This is a post about homosexuality. I want to say right out of the box that I don’t intend to temper my comments, so the more sensitive should beware. I was provoked to touch on this topic by a variety of reasons. The first regards my last post, “Stock In K-Y Should Soar”. Geoffrey’s first comments referred to it as a “homoerotic” reference that he found interesting. Clearly the title suggests a forced anal assault, so I wonder how that sounds “erotic” to Geoffrey. Perhaps he gives himself away?
But that is just the beginning. After the election tragedy, I was understandably down and blogging was not feasible. I could not concentrate on how to express my dismay that so many Americans are so stupid (“We didn’t like Bush, McCain is just like him, so we’re voting for something worse, damn it!”). What little I did post now looks weak and beneath the low standards I’ve set for myself.
So I decided at one point to review the sites under the heading “Left Ones” to see how they reacted to the election. As far as I had gotten, any celebrations I found were as shallow and substance free as the entire Obama campaign and its support. But then I went to Geoffrey’s site, where I found this little gem. In another screed of untruths and mis-characterizations, Geoffrey continues with his nonsense regarding hatred at the heart of people like Neil from 4Simpsonsblog. In the comments section, he gets reinforcement in his drivel from others, particularly Alan, who lurks about without posting comments, except on blogs where he might find more like minded individuals with whom to find similar reinforcement. That’s OK. He can post where he likes.
But I had thought some progress was being made between Alan and me after a long and civil discussion that took place at ER’s blog. In that discussion, he made reference to what he termed my “jackassery”. Yet at Geoff’s blog, his own jackassery was as out as he is.
But I digress.
No, wait. I’m not digressing at all. You see the point of Geoff’s blog was to re-iterate the need to continue the fight against hate-filled, hypocritical bigots supporting “discrimination” against the homosexual community.
But the hate is coming from their side, and if not for the Fred Phelps’ of the world, it would be overwhelmingly from their side. There’s the hate for the real Word of God. There’s the hate for those who live by that Word. There’s the hate for thousands of years of tradition. There’s the hate for truth, particularly in the realm of science, as there is none that supports their insistence that they are born that way and beyond the ability to change. There’s the hate for the notion that should such evidence ever be found, that it still wouldn't justify their behavior. There’s the hate for settling for what Thomas Sowell recently called their most solid ground, that everyone should respect their privacy. There’s the hate for those who rightly feel that they have no right to impose their morality upon us, as they insist we not do so with them. And of course, there’s this hate. Add to that the recent story regarding the old woman accosted by another “tolerant” Prop 8 protester.
That’s where one finds the real hatred. It is NOT hatred to relate the true teachings of the Judeo-Christian doctrine. To remind others, as Neil says, that:
* 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
* 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
* 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
* 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
* In short, to advance “same sex marriage” is to be perpetually shaking your fist at God in rebellion.
It is NOT hatred to consider how state sanctioning of homosexual marriage would naturally lead to marital arrangements of any other kind, and to have legitimate concern for how that would impact our culture. It is NOT hatred to feel that such a drastic change to the definition of the word and institution of marriage should NOT be based on lies and unproven beliefs. This article describes one of the very first lies that started it all. And it is definitely NOT hatred to find silly, selfish and immature the notion that marriage and all the laws based upon it should be changed to satisfy the demands of such a tiny portion of the population (2%) and how they choose to pleasure themselves.
Sowell is right about what their best argument is. All the rest are lame and/or more easily rectified by addressing each point individually. What they hope for, be it marriage or civil unions, has little hope for improving society or can be abused and likely in ways we have yet to imagine. So I say to them, back up and consider how ridiculous it is to let your urges dictate any legislative change, and how weak you are for letting them rule yourselves.
Finally, another point or two:
It is said by some that the victory of Prop 8 represents a growing tolerance as the 52% that passed it is smaller than previous votes on the subject. I say it shows that woeful lack of resolve to do the right thing no matter how difficult, how much time it might take, or how expensive it might be, that shows itself in issues from fighting radical Islamic terrorism to raising honorable and disciplined young men and women who abstain from sexual activity before marriage.
Geoffrey finished his diatribe by proclaiming that he will not remain silent in supporting homosexual rights as he feels he did by not posting on Prop 8 before the election. First, whereas he used to feel it wasn't his place to dictate to those in other states, he now feels he must, that the principle is too important. That's pretty funny. Do you feel that way on an international level? If not, why not? Truth, actual truth, not your truth, should be proclaimed everywhere regardless of man-made boundaries. Secondly, rest assured that those of us on this, the righteous side of the issue will also not desist in opposing the misguided beliefs of the homosexual community and their enablers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
95 comments:
Don't blow a gasket over them Marshall. The world is full of sin and that won't change until Christ returns with His sword. What we can be certain of is that eventually righteousness will come to be regarded by the world as sin. In fact you can see it happening today, as they are already preaching morality as homophobia and hatred.
As for science, I find it strange that they could consider Darwinian evolution to have evolved homosexuality. It's counterproductive and doesn't spread its genetic code. But... they do claim some evidence on their side. The brains of homosexuals develop differently than the brains of heterosexuals. While it's more likely an instance of rewiring due to their choice and habits they'll continue to claim it is the other way around... the wiring dictates their choice.
Their choice. They cannot justify their choice based upon morality or religion, and so they attack the moral and religious as hate mongers. We've witnessed it in the attacks on churchgoers in California -- White churchgoers, even though the majority of whites voted against proposition 8. Meanwhile, the left shows its tolerance and love of diversity by making bigoted comments about black people, who voted overwhelmingly in favor of proposition 8.
It's clear where the intolerance and hatred come from, and it's not from God's people.
Oh -- by the way -- don't let the election results depress you. Conservatism didn't lose -- it wasn't offered. Remember God and His law. Remember the foundational principles that made our nation great. Teach those principles to others in love -- they'll make our country greater in the future, and God's love will overcome Hell itself.
First, thanks for the link, Marshall. That's always a good thing.
As for the rest of your post, I'm really not sure what to make of it. I do so love the whole "They're the ones who are acting to discriminate! They're the ones who are intolerant! They don't love Jesus as much as we do!" One cannot "argue" with this whole line of "reasoning" because . . . it isn't reasonable.
As far as the whole "Word of God" thing is concerned, last time I checked the Word of God, as the Bible itself declares, is Jesus Christ (you might want to check out the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John on that little tidbit). Jesus, as the Word of God, said exactly zero about same-sex love. As a Hebrew Scripture scholar at my seminary alma mater said concerning the Levitical code on same-sex relations, it had far more to do with preserving the fertility of the community; thus the similar ban on male masturbation. Why spill all that seed on the ground when it should be going to make babies? But, of course, since I went to seminary and studied stuff, I'm not a Christian . . .
Look, this isn't about God' Word, or Allah's law, or anything like that. You are certainly free to oppose same-sex marriage/unions on religious grounds. Yet, to argue that the United States should not recognize such unions solely on religious grounds is absurd. To insist, over and over again, that to legally recognize same-sex couples will be the death-knell of America is beyond absurd. It's just plain silly.
I know of no gay or lesbian couple that is "forcing" anything. For the most part, they want to be left alone by people who say they are evil, sinners, a threat to society, etc., etc. Do you have any idea how hateful that sounds?
As for "Truth", I have written about that enough for you to know my position on that subject. When you find "Truth" let me know, and I'll shake its hand.
Perri Nelson, remember that the sword Jesus carries is in his mouth, and is two-edged. It is his words that cut, and cut both ways, saved and sinner alike. It his words that separate the wheat from the chaff. Also remember that Jesus does not judge by our dedication to the Bible; he judges by how we have lived in love toward our neighbor - the poor, the imprisoned, the naked, the hungry. It is injustice that arouses the Wrath of God (pick an Old Testament prophet and read carefully) not what some consider a misreading of the Bible.
Anyway, Marshall, you really didn't deal with "homosexuality" at all. Rather, you dealt with some who opposed Prop 8 in California. And thanks for the link.
Geoffry,
Is this a mis-reading?
If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20, vs 13 (World English Translation)
Or this?
“‘You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestible.
Leviticus 18, vs 22 (World English Translation)
Or the same verse from the Darby Translation...
And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman: it is an abomination.
These are just two examples, there are others. Where do you think the word "sodomy" came from?
Biblically, homosexuality is an abomination. That's not a misreading.
God does call on us to love one another, but he also wants us to know that sin is detestable.
Perri, I have a question for you. Do you now, or have you ever, eaten lobster, or crab, or clams? Have you ever eaten snake, or pork? All of these are also an abomination, according to Leviticus. As far as I'm concerned, unless you are willing to lift all of the Levitical code up as something we human beings should follow, I really have no reason to listen to you.
Second, what has any of this to do with the status of same-sex relationships before the law in the United States in 2008? That is the real question, to me. I don't care if you don't like gays because the Bible tells you so. When you publicly demand that some human beings be treated as less than fully equal before the law, and refuse to recognize the legitimacy of their relationships before the law, however, you have crossed the line from a private belief to public advocacy, and are therefore open to criticism, rebuke, and even ridicule. Whether you wish to accept it or not, you are demanding that the rest of society discriminate against a certain class of citizens for doing nothing more than wanting to live out their lives, including having their relationships recognized by the state. It's that simple.
Really.
Good post, Marshall. My apologies for the long comment, but I'm doing it on my wife's laptop since my fancy new desktop can't access Blogger comments on any browser and this will probably be my first and last comment here.
The hate accusation is spurious and they know it, but sadly it works on a lot of people. As always, the truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth. I'm glad people like you have the guts to keep stating the truth. Will the gay lobby prevail in the marriage wars? Maybe, but we'll be rewarded on obedience, not results.
If I really hated gays I'd encourage and affirm their behavior, just as if I really hated an alcoholic I'd offer him a drink.
As you noted the real hate is on the other side. You start to get a glimpse of what the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were like.
"Jesus, as the Word of God, said exactly zero about same-sex love."
That reasoning only fails on about seven levels. Apparently they don't teach that in seminary.
To summarize: Arguing from silence is a fallacy, Jesus inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, He emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.), abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews, and He did mention Sodom and Gomorrah.
Other than that Geoffrey makes a great point ;-)
More here - http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/what-jesus-didnt-say/
"As a Hebrew Scripture scholar at my seminary alma mater said concerning the Levitical code on same-sex relations, it had far more to do with preserving the fertility of the community; thus the similar ban on male masturbation. Why spill all that seed on the ground when it should be going to make babies? But, of course, since I went to seminary and studied stuff, I'm not a Christian . . ."
Too bad the seminary instructor doesn't understand how to read n context. Just read the beginning and end of Lev. 18 and you'll see that these are universal commands.
Lots of pagans go to and teach at seminaries. That proves nothing.
"to argue that the United States should not recognize such unions solely on religious grounds is absurd."
Only for pagans. Christians should do all the good that they can. And many of us are quite content arguing against oxymoronic "gay marriage" without religious reasoning. It is just that "Christians" who advance "gay marriage" reveal that they are ignorant and/or not really Christians.
"When you find "Truth" let me know, and I'll shake its hand."
Truth is that which corresponds to reality. It is only in your Romans 1 poster boy worldview that you can deny that, and it is ironic that you have to use the correspondence view to argue against the correspondence view (i.e., you assume that your view of there not being truth corresponds to reality). As the saying goes some forms of stupidity require a great deal of intelligence and education to commit.
"Perri, I have a question for you. Do you now, or have you ever, eaten lobster, or crab, or clams? Have you ever eaten snake, or pork? All of these are also an abomination, according to Leviticus. As far as I'm concerned, unless you are willing to lift all of the Levitical code up as something we human beings should follow, I really have no reason to listen to you."
Perri, I think you'll really enjoy this piece - http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/favorite-dish-of-liberal-theologians-skeptics-shellfish/
(I'd recommend it to Geoffrey but he is too smart to do simple things like read passages in context).
In summary: There were different Hebrew words translated as abomination. They were used differently in the individual verses and were used very differently in broader contexts. The associated sins had radically different consequences and had 100% different treatments in the New Testament.
People who use the shellfish argument are either very ignorant or deliberate deceivers.
Geoffrey, I am glad you have a blog-crush on me and have linked to me at least five times in the past couple weeks. Just one request, though. Could you please generate a little more traffic? All your pieces have generated a total of one (1) hit. Just sayin'.
"Also remember that Jesus does not judge by our dedication to the Bible; he judges by how we have lived in love toward our neighbor - the poor, the imprisoned, the naked, the hungry."
In a weird way Geoffrey is sort of right (though it is always amusing seeing what passages theological liberals find authoritative and which they ignore). Jesus does judge us for how well we follow his commands.
Where the theological liberals completely miss the point is that no one follows Jesus well enough to win him over. The poison that they sell is just more works-based righteousness that the other false religions peddle.
Real Christianity is about grace, because we can't please God on our own. Of course real faith can and will lead to authentic good works.
But the works espoused by Geoffrey are just more self-righteous acts designed to make them think they're so swell that God is really pleased with them, all the while being on the road to Hell.
It's amazing to me how threatened you are by - in your own words - 2% of the population, Art. Talk about bein' a sucker for the wedge issues. Seriously - the subject of gay marriage dangles out there like a shiny little lure, and you just pounce on it hook, line, and sinker every time. Way to pick your battles.
Les brings sanity and commonsense to the rescue.
I would pose a counter-question to Marshall Art. Republicans held both houses of Congress, with about a year and half exception in the US Senate, from 1995 to the end of 2006. In that time, how many members introduced either legislation or a Constitutional amendment banning abortion? How many cosponsors did it have? How often did Pres. Bush speak publicly on his support of such a measure?
I am changing the subject here for a good reason. Before gay marriage was a serious issue for most Americans, Republicans and conservatives Monkee-walked America toward legalized discrimination with the Defense of Marriage Act, and various state constitutional amendments defining marriage, limiting it to heterosexual couples. All the while this was going on, gay activists were vigorously debating the relevance of the issue, and the use of the language of "marriage" to describe what it was they were seeking.
Abortion, on the other hand, has been variously described as the moral equivalent of the Holocaust, and its supporters no better than Nazis. Unlike gay marriage, this is an issue where the dividing line has been pretty clear. It is the well-spring, in many ways, of the rise of the right-wing.
In the same year the California amends its constitution to ban same-sex marriage, South Dakota (hardly a liberal bellwether) voted down a state provision that would, in practice, have banned all abortions. It seems pretty clear that cultural and social conservatives have abandoned abortion as an issue because the support for banning the practice just doesn't exist anymore. It is far easier to get one's hate on at gays and lesbians than at a young, scared, confused woman in dire straights.
In any event, I return to my original question, concerning abortion, for a reason. No such action was taken because the Republicans have never had any intention of outlawing the practice of abortion (the best they have ever done is nibble at the edges, with the poorly-named "partial-birth abortion" ban), but to keep it around as a wedge issue.
The same goes for that old bugaboo from the 1980's, prayer in public school. It died out as a hot-button issue because there just wasn't support for re-introducing a clear violation of the Constitution in to practice, especially in an increasingly dynamic, culturally and religiously diverse society.
The last bastion, the last hold-out, is anti-gay prejudice. The battle was chosen by the leaders of the right; that's fine. In the end, it will fall, as did all the others because even among those who are uncomfortable with gays and lesbians as a group, there is enough of a libertarian streak - just leave them alone, it's none of our business - to move back away from discrimination.
In any event, that's all I wanted to say, to move the conversation forward.
Geoffrey appears to live in a parallel universe. He acts as if gays had the "Civil Right" to marriage all along and "gay marriage" was always taught to kindergarteners as normal and good, and then haters came along to spoil the fun.
Yes, "partial birth abortion" is improperly named. Infanticide is the right word.
Getting hate on the confused, scared young women? That wins straw man of the day. Visit a crisis pregnancy center someday and tell me how many "we just want to reduce abortion" liberals you find. You'll find orthodox Christians sharing their love and the Gospel with those in need. They do this with their own time and money.
Oh, and go check out pictures and videos of abortions. If protesting abortion is "hating" women in crisis pregnancies, then there is no word strong enough to describe what pro-legalized abortionists like Geoffrey feel for the unborn.
Mercifully, he quit pretending to know anything about the Bible, at least for one comment.
Neil labors under the assumption that I care about his pro-life arguments. I have seen the way his pro-life folks operate at actual clinics, calling women who are entering them "whores" and "murderers", pelting them with little plastic fetuses, and holding up pictures alleged to be the result of abortions. That is what I call getting their hate on for women going to Planned Parenthood and other clinics. It is such a personification of Christian love, isn't it?
Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Randall Terry and Operation Rescue and its string of domestic terrorism, including the bombing of abortion clinics and the murder of several doctors who perform abortions. Now, of course, Neil will insist that those who committed these acts of terror were in no way reflective of the pro-life movement as a whole.
Right.
Just like George Bush isn't a real conservative. Or John McCain.
In any case, my reason for bringing up the abortion issue was simple, although I apparently was unclear about it. Abortion, school prayer, the ERA - these old wedge issues no longer work for dividing people up. No action was ever actually taken on these issues (except, of course for the last one, which died a legislatively mandated death a quarter century ago) for the simple reason that it was far more lucrative, from an electioneering point of view, to keep them around to stir people up.
People are no longer stirred up by them; the Republicans even discovered that trying to stir up people about illegal immigration was a non-starter, which was why it just wasn't mentioned this past fall. All they had left as a wedge issue was gay marriage.
The victory the right had on Prop 8 has stirred up the masses, and I think it will turn out, in the end, to be a Pyrrhic victory for the right.
I do wish to ask, in all seriousness, how your marriage, Neil, or yours, Marshall, are threatened in any way by the marriage of two men or two women. How is the institution as a whole threatened by its expansion to include non-traditional partnerships? Use small words, because I just can't wrap my mind around the logic here.
"Now, of course, Neil will insist that those who committed these acts of terror were in no way reflective of the pro-life movement as a whole."
Yep.
I don't endorse or participate in those movements.
And oh, the irony, of a fake Christian like Geoffrey saying it is bad to call someone names who is going to have an abortion yet OK to crush and dismember the unborn. I don't endorse either, of course, but Geoffrey endorses the latter.
"I do wish to ask, in all seriousness, how your marriage, Neil, or yours, Marshall, are threatened in any way by the marriage of two men or two women."
Geoffrey, please try to go one post without a logical fallacy. This is why I don't visit your blog and generally ignore you on other blogs. I haven't made that claim, so why should I defend it?
Question: Will you show me where my logic is wrong on your argument from silence (i.e., "Jesus didn't say anything about gay marriage"), or will you refrain from saying such foolish things in the future? Just wondering if you have any intellectual integrity at all.
"holding up pictures alleged to be the result of abortions"
Geoffrey's world: Showing pictures of crushed and dismembered human beings = bad, crushing and dismembering the human beings = perfectly legal.
What a freak.
I fully understand that we have a disagreement upon the nature of gay marriage. Some here think it sinful and some here think it a wonderful thing, blessed of God.
It would be wonderful if we Christians could always agree upon each action, as to whether or not it is a sin. Unfortunately, we do not have it within ourselves to be always right. Geoffrey, Alan and myself all love God's Word and believe that gay marriage is a blessed thing. Marshall, Perri and Neil all love the Bible and can't see how we can think anything but that homosexuality is an abomination.
We disagree on the nature of that action. Such is life. We can debate it further, if you are truly interested in a conversation, but I'm not sure what anyone would say that hasn't already been said.
Instead, I wonder why some here assume the worst about others? Why, according to at least Neil (and probably Marshall and others, although I'm not sure how they're feeling today) are we "fake Christians"?
We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, the son of God. Basic Christian stuff there. And NOTHING can separate us from God's love, neither death nor life nor angels nor rulers nor Neil nor Marshall can stop us from being saved. But why would you even engage in such attacks? Why would you slander a brother in Christ?
Disagree if you must about this particular action (gay marriage) and we shall disagree with you. But why the attempt to call unholy what God has called holy? Do you not fear blaspheming God?
Being called a fake Christian by Neil is like being called evil by Hitler. I would stack my commitment to and acceptance by Christ against yours any day, Neil. Indeed, I dare say that I would stack my understanding of the faith up against yours any day. I have little time to banter words with one such as you who sees fit to be the arbiter of who is and who is not Christian. Suffice it to say that at least for me, God has room for both of us.
I never said you were doing the things I mentioned. I only said that I have witnessed, on several occasions, persons who were protesting abortion outside clinics, act in the ways I described. These same people would gather in prayer circles and "pray" for the "baby". Right after shouting at the young woman, scared already, that she was going to hell for what she was about to do.
Spare me your protestations of innocence; just as you would paint me with the broad brush of inconstancy and heresy because of the quite ordinary things I say, I would paint you with the less-broad brush of guilt by association and support. Not just you, Neil, but any anti-abortion proponent who sent money to Operation Rescue or another such group, or continues to compare the quite legal act of artificial abortion with the deliberate murder of tens of millions of human beings by the Nazis.
The game goes both ways. If you don't like it, don't play.
As to your question about my question, it was not directed at anything you have said. Rather, that is a claim made by opponents of gay marriage. I want to be enlightened on this matter by one so superior in logic such as yourself.
"Being called a fake Christian by Neil is like being called evil by Hitler. I would stack my commitment to and acceptance by Christ against yours any day, Neil."
Ha! Sure, buddy. Lots of the authentic followers throughout the centuries have written about how Jesus isn't God, abortion and "gay marriage" are fine, we don't know what truth is, and all the other nonsense you write. You have "accepted" your made-up God.
"I never said you were doing the things I mentioned."
Oh, don't try to wiggle out of it now. You said, "I have seen the way his pro-life folks operate at actual clinics," as if I was somehow associated with them. Just because two groups think it is wrong to crush and dismember innocent human beings doesn't mean they agree on the tactics to oppose the slaughter.
"the quite legal act of artificial abortion with the deliberate murder of tens of millions of human beings by the Nazis."
There's one of the flaws in your thinking. The Holocaust was legal. Slavery used to be legal. The notion of "if legal then moral" is certainly not found in scripture, or even in common sense. I'm amazed that people would hide behind that to justify their support of abortion.
Nice sarcasm on your part, but I'd really love to hear your responses to my rebuttal of your argument from silence about Jesus allegedly not saying anything about homosexulity (or your gross misunderstanding of the shellfish argument).
Were you really not aware of what a poor argument that was? Or did you think that you could use a bad argument on Perri because he might not know how to refute it (I have no idea if he does or doesn't). Will you use that illogic again if it suits you, or will you stand corrected?
Brother Neil, I hate to say this, but you would not know logic if it bit you in your brain.
You consistently lie, consistently slander, consistently twist words and consistently apparently fail to understand how ironic it is when someone uses your techniques on you.
You are a poor misguided little god.
Perhaps later I'll apologize for belittling your pathetic attempts at what passes for reason amongst the anti-science gods of gut feelings, but for now, suffice to know you are wrong and sorely outmatched by Brother Geoffrey. In this ongoing battle of wits, you have arrived repeatedly late and unarmed.
Further, you and your army of smarmy self-righteous pharisees (with apologies to the pharisees) do a great disservice to the cause of our Christ with your hateful twisting of the Truths of God. People look at what you have to say and think, "My, if that is the Love of God, I want nothing to do with it."
You repel people away from Jesus in disgust. If for no other reason than failing to honor the Christ whom you name as Lord, I would pray that you would take a step back and ask for a bit of humility and forgiveness for your pharisaical hypocritical piles of bile you leave everywhere you go.
Geoff has been corrected. Several times.
He just tends to ignore it.
Dang.
Dear Blog Stalker Dan,
I didn't want you to wonder if I was ignoring you, I wanted you to be sure of it. I won't be responding to any of your comments here or on any other blog. It is just too repetitive.
The fact that you continually commented on my blog after being banned (after "only" 400 comments or so) was not that big of a deal. The fact that you emailed me after I told you not to multiple times is a little creepy.
But the fact that you looked up my pastor to boo-hoo to him over my criticisms of you was really creepy. Not surprisingly, even after you took my comments out of context there was still nothing wrong with them.
My pastor and I had a good laugh over that. He is an outstanding man of God, with a PhD in theology and the best balance of grace and truth that I've seen. He knows me very well and, among other things, has let me preach the laity Sunday sermon three of the last four years. I just had the joy of spending 4 uninterrupted hours with him to and from some mission work and we visited extensively. Let's just say that he is pretty comfortable with my doctrine and views.
Really, if you are half the Christian you claim to be you'll stop all this.
It is a big blog world. Just ignore me like I ignore you (other than this comment, obviously) and you'll be fine. You can find someone else to obsess over, but I suggest you do it from afar. It is the Christian thing to do.
Marshall,
At the risk of getting back to your original post, I thought your analysis of where the real hatred was coming from was dead on.
The link to the urban legends about homosexual behavior was excellent (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php). Few people know about the foundational lies of the movement, including the politics -- not the science -- behind the American Psychiatric Association's reclassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Late to my own party, but definitely armed with truth, logic and common sense, just like Neil.
Starting with Perri,
Thanks for contributing. You make great points, particularly the evolution bit. Hadn't considered that, but it makes great sense. I agree with your point about "rewiring" of the brain. It is that which I believe makes it possible for them to forsake the lifestyle. We know that new pathways are developed in those who suffer brain damage that, for example, removes the ability to speak. These people eventually train to speak again. People who have lost limbs, particularly their favored side, learn to use their remaining limb with equal ability. I've always looked upon homosexuality as more of a paradigm waiting to be shifted. With God's help, all is possible.
Geoffrey,
Don't mind linking to opponents at all. You're welcome.
What's this about?
"I do so love the whole "They're the ones who are acting to discriminate! They're the ones who are intolerant! They don't love Jesus as much as we do!" One cannot "argue" with this whole line of "reasoning" because . . . it isn't reasonable."
The first two "quotes" are indeed reasonable due to the fact that it's happening all the time. The link about the Michigan church and the attack on the old woman is just two examples of what is commonplace. Intolerance of true Christian teaching and discriminating against those who preach it. But the last line about not loving Jesus as much as we do, that wasn't said here by anyone. I've no doubt you love what you believe Jesus to be. It's just that you can't support that image with Scripture.
Regarding Scripture and its interpretation, you seem to have easily swallowed the teachings of your Hebrew Scripture "scholar" without question. How did he support that contention regarding "preserving fertility"? Is he suggesting that they didn't know that the body reproduces more of the procreative material? This is a great leap and I suspect this "scholar" is less than committed to the truth.
Regarding religion in making policy, there is no restriction on this as long as the result isn't an establishment of a single religion. But more to the point, religion alone isn't required to refute the claims of the homosexual community. Despite this, it is religion that will pay the heaviest price should the homosex agenda be forced upon our culture. How will the two "rights" be reconciled in law? One must take precedence over the other as the two will clash repeatedly. It's no secret that the aim of the agenda is to marginalize religion so as to remove another obstacle. We see signs and hear speech often that shows that many in the community have little regard for true Christianity and have no time for it unless a church cowtows to their version of what it should be. They wish to bend Christ to their religion, rather than to bear their cross for Him.
As to the tired shellfish gambit, I refer you once again to one of my very first posts, wherein that entire subject is covered exhaustively be reprinting a most worthy explanation by two real scholars. The argument is lame. Give it up.
Homosex marriage before the law. As stated, religion alone is not required to rebuke the notion. The argument in favor is, and has always been weak. It is based on evidence that doesn't exist and fails to adequately address concerns about raising children, tolerance for opposing arguments, why other marital arrangement would not also enjoy the same considerations. "Discrimination", as used in this context, has nothing to do with behaviors or actions. Thus, there's no discrimination toward the homosexual, only the actions in which he chooses to engage and how the rest of society must view it.
Yes, they would force their morality upon the other 98% of the population if to object would result in some sort of legal recrimination. I'm sure the majority of opponents would be more than happy to ignore what two men or two women decide to do with each other in private provided they aren't required to support it by renting rooms to them, photographing their fake weddings, have their children indoctrinated to view their lifestyle choice as comparable to Mom and Dad's, etc, etc, etc.
Les is quite capable of bringing sanity and commonsense to discussions here. Unfortunately, on this subject, he hasn't yet.
First, the wedge issue question. Though some on the right, like Gingrich, refer to this and abortion as wedge issues, I totally reject that label and see each of them as having a major impact on the moral character of our nation. If you and Les refuse to consider the possible ramifications, that is the negative and well as positive ones, then you are not being intellectually honest in your argument. I believe that the current ideal of the family unit, even with it's flaws and how it's been abused, is far superior to any that would be inflicted upon us by acceptance of perverted and substandard copies for all the reasons stated and those not yet stated here.
Les also has tried the "how will it affect your marriage" angle. This is a poor argument since my marriage is not the institution of marriage. It IS the definition of it, as my wife is a hot babe and not a dude, but it is not the institution itself. That would be like saying that Babe Ruth is baseball. I will concede that should the definition of marriage be changed to satisfy that small percentage of the population, and with that change comes rules to which my wife and I must comply that weren't there before, then perhaps homosex marriage would affect my marriage. It might also affect my marriage in the way that Ben thinks Paul Newman's marriage was affected, but in the opposite way, as it would make me very unhappy, especially if children and grandchildren were forced to listen to pro-homosex crapola in the schools. But as it stands, no affect whatsoever. That, however, means nothing in my desire to see the nation preserved from the negative impact of legalized, codified homosex marriage.
Marshal, please understand I am not saying this with a snarl but rather softly with my hand on your shoulder(not in a gay way!). First I am uncomfortable with gays and the gay lifestyle. It is certainly not for me. Yet I am not their master and I will let them do what they want if I don't have to watch it. My main problem with the gay community is that they have those gay parades. I don't flout my sexuality with a parade. I understand it is more a matter of activism for them but I personally find it sort of offensive.
Now let me say I get the same types of feelings from Christians. They make me very uncomfortable with their overbearing ways. I was raised as one in a Methodist church. We went every week when I was young. As I got older I had more questions about the whole deal. While I am still a seriously spiritual person who believes strongly in a higher power and tries to live a spiritual life every day I decided I was not actually a Christian over the last decade or so. Those that are the out front people of the religion seemed to miss the entire point of all I had learned. They have turned me away from the religion rather than toward it. So have a number of other religions. Basically they turned it into something I didn't understand. Most of the ones that seem to give voice to it appear to me to be defending the wealthy and condemning the poor. They don't seem to treat others with love but rather condemnation, especially those who would need Gods love the most. It's like their love is conditional. They seem to see themselves and their religions as superior to others who worship a higher power rather than humble servants of that higher power. They encourage war out of fear and ..well it goes on and on. The whole sword and Jesus thing is totally foreign to me. Jesus, I was taught, was about love. I am sure you can find a theological debate there but I am not interested in theology anymore. Only what is real to me and my relationship with God. To make a long story short, your biblical references are not a frame I can use. I find a relationship with God a highly personal effort and not a group effort. I find most of the problems I see are problems that I can not fix. I can only fix myself. It's an inside job. The more we individually fix ourselves and love(in the spiritual sense) one another no matter what the race,creed, religion, sexual orientation and such, the better the world gets. In my book it is up to the gays themselves to find that higher power and figure out the secrets of the universe. For me personally it is about adding to the stream of life and not being a block that cuts off or diverts that stream. I don't do it perfectly myself. I try, to the best of my ability as a person that is learning as I go along. I learn through observing my actions and the results of those actions. How I would feel if someone acted in the same way toward me. As scary as it sounds to you I see Obama as a much more spiritually proper person than Bush ever could be. It's not about a biblical debate for me. It's about real life and the implications of our actions. It's about leaving people free to find their own personal path and connection.
I understand if churches don't want to sanctify gay marriage and they should not be forced to. I also understand there is a separation between church and state. If semantics is the issue. I would be fine with calling it civil union with a secular and not religious connotation or standing. The gays should accept this too in deference that see things differently than them. The silly sanctity of marriage thing makes me laugh when I look at what all us 'normies' have done to it. A far bigger problem with the sanctity of marriage is the poor relationships we have put together be it straight or gay. The gays and their unions do not effect me or my relationship or the sanctity that I exhibit in my relationships. It's an inside job.
Dan,
You are still welcome here, but I would prefer you leave your sanctimonious nonsense at the door. You tend to use it as a club when your arguments fail. There's no slander or blaspheming going on here by those on my side of the issue. Pointing out logical fallacies and doctrinal lies is not slander, and holding the feet to fire of those who spew them is in no way a negative thing as we desire that such distortions be rejected.
God has not called marriage of two same sex people holy. This is a heresy to which you continue to cling. You have no Biblical support for it whatsoever, as has been exhaustively shown at ELAshley's blog, among others. But based upon you history in blog debates, I fully understand why you would consider Neil to be outmatched by Geoffrey. (sigh)The things you tell yourself.
If standing up for true Christian teaching turns people away, that's just the way the seeds fall. I can't help that. It only gets snarky when folks like yourself pretend to have the direct line to God still speaking. Why does He only tell these things to liberal Christians who already feel this way?
The "separation" argument is a canard used by the pro-gay lobby.
Consider all the liberal churches advancing the pro-gay cause. Why haven't I heard the "separation of church and state" folks complaining about that? Where are the calls to remove their tax exempt status as there are for orthodox Christian groups who support Prop 8? The hypocritical media and liberals just ignore things like this. They just use the argument cynically to avoid the real issues.
And we don't need to rely on religious reasoning in the public square. We have all the secular reasoning we need.
I have no issue if the gov't got out of marriage completely, or if they just granted "civil unions" to one male/one female couples.
But the question is why the gov't gets involved at all. It has nothing to do with love. Plenty of marriages don't have love in that sense, either because people have their ups and downs, or the marriages were arranged, or whatever.
The gov't gets involved because by nature and design heterosexual couples produce the next generation of children, and ONLY heterosexual couples can provide a mother and a father to a child. Are there exceptions with single parents and infertile couples? Of course, but that doesn't mean we have to nuke the definition of marriage. It is all about what gov't has a reason to regulate.
Gay people can get married today at all sorts of apostate churches. They can have loving and committed relationships. No one is denying that to them.
And why do you limit the defintion of civil unions to two people? What do you have against polygamists? Wouldn't your love/commitment foundation apply to them? And what about incestuous couples? The pro-gay groups pull up the drawbridge on them. Does that mean they hate polygamists? According to their logic, apparently so.
The whole "hate" accusation against Christians is just a classic emotional personal attack to distract people from the facts and logic and to scare people into getting in line with the propoganda.
MA,
If you want public policy to be determined by a magic book that supersedes logic and reason, maybe you would be more happy living in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Neil repeated some lies, as per the norm. Shame on you.
He said:
The fact that you continually commented on my blog after being banned (after "only" 400 comments or so) was not that big of a deal.
Not so long ago, Neil was saying, "But, but I NEVER banned you!" at some site. What he had done was selectively published my comments.
Now here recently, he has said that he wouldn't publish any more and I have mostly stayed away. I believe once or twice when he had an open question to so-called Liberal Christians, I had assumed he meant that it was an open invitation to Liberal Christians and so I responded.
For my part, I have repeatedly (at Neil's place and elsewhere) told people, "if you don't want me to comment, all you have to do is say so and I'll quit commenting." Until recently, Neil has not indicated that. So, this "blog stalker" thing is another myth of his own mind.
As to writing his pastor, I did do so. I did this because the Bible clearly says, "If you have a problem with a brother, communicate that problem to the brother in hopes of straightening it out. If that fails, take two or three others and talk to the brother." [my paraphrase]
This is what I attempted to do, follow biblical instruction on handling differences.
Was I wrong to do so? I don't think so. The fact is, Neil is a brother of mine who has a hard time dealing with truth and facts. He is a bitter soul with a bloated ego and can not handle the truth. So, rather than dealing with truth, he creates his own little world of his own little truths. I feel a bit sorry for him, but that is the case.
I have tried to handle it personally, between he and I, but he is not man enough to deal with that, either. Instead, he lies. He slanders. He abuses the truth with abandon. I've tried to deal with it by working with some of his church community. Apparently he may have spread his lies to his pastor and won him over to the dark side. More's the pity.
Neil, keep your dark, twisted lies from me and I will not bring you into conversations. But, when you start spreading your filthy lies on the internets, I will correct them, expose them to the sun of truth so they can rot on the ground like the detritus they are.
Lord have mercy on your soul.
Ron,
Thanks for your comments. I agree with the part regarding personal responsibility, what you call, an inside job.
There is too often people who leave the church over perceived wrongs committed, particularly those you stated. Highlight the word "perceive". A far more strict entity than any preacher on earth is God Himself. It is He that you should pay most attention, and unfortunately, the Bible is the only place where we have any sense of His Will for us while we live. Thus, to reject Christianity over the actions of Christians is strange to me. Why not simply study Scripture more and preach a more pure version than what you believe is being taught by those you found wanting? It's far too important for you personally to wrongly reject that which saves just because you didn't like how some put into practice that with which you disagree.
And yes, I totally reject the notion that Obama could in any way be more spiritually proper than Bush, but now's not the time for that.
I have equal problems with civil unions for homosexuals as I do for marriage. There's no difference in the area where it counts most for society, and that's in the law. No difference whatsoever. And what is silly is to believe that because not all hetero marriages are perfect, than we might as well legalize even less perfect marriages. The traditional marriage is an ideal in which the state finds benefits. As it stands, the state sees none in homo marriages. That is because there are none.
Marshall, sorry that I got Blog Stalker Dan on another rant. Hopefully he'll end his self-parody with that.
And hopefully, Neil will end his lies with that. How about it, brother? You quit lying and I'll quit calling you on your lies. Deal?
Dan, As an older person who has been reading comments from numerous sites for quite some time, let me warn you in the Spirit of Christ to stop what you are doing. (Goes for Geoffrey also). We reap what we sow and you both are ripe for a terrible harvest. mom2
Now, returning to topic, Marshall said:
Pointing out logical fallacies and doctrinal lies is not slander, and holding the feet to fire of those who spew them is in no way a negative thing as we desire that such distortions be rejected.
I have no problem with any of this. Yes, we should point out logical inconsistencies and doctrinal lies, this is what I have done. Neil lied when he calls many of us "fake Christians." I have pointed out how we believe the essential doctrines of orthodox Christianity.
Therefore, for Neil (or anyone else) to lie and say that we are not saved when God has indeed saved us, is to lie about what God has done. It is to spread doctrinal lies (ie, the lie that, not ONLY do we have to believe the essentials of orthodox Christianity, we also have to agree with Neil or Marshall or anyone else on a specific subset of "sins" is a doctrinal misstatement, a twisting of an essential truth of the gospel.
I'm glad to hear that you're going to call Neil on it, but I'd suggest doing so personally, as out here in the blogosphere is not really the place for such corrections. Perhaps he'll take it better coming from you.
mom2 said:
As an older person who has been reading comments from numerous sites for quite some time, let me warn you in the Spirit of Christ to stop what you are doing.
But first, mom2, you have to tell me what I'm doing wrong. This has always been your weak point. You are frequent and generous with your general complaints ("you're bad!") but when I ask for specifics, you always go away. You snipe and cower, snipe and cower.
If I have done something wrong, do as the Bible suggests: Contact me personally and tell me specifically where I have sinned so that I can stand corrected and change my ways.
Was it in insisting that I and Geoffrey are Christians, saved by God's grace? Was that wrong? How so?
OR, was it in insisting that it is wrong to add to the gospel of Christ some extra set of hoops to jump through in order to be saved. I have pointed out already that I believe traditional orthodox Christian essentials and I'm asserting that there is nothing else BUT God's grace through faith in Jesus that will save us. Do you think I'm wrong? Then correct me.
OR do you think I'm wrong to call Neil when he has spread lies? Perhaps you are right on that front. I tried to do it via a personal email, but he has cut that off. I tried to contact his pastor - in accordance to Christian teaching - but apparently his pastor is not following that biblical teaching (or perhaps his pastor IS correcting Neil, but Neil is ignoring his pastor's correction).
Almost certainly, the public blogosphere is not the place for such a private discussion, but when Neil is spreading lies and slander, I am caught between rather I should confront those lies and correct them, or rather if it is better to just bear the false witness and let it go, with the judgment being on Neil's head.
That is probably the better biblical teaching and if that is what you are encouraging NEIL AND ME to do, then you are probably right. IF, on the other hand, you are ignoring Neil's sins and focusing only on mine, then that I would suggest is hypocrisy.
Regardless, if you have a specific instruction for me, by all means, instruct me. If you are only interested in partisan sniping, then I'd suggest you ought to repent yourself.
Somebody please let me know when we're back on topic and Blog Stalker Dan is done with his tantrum.
Is it a tantrum to expect you to not falsely claim that we are not Christians? Is it a tantrum to ask you to, if you have a problem with our confession of faith, to explain where exactly we have gone wrong?
Is it a tantrum to ask you to not spread lies nor slander? To ask for some common human decency, if not full Christian character?
I think not. What about you, Brother Neil?
But, if I have erred in my Christianity, please, tell me where so that I might correct my misunderstanding.
But seeing as how I have repeatedly offered you and mom2, et al the opportunity to correct my understanding (am I wrong to think we're saved by God's grace? Am I wrong in wanting to follow in Christ's steps? Am I wrong in thinking that we are to love the body of Christ and not slander one another?) and you never do. What you do, instead, is raise up strawman arguments, half-truths and outright lies and knock those down while slandering your brothers in Christ. If you are not going to correct us, then at least stop the slander.
I don't think it is a "tantrum" to ask for this bit of human decency.
Somebody please let me know when we're back on topic and Blog Stalker Dan is done with his tantrum.
"I said something last, nyah, nyah" - is that the "victory" you're looking for, Neil? Well, go ahead and repeat your little verse.
I'd just wish we could be a bit more adult about conversations in this country and that Christians could be a bit more, well, Christian.
For God's sake, Dan. Give it a rest. If Neil doesn't want you bugging him, just stop bugging him.
It's bad enough you make asinine comments on everyone's blog, but to actually contact the pastor of his church shows you to be delusional. You need help. Psychological help.
Please, I implore you, get some help. And leave Neil alone. He neither needs your help or wants it.
If you truly believe your interpretation of the concept of Christianity is the correct one, you should heed Jesus' advice and shake the dust off your shoes, and let Neil face the consequences of his own actions. You've spread your message. Now let it go.
but to actually contact the pastor of his church shows you to be delusional.
You are aware of what the Bible says, Mark? What Jesus teaches us?
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Is it the case that you think Jesus was wrong, or am I misinterpreting it? Please, if I am in the wrong, correct me and I will be all the wiser. But, if it is the case that you are merely seeking to justify your sin and the sin of your friend, I'd ask that you reconsider your position. After all, I must obey God over Mark, yes?
You've spread your message. Now let it go.
I have let it go. It's just brought up again when Neil repeats a lie or twists the truth again. Is it the case that you think I should just ignore his slanders and lies? If so, you actually might have a decent case, biblically speaking. The apostle Paul tells us:
I say this to your shame Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?
Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?
Although this is talking about a situation of taking fellow Christians to court, one might make the argument that I would be better off to just ignore the slander of my brothers and I, to just put up with the lies and falsehoods.
Is that your point, Mark?
Blog Stalker Dan,
I think Mark is onto something. You seem to have an instiable need to be the center of attention everywhere you go.
I have backed up my views over dozens or even hundreds of comments and emails and stand behind them. I'm not going to rehash them here or anywhere else, so I recommend that you get on with your life. You can change "bear false witness" all you like but I am content to let God be the judge of that.
In your email to my pastor you wrote, “Perhaps we [Neil and Dan] should just avoid each other - and mostly we do, now.”
Yes, "perhaps" we should! Sort of like exactly what I’ve tried to do, if you didn’t keep emailing, commenting on my web site and obsessing about me on other blogs. Sheesh. You had the nerve to write that after I told you not to email me ever again and then deleted subsequent emails without reading them. Do you think that might have been a hint that I’d already decided to avoid you? Can I get a blog / email restraining order?
I still can't believe you wasted my pastors time. He is a true man of God and has many important things to do, and dealing with some confused guy one of his members met on the Internet is not one of them.
I'd do the Matthew 18 thing with your pastor but I assume he is as theologically confused as you are. Your use of that passage begs the question as to whether I sinned against you (I didn't) and whether we are brothers in Christ (that is what I'm disputing).
So Dan, how about giving it a rest? Or just take your tantrum to your blog, eh? I didn't set out to embarrass you, but you have brought this all on yourself. I gave you multiple chances to just stop but you didn't.
Marshall, I apologize again for being so horribly off track. I hate to let Dan chase me from another blog that I enjoy but it is so distracting trying to sift through his comments. Hopefully he'll stop this nonsense. Otherwise, I'll just read the posts and not the comments section.
Fair enough. Let's forget the words of Jesus. He was obviously delusional to suggest trying to reconcile with a brother privately and, failing that, with a second party.
We get it: You and Mark think Jesus' teachings are "delusional" and "a waste of time" and we ought not heed them. I have heeded them and it went nowhere, now we can avoid each other. Tis sad, but it's the way you wish it to be.
for my part, I think Jesus was not delusional at all and that we ought to follow his teachings. Being a "Christ"ian and all, it makes sense to me.
Still, your and Mark's confession does indeed, shed some light (getting back to the post, at least a bit... which is about the sometimes hatefulness and hypocrisy of some folk in these United States.)
Marshall, you do agree that this is still on topic, don't you? You were suggesting that it's "nonsense" that it appears to Geoffrey and many others that there is hatefulness on the part of some. I offer you the above in support of Geoffrey's position.
Isn't it funny how the shia and sunni can't agree on theology? Silly muslims.
"Les is quite capable of bringing sanity and commonsense to discussions here. Unfortunately, on this subject, he hasn't yet."
And back in the day, I used to think Marshall Art was quite capable of acknowledging sanity and commonsense in opposing points of view both here and elsewhere. Unfortunately, on this subject, he never has.
"...as wedge issues, I totally reject that label and see each of them as having a major impact on the moral character of our nation."
Precisely as wedge issues are intended to be seen by those who fall for them.
"...Les refuse to consider the possible ramifications, that is the negative and well as positive ones, then you are not being intellectually honest in your argument."
And if you continue to ignore the fact that I HAVE acknowledged that upsides and downsides exist in both gay AND straight lifestyles, then I'm just gonna start calling you a liar. It'll carry as much weight as the bullshit accusations you level against me. The difference between you and I is that you only focus on the negative aspects involved with the gay issue, instead of redirecting your energy to improving those very conditions. C'mon, man - why you such a hater? Again, you don't exactly have to approve of the lifestyle to live and let live.
"That would be like saying that Babe Ruth is baseball."
Wrong. It would be like saying Babe Ruth is A baseball PLAYER, and you've missed the point yet again. Sticking with your baseball analogy, is a baseball player in the NL any less of a baseball player than one who plays in the AL? There are, after all, different rules regarding pitchers. On top of that, since baseball occasionally makes changes in the rules of the game, do said changes diminish what it means to be a baseball player? Does instant replay for home runs change anything at all about Ruth's legacy? Did Jackie Robinson change what "baseball player" means? My original point way back when was that the inclusion of gays into marriage would have no bearing whatsoever on the marriages of straight folks like yourself. On this we agree and always have. Somehow, however, we part company about what gay marriage would mean to the institution as a whole. You feel it lessens it, while I do not. Therefore, if you truly believe it lessens it, then BY DEFINITION you're saying it lessens YOUR marriage! Not the quality of your relationship, to be sure, but the simple fact that your marriage would now be part of an institution that has been "lessened", in your mind, must be taken into consideration. How is this difficult to understand?
Well then Les, we will continue to disagree. "Marriage" means one man and one woman. So obviously adding two men or two women changes the definition, thus the institution itself. That's the obvious part and on the surface I am not surprised that some might say, "So what?". It is then that I can justifiably say that looking down the road hasn't been done adequately. We continually bring up the distinct and likely possibility of polygamy following suit, particularly since they are using all the same arguments. These are disregarded as not the same, not likely or just plain silly. Yeah. About as silly as the idea of homosex marriage becoming reality. The institution will be even more deluded and then when incestuous couples join in, it will be deluded even more. In the end, the radical elements of the movement will have their wish and marriage and family will have no meaning whatsoever.
You want us to live and let live, Les, and as I stated in a previous comment, most of us on this side of the issue are more than willing to do that if they back off to the "mind your own business" line. But civil unions of any kind are public and the laws and mandates that are then created as a result is public business. So it's hardly a matter of hatred, my friend, but true concern for what is likely should this movement succeed.
As for baseball and the Babe, it wasn't a perfect analogy I admit. But it hardly means my position is wrong. But there are those who still maintain the DH still changed the game. Robinson didn't, except to allow a greater pool of possible players to be available.
Dan,
I'd rather you take your personal grudges elsewhere, unless they are with me. I agree with Neil almost totally, (I say "almost" since I haven't read the complete archives of his blogs). As regards your being a "fake" Christian, this discussion has raged before in many places and is totally off topic here. I have major problems with much of your interpretations and none so much as this topic about which this post is. God does NOT bless sinful behavior, no matter how much the participants love each other. You have no basis whatsoever for continuing to preach this heresy. If we are to be "good" Christians, we are to repent of our sins and accept Christ. Sinful behavior vs holy behavior is illustrated fairly clearly in Scripture. Thus, accepting Christ on His terms is pretty easy to understand, if not always easy to do. We struggle with much of it, yet, to forget about maintaining that struggle with victory over the sin as our objective is not accepting on Christ's terms. You have not found evidence in Scripture to support your position, so you fall back on "prayerful considerations" and such self-fooling antics, to arrive at your position. In other words, you're content with your rationalizations, rationalizations folks like Neil and myself find totally weak. Thus, you have committed yourself to a Christ that only superficially matches the Jesus of Scripture. This perception I have of your commitment is based on all of the comments of yours I have ever read.
Vinny,
"If you want public policy to be determined by a magic book that supersedes logic and reason..."
Personally, if we were to base our government even more upon that "magic book", I insist we'd be better off as it is chock full of logic and reason. This country was made for a moral people. Morality at the time was widely understood as Christian morality. Obviously you've totally given up on the Lord, Vinny, and that's to your detriment and something for which you'll have to personally deal. Good luck with that.
I agree that the country was founded for moral people, but the fact that “[m]orality at the time was widely understood as Christian morality” just demonstrates the ethnocentric ignorance that was prevalent at the time.” Virtually all religions and culture throughout history have subscribed to some variation of the “golden rule.” The differences between religions are not in the basic moral principles that govern human relationships.
Happily, the Framers of the Constitution were wise enough not to tie it to Christianity or any other religion. As Thomas Jefferson said “it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Nevertheless, the notion that European Protestantism was somehow morally superior to other religions and cultures was used to justify enslaving Africans and dispossessing Native Americans of their land.
Despite the flaws of its practitioners, and despite not selecting a specific religion under which to rule, the fact that Christianity was the standard by which morality was understood is without question. The percentage of Christian to any other faith was more than overwhelming. And also, many use Jefferson's quotes in a cherry-picked manner without understanding that he supported much that is now considered in conflict with today's mythical notion of separation of church and state.
But, just like your comment regarding most religions' agreement about the golden rule, they also generally share a negative attitude toward homosexuality.
But all of this is neither here nor there. The point of this post regards the center of hatred, which is from the homosexual community toward Christians rather than vice versa.
"First, whereas he used to feel it wasn't his place to dictate to those in other states, he now feels he must, that the principle is too important. That's pretty funny."
Ahh… yes.. And to think just the other week marshall was telling California Supreme Court Justices how to vote. Yes, a bit of hypocrisy. But, I don’t think anybody is shocked about that.
We can sit back and talk about the bible or morals or whatever you like. But, the bottom line, as marshall points out, is Prop 8 won with 52% of the vote. This is significantly closer than similar votes in previous years. Even more interesting was the double digit lead No On 8 Supporters had less than a month before the election. Gay marriage is coming, no matter what the bigots want. California is two or four years away. This is not to mention the six months of gay marriage that was happening prior to the passage of Prop 8.
Ah, Ben. My favorite clinical idiot.
I never said that encouraging a vote in other states was a problem. Hence, there's no hypocrisy on my part. Indeed, the funny part is that this "wedge" issue is now so important to Geoffrey. I'm glad I could "shed light" on that point for one as dim as yourself.
In addition, one can speculate on why the vote was only 52% and the homos winning over the rest of the country is only one reason. But as we can see in so many other areas, such as the war, encouraging kids to abstain from sex, there is a terrible lack of resolve in this country for doing the right thing. Any difficulty can cause people to quit the game and go home. And considering the behavior of the "tolerant" left, some may simply not want vandalism and harassment if they are known to be in opposition. More likely, it's the result of poor counter propaganda by those with real truth to tell on the subject of homosexuality.
In any case, bucky, don't count your chickens quite yet.
"Gay marriage is coming"
Perhaps. It may come more quickly due to the outrageous bias in the media, which we see more proof of all the time -
But the question is whether it should be coming. The Bible isn't vague on the topic, so Christians should obviously not support it. Yes, some will try to deny that with their "shellfish" arguments and such, but those are easy to debunk.
The secular reasoning against it is also sound. The problem is that too many people are fed lies about "hate," internment camps, etc.
"no matter what the bigots want"
I assume that you support Civil Rights for polygamist, incestuous couples, those who practice bestiality, etc. Or are you a bigot?
Hahaha... marshall, your brain continues to implode. In the future, just dont tell California what to do. Unless of course you want to move here. But, I dont see that happening.
"no matter what the bigots want"
Truth hurts doesnt it Neil.
"Perhaps. It may come more quickly due to the outrageous bias in the media, which we see more proof of all the time"
Ahhh.. The LIBERAL MSM!! They are always out to get you Neil. Never forget that.
It does seem that you agree with me (and marshall) that gay people will soon have all the rights of heterosexual people. Not much anybody can do about that. It is interesting that younger people seem to be more willing to care about other issues. While old folks cling to stopping gay marriage. Its only time. I suggest finding a nice merlot and a sunset. Kick up your feet and kiss goodbye to the ol' days.
Ben,
I'll encourage anyone to do the right thing no matter what man made geographical boundaries might separate us. It really doesn't matter to me about those. I fully understand how the youth of this country could be lacking in the understanding of how morality or the lack of same might matter greatly in the future of our nation. It is because of things like that that homosex marriage might become the law of the land. In other words, the cards seemed stacked against righteousness and truth as regards this issue. This has nothing whatsoever with people like Neil and myself, as well as others, and our efforts to continue preaching that truth to any who will listen, and point out the signs of mischief that result from the furtherance of the homosex agenda as they happen. We few, proud, and aligned with traditional Christian teaching as well as truth and logic are not swayed by the apparent, but not proven, numbers that might be against us. We are constantly concerned about what our children are taught and by whom. We actually care for not only those of us negatively impacted by any success the homosex community might enjoy, but for those who engage in that lifestyle and how it will negatively impact them.
What is most unfortunate, is how little impact we seem to have on pathetic little twits like yourself. All we can do there is pray and hope for the best, as fruitless as that might be.
""no matter what the bigots want"
Truth hurts doesnt it Neil. "
Gee, Ben, hard to argue with that. You really present the facts and logic of your side well.
So far you just seem to beg the question and assume that sexual preferences confer some sort of Civil Rights status, and you are talented at calling people names ("bigot" - eek!).
I'll ask again: Do you you support Civil Rights for polygamist, incestuous couples, those who practice bestiality, etc., or are you a bigot?
(Actually, you appear to be a bigot either way: big·ot (bÄg'É™t) Pronunciation Key
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.)
"Ahhh.. The LIBERAL MSM!! They are always out to get you Neil. Never forget that."
If libs are happy that the MSM helped them with the election, I can understand that. But if they deny the media bias and its easily provable influence then they have no credibility with me - http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/these-are-the-people-that-elected-obama/ .
"It is interesting that younger people seem to be more willing to care about other issues."
That is questionable at best. I'd say many care about the issues. But are they well informed?
I must correct a spelling gaffe on my part. I used "deluded" when I meant to say "diluted". (You can find it yourselves if you care, in a response to Les). But it gives me the chance to offer another analogy for Les on this issue. If marriage is red, then to continue dripping drops of red into the institution maintains it's redness. If we drip another color, say lavender for the GLBT folk, then the redness dilutes and is less red. Later, after the lavender has completely corrupted the redness, another drop will be added using all the same arguments for dripping lavender into the pool. Let's say white for the polygamists. The more white is dripped in, the more diluted the pool, changing it's color even more than before. Then, the couples made up of brothers and sisters (biological, not from the 'hood) will drip in their color, let's say, green, and it will further dilute the color. Needless to say, marriage has changed from red, to something quite different. The institution has changed. How it colors our culture will also change as it can't help but do. The question never considered is, for the better or the worse? I say, as long as other countries are doing it already, let's wait a generation or two and see what happens there. So far, I don't see that it's helping, and it does seem like it's hurting in a number of ways.
So now you're using a variation of my color spectrum analogy to support a position YOU favor? Unbelievable.
This is why arguing with you is like chasing one's own tail. You constantly move the goalposts when it suits you.
How 'bout we just stop using analogies from here on out?
I was an art major in College. Mixing all the above colors would produce black. An excellent analogy by Art!
One other line of thinking on the "hate" ad hominem attack.
It is amazing that the hate label sticks to us when we actually take a live and let live approach to gays. We just don't like it when they shove their agenda down our throats.
If you want to disarm the liberals, just point out that if homosexuality could be detected in utero that you would be against those abortions, and ask them if they would agree to make those abortions illegal.
I have yet to find a heterosexual liberal who doesn't love abortion rights more than gays. So this argument is a great way to make them squirm and to point out how ridiculous it is for them to label you as a homophobe. After all, they think it should be legal to destroy gays in the womb (even hypothetically) while you think they should be protected.
The most I've ever seen them say in response is that I'm against all abortions, so specific protections for gays isn't meaningful. But I point out that if this was the only restriction made that I'd favor it.
It also forces them to reconsider their pro-abortion views, because it points out how the unborn are real human beings. That is one reason they fight any exceptions, even for gender selection abortions. They know that once you concede the humanity of the unborn for any reason then other abortions wouldn't be justified.
I explored this more in a hypothetical dilemma.
Les,
You used your color spectrum analogy poorly in the context of a discussion on when life begins. I use it, in quite a different manner actually, to show how adding difference changes the original. To more distinguish the two, you used the color spectrum to suggest the difficulty in telling when one becomes a person/human being/entity entitled to full respect for life, when I believe the entire spectrum to be life. Here, I use one color to depict an institution and show how that institution is fundamentally changed when other colors are mixed in. See? I not only have maintained the position of the goalposts, rather, I have remained incredibly consistent.
In addition, getting back to the baseball analogy, nothing you've presented represents a fundamental change in the game. Even the DH is more like a tax change than a change of the game. All the fundamental elements of the game still exist. But if you were to add tackling, or water hazards, or goalposts through which all homers must soar, now we're really changing baseball.
No. I think we should keep analogies in our discussions where applicable.
I've been asked the question before, if I knew in advance a baby would be born homosexual would I then favor abortion? The answer is simple:
It is a moot point because Homosexuality is not genetic, however, I always oppose abortions regardless of the circumstances. Whatever brought on an unwanted pregnancy, it is never the baby's fault. Why punish the baby?
"...where applicable."
And who made you the judge of what qualifies as applicable? You're as guilty of selectively framing these analogies as anyone, Art, except you don't acknowledge that fact because you only see the issues in question from your own unyielding perspective. For example, when you say you see the entire spectrum of light in my example as LIFE, I can just as easily say I see the scope of the entire rainbow in your example as simply COLOR as a whole. Furthermore, when you mix paints, you're not changing the fact that it's still paint at the end of the day, just like gays marrying doesn't change the fact that it's still marriage when all is said and done.
And with your sports analogy - since this is ultimately about the genders of the participants involved - are female baseball players not playing baseball? More fittingly, is men's doubles tennis any less tennis than mixed doubles tennis? Marriage is about two people making a legal and binding contract to each other. Heck, love ain't even required. Never has been. But you want to take the traditional assumption of which genders are allowed to participate in said contract and make it official state policy, whereas I don't feel that step is necessary to "protect" the status OR the definition of the institution.
Neil, this may be shocking to you. But, you are a bigot. No matter how you slice it. Hey, sucks to be you. But, thats likfe. If you want to talk about some other subject. Go for it. Right now, we are talking about two poeople entering into a contract. That is about as far as this goes with me. If you want to run around with marshall talking about K-Y, go for it. I wont think you're totally gay.
"If libs are happy that the MSM helped them with the election, I can understand that. But if they deny the media bias and its easily provable influence then they have no credibility with me - http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/these-are-the-people-that-elected-obama/ ."
hahahahahhahahahaha...
That is one of the great comments ever! Putting it over the top was the link to your own blog. Neil, you have no shame. And.. yes.. the LIBERAL!!! MSM!! is going to get you. Best find a cave to hide in. Perhaps another wackjob, OBL, can help you find one.
Thanks for your comments Neil. They are some of the more "goofy" ones I've seen (excluding marshall's of course).
Ben,
It is obvious that you are a conservative and are posting comments as a pretend liberal to make them look foolish. I realize how tempting that may be for you but it really isn't an ethical thing to do.
Just let them do their normal pro-abortion, pro-"same-sex-marriage", anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, etc. "reasoning" and they'll look bad enough. But none of them are as idiotic as you pretend to make them. When you stretch it with such hyperbole that is overkill.
Ooh! Good catch, Neil. I just thought Bennie was a hopeless buffoon laughing at his own lame attempts at cleverness as if anyone else thinks he's funny. It never occurred to me that he's doing a bit to slight the left. I have renewed respect for Bennie-boy, uh, I mean, Benjamin. I didn't think anyone could be such a fool.
Les,
Not only did no one make me the judge of when analogies are applicable, but I never claimed the title. I thought I was leaving it quite open to whomever finds the need to use one. Are you trying to give up weed, muh man? You seem a bit testy of late. OH GOSH! I said "testy"! Really Geoffrey, there's no homoeroticism meant!
Anyway Les, let's look at these analogies and you can tell me where I went wrong.
Your color spectrum analogy appeared in a discussion of abortion and the beginning of life. I took your point to be that as in the color spectrum it can be difficult to define the end of one color and the beginning of another, that being analogous to when one passes from one stage of human development to the next, or, more specifically, from non-human/person to human/person. Was I wrong in this? I can't see how I was unless you had a totally different idea in mind for the analogy. Thus, the spectrum must be analogous with human life.
In my analogy, I used a specific color to make my point, not the whole spectrum of color. Thus, red is always red until other colors dilute it into another color. The color red stands for the institution of marriage which now means one man united with one woman.
So once again, your analogy used a spectrum with the colors representing stages of development. My analogy used red to represent the institution of marriage.
The baseball analogy is still a matter of what the game is. Change the players to women and it's still baseball. Use a golf club instead of a bat, yard markers instead of bases, a volley ball instead of the baseball, uses quarters of an hour instead of innings, and obviously we see a change of the game. The game as it stands now would represent traditional marriage. Add any of the various changes I just mentioned and one of them could represent same-sex, the next bro/sis, the next something else.
Now though you may believe that there's some parallel between your baseball analogy and marriage, the fact is that baseball is not defined by the gender of its participants, but marriage is. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. You change what it is when you add different arrangements. It will now mean something else. When you add a woman pitcher, it will still be baseball.
As to my "own unyielding perspective", it is unyielding because it is important. Why don't YOU yield?
"Why don't YOU yield?"
The difference is that I openly admit these analogies can apply differently to the issues in question, whereas you do not. For example:
"The color red stands for the institution of marriage which now means one man united with one woman."
You were quite clear in that, and I was hoping you'd put that in writing. Going back to my original color spectrum analogy regarding abortion, it was my intention for the color orange (if I recall correctly) to symbolize a human being, whereas YOU decided to alter the symbology of MY analogy! That's moving the goalposts.
"Marriage is the union of a man and a woman."
And if same sex couples are allowed to marry, will a man no longer be allowed to marry a woman? Of course not. Your definition will still hold true. It just won't carry the unspoken "ONLY" that your definition freely implies. That's the position I support, Art. That's all. Inclusion. Equality. Freedom. Ya' know, that whole liberty thing our forefathers enjoyed talkin' about so much.
"And if same sex couples are allowed to marry, will a man no longer be allowed to marry a woman? Of course not. Your definition will still hold true."
Actually, what is being done is to say that the definition of marriage is NOT just between a man and a woman. It is between whatever culture wants it to be. The pro-gay crowd appears to be bigoted and hateful against polygamists, incestuous couples, etc. because they pull up the drawbridge on them.
"YOU decided to alter the symbology of MY analogy! That's moving the goalposts."
It was a poor analogy to begin with. I decided to adjust it to more sharply parallel reality. You chose orange, or whatever, to indicate a human, but it passed gently from another color to IT. But science does not make the claim in that manner at all. It says that upon fertilization, a new human being is created. From that end of the color spectrum until beyond a cozy little assisted-living condo in Phoenix is all human being endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life.
"Your definition will still hold true."
Not so. Your addition of homosexual partners will then render my definition incomplete, for it will no longer be ONLY a man and a woman, but something else. It will be only an example of the definition, but not THE definition.
They have no basis for inclusion. They have CREATED an inequality that doesn't truly exist. What I find most strange and difficult to wrap my mind around, is that someone like yourself sees no problem with disrupting our culture in order to appease how 2% of the population wishes to pleasure themselves sexually. Does that make any sense to you really? You're not going to suggest that current laws are based upon hetero sexual gratification, are you? I don't believe you can make that case. How about inclusion for people who just wanna jerk off? How about a Baloney Boppin' Pride Parade?
"Not only did no one make me the judge of when analogies are applicable, but I never claimed the title."
Ah. So what's this then?
"It was a poor analogy to begin with. I decided to adjust it to more sharply parallel reality."
Riiiiiight. That's what I thought.
Anyhoo...
"What I find most strange and difficult to wrap my mind around, is that someone like yourself sees no problem with disrupting our culture in order to appease how 2% of the population wishes to pleasure themselves sexually."
And what I find difficult to wrap my head around is why you're so afraid that 2% of the population being allowed to wed will disrupt our culture. Paranoid much?
"Actually, what is being done is to say that the definition of marriage is NOT just between a man and a woman."
Actually, what is being done is trying to get bigots like you out of the way. As polls show, younger people dont care if a gay person marries. You seem hung up on the word "marriage". I would suggest you leave that def. in the church/1800s/hole where you came from. But, if you want to keep on with the hate. By all means, I will look forward to remembering you in much the same way I remember racists from the civil rights push just a few years ago. Neil, I would guess that you have better things to do than worry about two people you dont know. Please open up a soup kitchen and push your ideas that way. It will be far more effective in the short and long run.
"And what I find difficult to wrap my head around is why you're so afraid that 2% of the population being allowed to wed will disrupt our culture."
It isn't fear, it is fact. When a sexual preference like this is granted Civil Rights status we'll see exactly what happened in Massachussetts. These perversions will be taught as normal to children as young as kindergarten.
Fortunately the CA folks rushed to do such things and I think it hurt them in the vote (e.g., 1st grade field trip to a lesbian wedding, pro-gay propoganda for kindergarteners). They tried to deny such things would happen but some folks moved too fast.
Anyone who thinks it is OK to push such things on 5 yr. olds is a sick freak. And I mean that without exaggeration.
Les,
I didn't say I wasn't qualified to judge an analogy's application, I said I never claimed the title. If an analogy doesn't work, it doesn't work. Yours didn't work. I made it better.
"Paranoid much?"
Not at all. Paranoid is Al Gore and global warming. Paranoid is Geoffrey thinking the Bush admin is corrupt and shredding the Constitution. What I'm doing is clearly seeing the reality of the situation much like telling someone (analogy alert) who sleeps on the train tracks that the 9:15 is due. We can clearly see the signs like the headlight of the engine barreling down upon us. We hear the blare of the horn. They are forcing their immorality upon the rest of us, attacking churches, vandalizing property of opponents, forcing businessmen to change the way they do business even when alternatives are readily available. The rights of the faithful to preach is being contested. The right of free association is being overturned. Children are being taught that sinfulness is equal to their parents righteous union. And Butthead Bennie has the nerve to come here and talk about bigotry. You want to pretend that the culture isn't being negatively impacted? This is only the beginning. Who will give a rat's ass about marriage at all should this be the way of the land? To think this is in any way benign to our culture is the height of naivete. But to you, legislation based on lust is just dandy. And when you consider that not all of them even care about marriage, we're really talking about far less than 2% of the population.
Bennie the Butthead,
It is not surprising in the least that young people are so deluded in their thinking. They've been misled in the schools and universities by people who's heads are as far up their asses on such topics as your head is up yours. This is a natural progression from the "do it if it feels good" 60's generation who first began to really discard the values and morals upon which the founders of this nation knew were essential for the country's success. It'll be a tough task to turn this battelship around, but don't worry about it. Drooling miscreants like yourself would only be in the way, since you have no idea what morals and values even are. So just stand aside with your hand in your shorts and pretend people are giving you the time of day. The adults have work to do.
It’s all about the morals of our country and where you want to “place the bar”.
The history of our country leaves little doubt as to where our standards should come from, the question is should we rely on our history, or have we out-grown our roots?
Humanist, relativism, and the like say “let’s make it subjective, as long as we’re hurting nobody else.
The question becomes, what is considered hurtful to society?
Is it an ever changing standard based on popular opinion, popular culture? Or, is it basic truths grounded on our understanding of history and ourselves?
"Yours didn't work."
Sure it did. It just didn't work for YOU.
"Who will give a rat's ass about marriage at all should this be the way of the land?"
I see. So I'm guessing straight couples in Massachusetts don't give a rat's ass about marriage anymore then?
Les,
Forgive me if I didn’t read all 80 of the preceding comments, maybe this was covered.
We (The Conservative Core) don’t give a flying shit if all rights, etc. are given to “gay” couples. Give them health care if you wish, give them probate/estate rights if you wish.
Our only problem is how you define marriage. Ya see, we just can’t wrap our hands around our elementary school teachers telling our children that same sex unions are “just as right” as traditional marriage. We just can’t wrap our hands around an unnatural union being considered - ah – natural.
Your people would have us believe – we’re (as in conservatives) loading up our pickup trucks with PBR (Pabst Blue Ribbon) swilling rednecks, taking pot-shots at any and every effeminate walking down the street.
And HENCE you have the essence of the debate. The Left has to mischaracterize the rights stance in order to “debate it down”. If the left were to actually address our concerns and take it to the populace, why the left loses every time!
OK fine, Les. Your bad analogy worked for you. That's nice.
There may indeed be people in Massachusetts that are questioning the necessity of marriage now that unelected judges forced homosex marriage upon the state's populace. But I'm looking down the road, as I have regarding this issue all along. (You're fixated on the superficial "but they're in love" nonsense.) In the Netherlands, it has been reported that since the inception of homosex marriage there, out of wedlock births are around 60% of all births. Apparently they no longer see need for marriage now. So the possibility, which the militants and their enablers take no time to consider, or considered but just don't freakin' care, certainly exists. Whether or not it actually happens is not the point here, only that it is a negative that is credibly possible.
Still, the point that grates the most, there's actually two, is that this is a matter of legislating based on how a few people choose to arouse themselves to orgasm, AND how they demand that the rest of us accept that that is worthy of our respect.
O.
M.
F.
G.
"You're fixated on the superficial 'but they're in love' nonsense."
Gimme a break. The only thing I'm fixated on is ensuring that ALL tax-paying American citizens get to enjoy the same freedoms as their neighbors. Good lord, Art - I just said love ain't exactly a requirement earlier IN THIS THREAD! Pay attention.
And for the record, my analogy did precisely what it was supposed to do. Specifically, it illustrated the existence of subjectivity even in situations where scientific data can be recorded - an issue at the very heart of the legalized abortion debate.
"The only thing I'm fixated on is ensuring that ALL tax-paying American citizens get to enjoy the same freedoms as their neighbors."
But they have that today! You just want them to be able to do what is oxymoronic and marry the same sex. They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like their neighbor. They can get married in apostate churches. They can set up house and go on honeymoons.
They want the "freedom" to be affirmed by everyone, but no one else has that freedom.
"But they have that today!"
This is a weak tactic, and intentionally ignores the real point of the entire argument. Yes, you're absolutely correct - everybody has the right to marry within the traditional definition involving one man and one woman. But this issue obviously involves a unique context not applicable to straight folks, and you know it. As Art loves to point out, this is about the orientation of only 2% of our population. Attraction and love - while certainly not mandatory ingredients in either straight OR gay marriages, as covered earlier - are admittedly the major components that motivate the majority of marriages, and to deny gay people their right to pursue their particular brand of happiness on this issue strikes me as remarkably unconstitutional. Trust me, I realize y'all don't agree with my interpretation here. I get it. I just think you're on the wrong side of the issue, and are using fear and the tired 'ol "slippery slope" rationale to justify your disapproval. I cannot go along with such sentiments with a clear conscience when social freedoms such as these are at risk. Sorry.
Something Art wrote a few days ago has been bugging me, and I wasn't quite sure how to tie his statement into the point I was just trying to make until your comment provided the opportunity, 4simpsons. On November 17, Art wrote the following:
"Thus, there's no discrimination toward the homosexual, only the actions in which he chooses to engage and how the rest of society must view it."
Again, since we're only talking about 2% of the population here, the actions in question are obviously those of a slight minority of people. Saying one doesn't discriminate against the people in a minority - just the actions of said minority - is the same rationale used to justify religious oppression. Say, for example, I said I don't discriminate against Catholics - only the right of Catholics to practice Catholicism. I'd be saying they're free to practice religion - just like the rest of Americans are - only as long as it's the kind of religion that fits my definition. See what I'm sayin'? That wouldn't exactly be freedom, and it's why the founding fathers made sure we don't have to worry about the establishment of a state religion here in America. Similarly, the push to Constitutionally define marriage as between one man and one woman effectively establishes the traditional institution as the ONLY institution, and I just can't support that. And that position doesn't even mean I have to support the lifestyle - just its ability to exist.
All these other concerns about forcing kids to accept homosexuality in schools and such are separate issues. Yes, they're obviously connected to the gay issue, but they're separate issues nonetheless, and it's important to keep them that way. We're strictly talking about gay marriage here.
But if you remove the concerns about which homosex marriage would bring about, you eliminate much of our argument. That is, the ramifications of homosex marriage being codified into law and accepted in civil terms bring about consequences to which we are also opposed. Considering all the lies upon which the entire homosex argument are based, I'd say it's really more than a "slippery slope" we're talking about, but complete absence of solid ground. The drop is obvious.
I reject your comparison to religious freedom as much as I would if you were to use the race comparison. Totally apples and oranges, particularly since the hypothetical you offered is already covered by the 1st Amendment.
I concede that you have mentioned that love got nuttin' to do wit it. My bad. But then, there is nothing that appeals to the state for acceptance of what the state already finds unworthy of recognition. All you have left is that they want to. That is hardly an argument for legal change, and the lack of state recognition is then less a matter of oppression or discrimination. There are likely several things that each citizen would love to see change in this country or in one's state that are not compelling enough for the state to provide. And there are likely far more that are not driven by mental confusion as is this issue. Wanting something is not a right. Being happy is not a right. Pursuing happiness may be, but the government is not mandated with ensuring that each of us finds it. Now, they are demanding, rather than pursuing, a happiness that the rest of us, minus their enablers, don't see as our obligation to provide.
Those "consequences" you're so afraid of aren't a given, Art, nor would they necessarily play out in the manner you so bleakly predict. Furthermore, I also doubt that any potential societal changes, should they occur, would automatically be detrimental to our national wellbeing, and I won't base my politics on such fears.
"I reject your comparison to religious freedom..."
Of course you do. What else is new?
"All you have left is that they want to. That is hardly an argument for legal change..."
By that logic, women's suffrage shouldn't have happened, because once you take away the fact that the state considered women's votes unworthy of recognition, all they had left was that they simply wanted to vote. C'mon. That's lame. Civil liberties happen PRECISELY because people want them and fight for them, even when said liberties question the conventional wisdom.
"Now, they are demanding, rather than pursuing, a happiness..."
Oh, give me a fucking break, Art! There you go moving the goalposts again. Who said anything about BEING happy? Who says STRAIGHT marriage automatically equals happiness? If divorce rates in this country prove anything, it's that NOTHING could be further from the truth! Marriage is simply the PURSUIT of a happiness that is in no way guaranteed, and gays just want the same opportunity to enjoy that constitutionally-protected pursuit with each other just like straights. STOP CHANGING THE RULES OF THE ARGUMENT, or we're done for good. This little dance is starting to lose its appeal.
""But they have that today!"
This is a weak tactic, and intentionally ignores the real point of the entire argument. Yes, you're absolutely correct - everybody has the right to marry within the traditional definition involving one man and one woman. But this issue obviously involves a unique context not applicable to straight folks, and you know it."
Yes, and my point is that not everyone can marry the person they want to. We have all sorts of limitations (incest, bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy). The "same sex marriage" limitation is that they don't meet the definition AND they can never provide a mother and a father to a child. So why should the gov't endorse / affirm these relationships?
Remember, your whole argument is a straw man in the sense that they can go get married today. They just don't get gov't recognition. That's it.
"All these other concerns about forcing kids to accept homosexuality in schools and such are separate issues."
Not at all. One inevitably leads to the other. It is naive or disingenuous to state otherwise. It is right out of the pro-gay playbook.
"So why should the gov't endorse / affirm these relationships?"
Good question. Here's another:
Why should the government endorse/affirm my cousin's marriage? He can't father children, and neither he nor his wife ever wanted kids anyway.
"One inevitably leads to the other."
No, you're just lumping all things homosexual together so you can demonize the whole lot of them. Look, I can appreciate that you don't approve of the aforementioned tactics utilized by the gay community to further their cause, but you've got to be able to distinguish between those social agenda tactics and something like being able to marry one's life partner. They are NOT the same thing, whether you want to accept that or not. Guess how much time a gay couple of my acquaintance spends beating down the doors of our state capitol demanding kids be taught about the gay lifestyle? Exactly zero hours. Guess what they do instead? They just go about living their lives. Imagine that.
"They just don't get gov't recognition. That's it."
That's it? So they get the same benefits that straight marriages get because of said gov't recognition? What country are YOU livin' in?
No. But they DO get the same benefits that unmarried hetero couples get. I don't see unmarried hetero couples seeking redress.
And I am NOT changing the rules of the argument. I am not changing any goalposts. I am arguing against the state acceptance of homosex marriage. I use whatever ammunition I feel necessary to defend my position, as do you. If you are unable to contend with my defense, then leaving is likely your only recourse. But don't pretend that I'm driving you away through unfair practices on my part.
The question of a hetero couple unable or unwilling to have kids has been addressed in the past. They are exceptions that still fall within the ideal in that a) they can change their minds and have kids later if unwilling now, and b) they can still provide the proper and preferable mother/father combination for the possibility of adoption.
This is pointless. We're done. Best wishes.
"I don't see unmarried hetero couples seeking redress."
That's because they don't want to get married.
I wish my son and his girlfriend, the mother of my precious granddaughter, wanted to get married as much as gay and lesbian couples do.
Hell, I'd even pay for the wedding.
"Why should the government endorse/affirm my cousin's marriage? He can't father children, and neither he nor his wife ever wanted kids anyway."
Les, we have a term for situations like that: Exceptions. Also consider that this couple might change their minds and have kids. Please explain to me how a gay couple could ever provide a mother and a father to a child under any circumstance.
"No, you're just lumping all things homosexual together so you can demonize the whole lot of them."
This isn't some hypothetical. It has been happening for years in Massachussetts - http://www.massresistance.org/ - and already started happening in CA.
"Guess how much time a gay couple of my acquaintance spends beating down the doors of our state capitol demanding kids be taught about the gay lifestyle?"
That misses the point entirely. It isn't whether your one neighbor asks for those things. And it isn't even that the gay lobby aggressively pursues those things (even though they do). It is that if "same sex marriage" is a Civil Right then it is beyond criticism and MUST be presented to all kids of all ages as completely normal and just another alternative. Somehow the perverts get bi-sexuality and transgenderism thrown in for free.
Im a butthead? marshall.. you really have a preocupation with ass. I think there are many issues you need to deal with. Perhaps a trip through the Castro will do you some good.
If you dont like young people, thats your problem. The voting public has access to more information today than ever before. This time people have the option of forming opinions with with information from many different sources.. and not just their priest.
At the end of the day, you and Neil are bigots. Just deal with that. Its alright. Hey, at least you dont have linchings anymore.
Butthead Ben,
Yes. You are a butthead. Read your own posts and you'll see what I mean.
Wait. I'm sorry. Have someone read them to you and you'll see what I mean.
What makes you think I don't like young people? That sounds like another baseless charge, something for which you are well known.
I do have a problem with where they get their information as they seem to have the same stupid notions about current events as idiots like yourself. That concerns me quite a bit and I worry about the future for our youth should they continue to believe such nonsense. Life will not go well for them if they do.
BTW, I don't have a priest, and the minister at my church, though a good friend, suffers under liberal disorders like yourself. He does seem to be coming out of it. I just hope I've reached him in time.
If you think Neil and I are bigots, then you obviously don't understand the word. I'm not surprised.
Post a Comment