads… Point…..

Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck

I does help to have a sense of humor about these things…

Don’t you agree?

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at December 22, 2009
Try, try, and try again. Norwegians don't give up easily. Ask the Swedes. Ask the Nazis.

Ummm Gregory…

I knew Swedes… Swedish speaking Swedes, from Sweden… Way before I was ever exposed to you… No gross mental picture intended…

To a Swede.. A Norwegian is the equivalent of a redneck hillbilly…

If you would like, I could share some really good Norwegian jokes with you…

As for Nazis..

I’ve never met any…

Perhaps you should ask the ones that you know, since you brought it up…

Please get back to us on that… It would be interesting how they respond to your line of questioning…

I would like to compare it with my personal first-hand knowledge of the Swedish impression of Norwegians...

Just trying to be helpful…

Just trying to broaden my information base…


.

@DH: Amen, brah!
http://www.biblestudycharts.com/SH_Give_Me_Jesus.html

II Cor. 2:15,16 For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. 16To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life.


Posted by: Gregory Peterson at December 22, 2009
I thought, David, that the rules didn't allow personal attacks, however. I have never advocated the "practice of homosexuality." I don't much respect people who even use the word.

Like Gregory…

Like dude….

Like, let’s quote you to get some like, ya know, context regarding like, personal-like attacks…

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at December 21, 2009
"My yoke is easy and My burden is light..." except if you're Gay. Then, the religious right want to put a difficult yoke and heavy burden upon you. Social isolation, life long celibacy, legal discriminations, kneejerk bigotry, dubiously contextualized clobber verses, expensive and highly dubious therapy to "heal same sex attraction" based upon dubious, bigoted assumptions and low intellectual integrity obsolete, cherry picked and distorted theory...and for what?

Like Gregory…

Like dude,

Like, ya know,

Like, It doesn’t take a college degree in like, ya know, psychology, to like, ya know, like, realize , doing your very best-like to like, tar all Christians with this brush… and like, ya know try to get like, everyone to like, feel sorry for the godless and demonic practioners of homosexuality…

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,

Matthew 23:2 "The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the Scriptures.

Mathew 23:3 So practice and obey whatever they say to you, but don't follow their example. For they don't practice what they teach.

Matthew 23:4 They crush you with impossible religious demands and never lift a finger to help ease the burden.

Like dude…

like, you have totally, totally forgotten this due…

Proverbs 13:15 A person with good sense is respected; a treacherous person walks a rocky road.

Proverbs 13:16 Wise people think before they act; fools don't and even brag about it!

Proverbs 13:17 An unreliable messenger stumbles into trouble, but a reliable messenger brings healing.

Proverbs 13:18 If you ignore criticism, you will end in poverty and disgrace; if you accept criticism, you will be honored.

Proverbs 13:19 It is pleasant to see dreams come true, but fools will not turn from evil to attain them.

Proverbs 13:20 Whoever walks with the wise will become wise; whoever walks with fools will suffer harm.

Proverbs 13:21 Trouble chases sinners, while blessings chase the righteous!

Proverbs 13:22 Good people leave an inheritance to their grandchildren, but the sinner's wealth passes to the godly.

And, like, this too…

Proverbs 22:12 The LORD preserves knowledge, but he ruins the plans of the deceitful.

And, dude, like, ya know, this too…

Isaiah 48:3 Time and again I warned you about what was going to happen in the future. Then suddenly I took action, and all my predictions came true.

Isaiah 48:4 "I know how stubborn and obstinate you are. Your necks are as unbending as iron. You are as hardheaded as bronze.

Isaiah 48:5 That is why I told you ahead of time what I was going to do. That way, you could never say, `My idols did it. My wooden image and metal god commanded it to happen!'

Isaiah 48:6 You have heard my predictions and seen them fulfilled, but you refuse to admit it. Now I will tell you new things I have not mentioned before, secrets you have not yet heard.

Isaiah 48:7 They are brand new, not things from the past. So you cannot say, `We knew that all the time!'

Isaiah 48:8 "Yes, I will tell you of things that are entirely new, for I know so well what traitors you are. You have been rebels from your earliest childhood, rotten through and through.

.