Saturday, April 27, 2013

Agenda Lies 6: Danny's Story

I have such limited time these days.  So much is happening in the world, but deciding on topics for the blog is difficult when only so much time is available.  It's far easier to visit other blogs and comment as the mood strikes me.  Lately I've been visiting Dan Trabue's blog to engage in a discussion regarding the harm caused by the legalization of same-sex marriage (SSM).  At least that's what I thought the topic was.  Hard to tell, because when one provided another example of the harm, Dan had taken to deleting it if it did not meet his undefined criteria for what constitutes harm.  So not only was that hard to understand, but by his actions, we are also more confused on the issue of grace in discourse, a tone Dan so often demands.

A little background:  Dan Trabue supports SSM.  He has a very twisted understanding of Scripture upon which he bases his opinion.  In his contorted world, God is pleased by two committed, loving and monogamous homosexuals, just as He is pleased with a man and woman committed to each other in marriage.  Despite several years of trying, I have yet to get Dan to fill the many gaping holes that perforate his position.  In the above mentioned blog thread, I had again offered a link that provided a list of about half a dozen pro-homosexual Biblical scholars that also contradict Dan's position.  But Dan holds fast to his heresy.  He loves his heresy.  Thus, it's no surprise that he supports changes to our laws that would result in SSM being treated as equal to normal, REAL marriage. 

So, he posts his thoughts on the current situation regarding this debate.  His point revolves around his belief that we who defend marriage as an institution based on the union of one man and one woman are in fact losing the debate, and that we are flummoxed as to why.

He says that we "are now on the losing side of history".  Who came up with that idiocy?  "Wrong side of history".  "Losing side of history".  It's inane.  I know what is meant by it's use, but it's really meaningless.  How can anyone determine the right side of history, or the winning side?  Especially as history is still unfolding. 

But I digress.

Dan's first mistake (for the purpose of this post) is to define winning or losing as "when one side makes the case in a way that appeals to those listening as the most rational and/or moral argument."  The mistake is in asserting that his side has even established a rational and/or moral argument.  They just take it for granted. 

He then goes on to explain our problem:

" For many out there, the reasons they lost are clear (in their mind) and include...

1. The devil always wins out in the short term
2. Pro-marriage-equity types have "controlled the language"
3. Pro-marriage-equity types have taken over the media
4. Pro-marriage-equity types have subverted our public schools
5. Our side is willing to do anything to win, including lie, cheat and twist facts

and, the ever popular...

6. The public is too dam dumb!"


This constitutes the most honest bit I've ever heard from a pro-homosexual proponent.  Each of those points is rather accurate, even if the order is not.  (#1 is not a driving reason that anyone puts forth, demonic influence being a bit too tricky to support) 

Points 2-5 are absolutely accurate.  Take #2.  The very term "pro-marriage-equity" was composed to tap the emotions of those to which Dan refers in #6.  There is no "inequity" now and never was since interracial marriage was no longer prohibited.  That's because homosexuals don't qualify for recognition by the state (nor by God) because they are two of the same sex.  Marriage requires one of each gender.  Always has.  It's never been different.  It is what marriage is.  Now, the activists and their enablers regard marriage in a manner that has not been historically accurate.  To them, it is only a union of two people who love each other.  But legally, the feelings of the two being married were not of consequence in order to gain legal recognition and/or license.  

And as the media and public school system are heavily influenced by (if not totally controlled by) leftists, often of the hard-core variety, they have indeed influenced an entire generation into regarding homosexual behavior as morally benign or no worse than equal to heterosexual behavior within a marriage. 

Then, I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize the absolute FACT that is point #5.  A close look reveals that even those few arguments from the activist/enabler that sound like truth is itself based on lies, distortions & falsehoods.  Take a look at the polling to which they rely to support their claim of shifting cultural sentiments.  Our youth has been inundated by pro-homo propaganda for the last 40 years or more.  To say that our young polls high in support for SSM is really just a self-fulfilled prophesy.  Train the kids to believe what you say and then ask them what they believe.  "See?  Even the kids know!"

The real issue here is not that we've lost the debate.  That's not possible.  All the truth and facts are on our side of the issue.  We hold the moral high ground because we understand the clear truth regarding what constitutes moral behavior in the area of human sexuality. 

Even more importantly, their side has never debated the issue at all.  Despite what Dan falsely claims is true about how we debate, his side has jumped to demonize all who disagree with the Agenda That Doesn't Exist.  They don't deal with the issues presented to answer the question of harm at all.  Indeed, our side has been very adamant in listing the many ways tolerating homosexual behavior is harmful to the culture, as well as to those involved in the lifestyle. 

And we've hit the issue from every imaginable angle.  No one can hope to go toe to toe with Robert Gagnon from the Biblical perspective.  They just dismiss him.  No one can tangle with people like Jennifer Rorbach Morse on the cultural side.  And considering how many of our laws, policies and customs are based upon the traditional understanding of marriage, it will be a legal nightmare.

But the Dans of the world will continue to ignore the fact and logic based arguments defending real marriage.  No argument will be good enough as a result.  It's not that the anti-SSM arguments fail.  It's that Dan fails to give them the respect they deserve.  Doing so would make his position untenable (as if it isn't already).

As one progresses through the over 130 comments that followed the post (not counting those of mine and Craig's that Dan ungraciously deleted---he claims they didn't answer the question, when he should have left them for others to decide if they did or not), one will see that Dan doesn't really explain what he was seeking.  His question morphs throughout.  He speaks of the debate in the post and then finishes with the question he thinks we haven't answered "what's the harm?"  What does that mean to you in light of the context?  I was pretty damned sure he was referring to the debate about legalizing this immoral idea of SSM.  So when I responded with a few examples of the harm legalization would present, he altered the question to simply, "What if two rational, healthy adults love each other and want to marry - committing to faithfully love, support and respect each other - and they're causing no one any harm, what possible reason would there be for stopping that marriage?" 

Well, obviously I wouldn't be looking to stop two rational, healthy adults if they were comprised of one man and one woman.  And I certainly wouldn't waste my time trying to stop two of the same gender who wished to commit to each other.  But the question assumes that two of the same gender who wish to marry each other are both rational and healthy.  The fact that two of the same gender wish to marry each other does not imply "rational" at all.  It suggests something quite unhealthy psychologically.

Nonetheless, there's a big difference in the question if it isn't connected to the debate he claims we're losing.  Aside from the harm they do to themselves, both physically and, most importantly, spiritually, I don't care if homosexuals or lesbians wish to play house.  I'm concerned with the problems legalizing it will inflict upon our culture, our children and our economy.

So here's a question:  Where's the harm in NOT legalizing SSM?  There is none.  There would only be an incredibly tiny percentage of the general population that would be put out. (Only a small percentage of homosexuals have gotten married in states and countries that legalized this selfish demand.)

263 comments:

1 – 200 of 263   Newer›   Newest»
Feodor said...

Really, honestly, what would it matter, how could it possibly be harmful to just put a tiny, little patch on the coat shoulder of all the Jews in Illinois?

It's just such a small percentage of the population, and really it would probably help them out since, making Jews visible for all, they can date and marry their own and so would never die out.

We're not immoral like Nazi Germany. We have no - and will never have any - malicious intent.

Where's the harm?

Feodor said...

Your second mistake, Marshall, is when you say, "But legally, the feelings of the two being married were not of consequence..."

Oh but they are, Marshall. In this country no one can legally be coerced to marry. And in the whole history of human marriage this is a brand new change. And it's not even universal in all countries in the present day.

And, neither, in this country can a man and a women be denied a license to marry if they are of age and mentally competent and not too close in kinship. But this, too, is a brand new change. As you infer, and as my own marriage documents, up until thirty years ago or twenty years ago or even ten years ago marriage between white and black was illegal. (Significantly, (white and brown was tacitly allowed in the southwest for a century and white and Indian for longer than that.)

You're a nit not to recognize how monumental a change this is in all of US history, and brand new in the history of human marriage.

And why these changes - because society recognized, after tens of thousands of years - that we cannot imprison the heart for clannish reasons. Love will win. It is more powerful than the laws of segregation.

So what's another change for the right of two consenting adults to marry? After all, if it is love...

God is love, too... despite your passive-agressive lip agreement but heart denial.

Neil said...

Great post, Marshall. I could comment on each individually point but would basically be reiterating what you said. So I'll just note how ridiculous it is for anyone -- let alone an alleged follower of Christ -- to appeal to a public majority as an authentic, God-approved victory. Using that logic, the early church was on the "losing side of history," for they had no way of knowing that the persecution would ever end.

1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world--the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does--comes not from the Father but from the world.

P.S. Re. "two committed, loving and monogamous homosexuals" -- 3% of the population is homosexual, and probably 3% of those want to marry, and even less of those even want to be monogamous (another dirty little secret that the media won't tell you). So as you noted, this is a fantastically small percentage of people to abandon free speech and freedom of religion over -- not to mention the active destruction of the innocence of children via public school indoctrination.

And having read the Bible many times, I assure you that there is no passage even hinting that being fully committed to your rebellion-of-choice against God somehow sanitizes it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Outstanding post, Marshall!

For all the claim that God is love and therefore He wouldn't be against same-sex unions, no one has yet been able to give one Bible passage to support such nonsense.

Mark said...

Homosexuality breaks 7 of the 10 commandments. If Feo was the Christian he says he is, he would not support anything homosexuals support.

Neil said...

Ugh. Made the mistake of scanning the comment thread there. Saw my old buddy Alan trotting out one silly sound bite after another, including labeling others as hypocrites.

Let's see, isn't Alan the guy who goes to Christian blogs -- including conservative ones -- posing as an orthodox Christian who just happens to have seen what the Bible "really" says and has a "husband?" But wait -- on Alan's own blog he had bragged about gay camping with his "husband" and the fluid sleeping arrangements, tubes of lube on the picnic tables, and dozens of naked gay guys in a pool checking out each other's equipment. I outed him on that on the (now defunct) Wesley Blog and he tried to dodge it by saying not to believe everything you read on the Internet. I don't believe everything on the Internet, of course, but I did believe what he wrote about himself on his own blog. Maybe he'd like to share the original with all of us?

So yeah, he's really orthodox. As if you would take anyone seriously if they claimed to be orthodox Christians but were wife-swappers and hung out naked with the opposite sex.

I realize he's an easy target but that's the kind of fakery you get on this topic. He and Dan are both channeling Satan, just in their own ways.

Neil said...

Dan deleted your comments?! Oh, the humanity! He literally contacted my pastor when I banned him from my blog. So I guess you need to contact Dan's pastor to get him to reinstate your comments.

Feodor said...

It is heartening to me that - after many object lessons - Mark has learned that he cannot make an argument, so he only can cast aspersions.

Mark, I am only half the Christian I want to be; leaving you about 75% from the goal. Keep climbing, buddy!

Marshall Art said...

Well, well. No surprise that feo immediately goes with a deceitfully inappropriate comparison. TWO actually. The first, that being a Jew (and later he does the same with being black) is akin to engaging in homosexual behavior. No one is seeking to punish anyone for BEING a homosexual (being one is punishment enough). This leads to the second inane comparison, which that those of us who recognize this incredibly vast difference, are akin to Nazis.

He's right about one thing:

"We're not immoral like Nazi Germany."

This is true. The Nazis only tolerated on type of homosexual, as they existed within their own ranks. But our nation tolerates all sorts of immorality these days, and to be homosexual is seen by way too many as even heroic.

In his next comment, feo tries to make a case that I am wrong regarding the state's disregard for the feelings between the two seeking a marriage license.

"In this country no one can legally be coerced to marry."

I made no such implication. I was speaking to definitions and, more specifically, whether or not the state has any interest in whether or not two seeking license love each other. Two need not love each other in order to commit to each other. Despite what the average list of vows might include, there is no requirement of love in obtaining a license to marry. It has no bearing on why the state sanctions marriage.

The difference between the past and the present as regards to why the state sanctions marriage is a list of insignificance (as regards that "why"). Racial issues or those concerning age, consent, wealth acquisition do not enter into the equation. They also have no bearing on the one constant throughout it all: one man unites with one woman.

And these days, one cannot say with absolute certainty that it is love that brings two people together. Lust yes. But love? In too many cases couples marry with minimal knowledge of each other, knowledge extensive enough to drastically reduce the chance of separation. Courtships are brief, focusing on the sexual rather than on whether or not the two are truly compatible. I submit that this high on the list of reasons explaining the current divorce rate. What's more, true love, especially as regards true Christian understanding, would not lead to entering into a blatantly sinful relationship that SSM is.

God is indeed love. But He isn't love as defined by people like feo and the activist/enabler population.

So as to feo's last unChristian comment to Mark, his being 100% of the Christian he wants to be, as illustrated by his many comments over the years, doesn't begin to come close to being the Christian he should be.

Feodor said...

"No one is seeking to punish anyone for BEING a homosexual..."

You want to keep laws that enforce abridgment of rights. In this country one has to prove a basis for limiting rights to any person or a group. You cannot do that except by appealing to traditional religion. That's not constitutional.

"The Nazis only tolerated on type of homosexual..." You clearly do not know the history of the Third Reich. Around 50,000 gay men were imprisoned in concentration camps. Over half were murdered. In the post-war years, the surviving were re-arrested based on Nazi war files. The laws which allowed their arrest on the basis of homosexuality remained valid until 1969. A decade or so, the German government issued a formal apology.
___________________

Then you get all hinky in the way you do when you know you've been caught - and not ever having the guts to admit it in front of you man-crush Simp - you start playing around with what you said:

"To them, it is only a union of two people who love each other. But legally, the feelings of the two being married were not of consequence..."

But in doing so, you want to rest your case on what i previously addressed: commitment. The State is very concerned that both have committed themselves to each other (which is fundamentally what everyone means by "two people who love each other and are committed to each other" but you want to split hairs as an effort to find room to escape).

It is this concern by the State with volition that is absolutely new in human history and not universal even now. It is this State concern with volition on the part of both parties that has made marriage between a man and a women entirely different in the couple of centuries from the tens of thousands before.

You claim marriage always should remain the same as it was. But you're 200 years too late. Marriage is utterly changed in post-Enlightenment and Industrialized democratic countries than at any time in history or anywhere else in the world.

That change was made to respect and protect individual rights. In the beginning it was an effort to fight abuse of women and to give them full and equal rights - rights which had been denied them since the dawn of recorded history. Now, the same thinking applies quite naturally and appropriately in our democratic, rights-based nation of laws.

Your appeal to history is the very undoing of your argument - and actually argues for the moral opposition.
___________

The fourth thing you got wrong is simple but glaring. I said I was half the Christian I wanted to be. Which you read as 100%. That's not how math works, Marshall.

Simple math, historical literacy, constitutional rights. You pile up strike after strike after strike.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

There is no “abridgement of rights” for homosexuals. They have every right as normal people do. What they want are special rights for sexual behavior to be sanctioned, as well as forcing everyone to affirm such behavior or else be punished.

The Nazis did not kill homosexuals who were part of the organization.

For all the claims of homosexualists like you, marriage still has a real definition, and that is the union of opposite-sex people. You can all perverse unions “marriage” but that doesn’t make them so any more than calling a dandelion a rose makes it a rose.

You are no more a Christian than Richard Dawkins.

Feodor said...

Glenn, among the things of which I am proud is that I am not the kind of Christian who makes atheists like Richard Dawkins, who said, "“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”

People like you, Glenn, are his best argument.

Jim said...

"homosexualists"

Oh, I LOVE it!

Marshall Art said...

feo,

There are no rights that have been abridged. There are only fictitious rights invented by a tiny minority who believes they are entitled to that which they demand. In this country, one has to prove they have been denied rights in order to demand their entitlement to them. Homosexuals have not been denied any rights afforded to anyone, especially considering marriage is not a right enumerated anywhere in our Constitution. Instead, they insist marriage is defined in a manner it never has before anywhere in the world or anytime in its history until only recently, and never in this country. So you presume anyone has, not only a right to their own definitions, but the right to impose that definition on the rest of the nation. Who's infringing on whom? That's not only unConstitutional, it's childish, selfish and irrational.

It is you who clearly does not know the history of the Third Reich.

So typical of you to degenerate into more jealous rage against Neil. And according to Geoffrey, my man-crush is for him. (Maybe the two will fight over little ol' me.) But I haven't been "playing around" with anything I've said, and instead have been steadfastly consistent. The question has always been, and certainly has been with Dan, "why shouldn't any two people who love each other and committed to each other be allowed to marry?" They can do whatever twisted notion of love and marriage they have in mind dictates. But why the state should condone, recognize, sanction or license it is another matter. And no...love and commitment aren't the same thing and commitment doesn't require love. The state isn't concerned with love, but only that two of the opposite sex have decided to commit to each other. THAT is what is being sanctioned...the commitment...not love. As such, there is nothing from which I need or desire to escape.

more...

Marshall Art said...


"It is this concern by the State with volition that is absolutely new in human history and not universal even now."

I don't think you can support this. Throughout history, going way back, marriage was based on vows taken between two parties. Even in arranged marriages, both parties would take the vows, demonstrating volition, and the commitment was thus stated. What's more, I've not been saying that marriage should always stay the same, though I do believe it should, but that marriage has, despite very minor variations, always been defined as between one man and one woman. This has been true when marriages were arranged, when men married more than one woman (each time the union was one man and one woman, with the man uniting several times, each time with one woman), and when restrictions were in place based on race. It has ALWAYS been one man and one woman. There is no compelling reason to change this arrangement and none exists that provides legitimate benefit to the state.

Therefore, my appeal to history supports my position profoundly. Nothing that regards the variances in the history of marriage has impacted in the least that one defining aspect: one man united with one woman. More importantly, nothing in the history of marriage supports a redefinition toward the inclusion of same-sex pairings. Absolutely nothing.

Then, as if you weren't satisfied with embarrassing yourself, you add this:

"I said I was half the Christian I wanted to be. Which you read as 100%."

Not at all. My point was that if you were 100% of the Christian you wanted to be, you'd still be a long way from being the Christian you should be.

"Simple math, historical literacy, constitutional rights. You pile up strike after strike after strike."

Obviously, you've never played baseball. On every point I hit a frozen rope over the center field wall. Not understand the world, feo? We well understand that you are of this world. We're merely in it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feodor,

The worst kind of "Christians" are those like you who compromise with the World. You make a god of your own choosing - one who celebrates sin.

You are a blasphemer, just like Trabue.

Jim said...

This has been true when marriages were arranged, when men married more than one woman (each time the union was one man and one woman, with the man uniting several times, each time with one woman)

OMG! This logic is more bizarre than a Glenn Beck conspiracy. So much for the slippery slope argument.

Feodor said...

"There are no rights that have been abridged.... especially considering marriage is not a right enumerated anywhere in our Constitution."

Marriage is an institution that bestows rights and benefits on the partners. These rights and benefits are encoded in, oh, only about 1,000 pieces of legislation.

Further, in Loving v. Virginia, the Virginia trial judge upheld the state law against miscegenation with these words, " Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

This law of segregation was struck down unanimously by the Supreme Court on the basis that laws of segregation unconstitutionally deprive persons of liberty.

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Marshall takes strike one.
_______________

"So you presume anyone has, not only a right to their own definitions, but the right to impose that definition on the rest of the nation."

Yes. "Decades of legal fighting in England established the legal principles governing marriage as we know it today. Acts passed in 1857, 1870 and 1882 gradually expanded women’s rights in marriage, so that eventually wives could own property and retain their own legal status. Crucially, divorce became possible."

Marshall takes strike two.
______________

"So typical of you to degenerate into more jealous rage against Neil. And according to Geoffrey, my man-crush is for him."

It was not disparagement toward the Simp, Marshall. Since you cannot read, I'll make it plain: it was towards you. And I think you're fully capable - as are we all - of having more than one man crush.

Marshall takes strike three and four.
_______________

But why the state should condone, recognize, sanction or license it is another matter.
“Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Marshall takes strike five.

Feodor said...

“Throughout history, going way back, marriage was based on vows taken between two parties…”

For five or six centuries, maybe longer, then, marriage had nothing to do with freedom of choice, with the participants’ personal feelings, or with state-sponsored legal status. Marriage functioned mainly for the purposes of adjusting social groups and producing legitimate heirs to property.
From the medieval era through the seventeenth century, marriage was a lifelong alliance between extended families. As a result, the elders decided on marriages, often without the children’s acquiescence or even knowledge beforehand.

John Donne eloped with Anne More in 1601, a scandal that ruined his career and caused him to be put in prison, from which he wrote one of his very shortest poems: “John Donne, Anne Donne, Undone.”

In eighteenth century England, according to Frances Power Cobbe:

“By the common law of England, a married woman has not legal existence, so far as property is concerned, independently of her husband. The husband and wife are assumed to be one person, and that person is the husband. The wife can make no contract, and can neither sue nor be sued. Whatever she possess of personal property at the time of her marriage, or whatever she may afterwards earn or inherit, belongs to her husband, without control on her part. If she possesses real estate, so long as her husband lives he receives and spends the income derived from it, being only forbidden to sell it without her consent. From none of her property is he bound to reserve anything, or make any provision for her maintenance or that of her children.”

Marshall takes strike six.
_________

“… but that marriage has, despite very minor variations, always been defined as between one man and one woman.”

Jim throws strike seven.
___________

“There is no compelling reason to change this arrangement and none exists that provides legitimate benefit to the state.”

"Thus in England, the basic conditions of modern marriage arrived by the end of the nineteenth century, and the twentieth century is the first time that these supposedly ‘traditional’ arrangements could occur. A real traditional marriage would mean that people (especially women) of most classes would have no say in whom they would marry, and no power once they did. Modern marriage – romantic marriage – is far more humane. And romantic marriage depends on one motive: love. As Alex Pareene wrote in Salon recently, “gay marriage supports the modern notion that marriage is a thing two people who love each other do.”

Talia Schaffer

Marshall takes strike eight.
________

Now: “My point was that if you were 100% of the Christian you wanted to be…”

Then: “So as to feo's last unChristian comment to Mark, his being 100% of the Christian he wants to be…”

You threw yourself strike nine.

Side’s out – undone by your own self.

Feodor said...

Glenn, you don't have a living thought in that mush of a head of yours. Only anger, hate; picayune judgment from a picayune soul.

I'm eternally grateful to God not have had your fate in life.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

You really should bone up on the rules of baseball in order to understand what a "strike" is. It requires the ball to cross homeplate, not struck by the bat when the bat is swung by the batter, or when struck by the batter, hit into foul territory. Any of these scenarios results in a strike call. Your pitches don't even reach the plate, rolling to a stop in the dirt well before it. Let's review your girly throws:

"Marriage is an institution that bestows rights and benefits on the partners."

But marriage itself is not a right. This is the issue: Is it a right denied anyone? No. It is an institution or state of being that is defined in a particular way. It is defined by the criteria set to determine that definition. Two people of opposite gender, of a certain age and not closely related to each other. If you desire to marry includes factors that do not match this criteria, no license is issued and no state sanctioning is obtained.

"This law of segregation was struck down unanimously by the Supreme Court on the basis that laws of segregation unconstitutionally deprive persons of liberty."

Again, you foolishly attempt to equate behavior with race. The difference between people with different skin color is akin to the difference between people with different hair color. Or between tall people and short people. All are irrelevant to the question of marriage and its long held definition of one man/one woman.

Ball one.
______________________________________

"Yes. "Decades of legal fighting in England established the legal principles governing marriage..."

We're not talking about the principles governing marriage. We're talking about the definition of marriage and who qualifies for marriage based on that definition. None of the changes in principles governing marriage altered in any way the definition of what a marriage is.

Ball two.
______________________________________

"It was not disparagement toward the Simp, Marshall."

Use of the term, "the Simp", is disparaging.

Home run.
--------------------------------------
I don't have a "man-crush" on anyone.

Home run. (Back-to-back homers.)
______________________________________

"“Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.""

Again, race is not a behavior. It is not a disordered attraction for a man and woman of different races to be sexually attracted to each other, any more than it is for a man and woman with different hair color to be attracted to each other. Still man and woman.

Ball one.

Marshall Art said...

"For five or six centuries, maybe longer, then, marriage had nothing to do with freedom of choice..."

Aside from the fact that this doesn't truly provide a response to the statement of mine to which it is attached, there is still volition if one wishes to be technical, in that the "unwilling" participant can choose to rebel against the wishes of those who arranged the marriage despite the consequences of doing so. Rather, the unwilling decided to avoid those consequences by going through with the marriage. Not so much a stretch to one who understands English. But still, none of this counters the basic truth that it has always been a pact between one man and one woman. None of what you desperately submit as examples of changes in marital relations alters the one point in contention, which is in regards to the gender of the two being married.

Ball two.
______________________________________

"Jim throws strike seven."

Jim's not even in the game. Where in history have we seen a polygamous marriage that said the multiple women to which one man was married were also married to each other? Never. In every case, the man was married to one woman each time, despite the fact that his previous marriages still existed. The point being that in each case, it was one man married to one woman. I do not believe, and no one has ever shown it to be the case, that any of the women in such marriages took vows with any of the other women, but only with the man.

No ball or strike, but only an idiot (Jim) running on the field after falling over the wall.
______________________________________

""Thus in England, the basic conditions of modern marriage arrived by the end of the nineteenth century, and the twentieth century is the first time that these supposedly ‘traditional’ arrangements could occur."

I know of no supporter of "traditional marriage" that has ever meant anything more by the expression than the criteria of one man and one woman. Talia Schaffer does not get to decide what we mean by the terms we use. Honest people of character simply ask, "What do you mean?"

She is also foolish on the concept of romantic marriage. Romantic marriage is superficial and once the romance goes out of marriage, the marriage ends in divorce. Far more than romance is required for a marriage to succeed and the love that sustains one rises above the superficial aspects of romance and lust.

Not sure if this even really rises to the qualification of Ball 3.
______________________________________

"You threw yourself strike nine."

Here's where you show your lack of character and honesty. You still don't grasp my very plain explanation, so you pretend I've swung and missed. But the fact is that it's another frozen rope over your head and the center field wall. What you consider 100% Christian is still you worshiping a god of your own making. Not only is my side still at bat, but the line is moving without one out having been registered. You can't hope to get out of the inning pitching as you do.

Feodor said...

"But marriage itself is not a right."

A UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT judgment in Loving v. Virginia:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'..."

I gotta stop right there, Marshall, and demand that you move to T-ball because you're not going hit anything that's moving. That's why it's seemed so unfair I guess. We haven't been playing at your level.

Jim said...

Jim's not even in the game. Where in history have we seen a polygamous marriage that said the multiple women to which one man was married were also married to each other? Never. In every case, the man was married to one woman each time, despite the fact that his previous marriages still existed. The point being that in each case, it was one man married to one woman.

This is the biggest bunch of nonsense, and you have totally invalidated your entire argument.

You conflate a wedding/ceremony with a marriage. Or are you somehow thinking that a marriage does not exist continuously from the wedding day until death or divorce?

Or are you saying that ONE MAN can have multiple, co-existing marriages, and that's fine?

If he has sex with more than one woman, isn't that aberrant behavior? Why is it less abhorrent than the penis/anus thing you keep obsessing on?

I do not believe, and no one has ever shown it to be the case, that any of the women in such marriages took vows with any of the other women, but only with the man.

Now you are just running around the bases backwards.

BTW, who said you could get married?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
There are no strikes against Marshall in your litany.

The problem is that marriage has a definition and it has always been the union of opposite-sex people. Therefore, if there is a right to marry, it is a right based on that definition.

The problem with homosexualists like you is that you want to first redefine marriage and then claim under your definition rights are being violated. A dandelion can not claim to be a rose and then demand to be treated like a rose.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

So it is anger and hate to speak the truth? Typical victimology by liberals such as you.

You have no clue and you have demonstrated that you, like Trabue, worship a false god.

Jim said...

The problem is that marriage has a definition and it has always been the union of opposite-sex people.

Marriage is a legal institution. I would love for you to show us the legal "definition" of marriage when you got married. Did it say something about "opposite-sex people"? I doubt it.

Feodor said...

I believe that the church is the bride of Christ. How about you, Glenn?

Timothy J. Hammons said...

Hi Marshall,
Great post and courage especially when it comes to bothering with Dan T. I can't stand the shifting sands of his arguments.
Blessings

Marshall Art said...

Thank you, Timothy. I don't recall if you've ever visited here before, so if not, welcome. I enjoy your comments I've read elsewhere. Excuse the mess. I've attracted some unusual visitors.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Let me clear things up for you. A bigamist is married to two women. Each marriage is an individual set of vows between him and one woman. Get it? One man/one woman. Does this help? I've never attempted any comment in relation to connecting a wedding to a marriage. They are different things.

"Or are you saying that ONE MAN can have multiple, co-existing marriages, and that's fine?"

Not even close. I'm saying that in cases where one man had multiple marriages, each was a case of one man uniting with one woman. The overriding point of bringing up polygamous marriages was to highlight the one man/one woman nature of each union in which the man took vows. Perhaps it would be easier if you took the woman's perspective and see that each woman united with one man and not the other women he married. Does THAT help?

"If he has sex with more than one woman, isn't that aberrant behavior?"

No. It's immoral behavior. But then, we're not to ram our morality down the throats of others, are we? But aberrant? Hardly. It is typical of the average male who is lacking a sense of morals, character, virtue, etc.

"Why is it less abhorrent than the penis/anus thing you keep obsessing on?"

This is funny. You, like all other pro-homosex agenda types, like to pretend it's people like me who are obsessing on such things. But it isn't our side who is trying to convince the rest of the world that this abnormality is normal, that this immorality is morally equal to heterosexual behavior. THAT'S what obsessing looks like. I'm obsessed with preventing this lie from being taken as truth by the culture.

"Now you are just running around the bases backwards."

I cover the bases in all directions in response to your pretending all the bases need not be covered at all.

"BTW, who said you could get married?"

Here's the point. I didn't need anyone's permission (aside from my lovely wife) and neither does anyone else. It isn't about permission, is it, Jim? It's about state recognition for which I qualified.

"Marriage is a legal institution. I would love for you to show us the legal "definition" of marriage when you got married. Did it say something about "opposite-sex people"? I doubt it."

It didn't need to, because throughout human history, the word was defined that way. Indeed, the institution existed before any government and law has merely reflected the reality that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

Marshall Art said...

We've got over 30 comments and no one has attempted to answer the question of "where's the harm of NOT legalizing SSSM?" I wonder why.

Jim said...

I wonder why.

Because it's a inane question. What's the harm in not allowing you to avail yourself of the tax benefits of marriage?

because throughout human history, the word was defined that way.

That's clearly untrue. I challenge you to find such definition in the Code of Hammurabi, the Ten Commandments, or the Magna Carta. In fact same sex marriage was known in the Zhou Dynasty period in China as well as the early Roman Empire. Emperor Nero was married to two men. Emperor Elagabalus also married another man in a public ceremony. A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.

each woman united with one man and not the other women he married.

This is mumbo jumbo. You are trying so hard to say that polygamy meets the requirement of "one man, one woman" and it's simply absurd. Ask any state that "defines" marriage as "one man and one woman" if your definition meets their requirements.

Furthermore, as I said earlier, your acceptance of polygamy as meeting one man, one woman rules complete nullifies the slippery slope argument that is so key to the anti-SSM argument.

It's about state recognition

Indeed it is.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

There are thousands of tax benefits to which I am not entitled for one reason or another, mostly a result of simply not qualifying for them. Your question suggests some discrimination. Well, you'd be right. Just not in the manner that you would have us believe is compelling in the case of SSM.

"That's clearly untrue."

It's absolutely true. You couldn't hope to find enough examples to contradict it. What you've presented are anomalies that in most cases (though likely all) were not accepted by the cultures in which they took place as equal to and/or parallels of the one man/one woman arrangement. You certainly cannot take the actions of twisted despots like Nero as an example of overall cultural acceptance. Unless of course you're in the bag for abnormal and sinful behavior.

"You are trying so hard to say that polygamy meets the requirement of "one man, one woman" and it's simply absurd."

Not at all. I'm saying that at it's most basic level, it is a one man/one woman arrangement. While it fails to meet the criteria of each spouse not being married to another, it satisfies the one man/one woman aspect each time the one man unites with one other woman. The point is that it is one man/one woman, and not one man/several women married to each other as well. Don't get lost in the polygamy, but focus on what is actually going on each time such a man takes another wife.

At the same time, I don't accept it because it does entail marrying a woman though one is still married to a different woman. That's adulterous. But the arguments used to push SSM allows for multiple partner marriages, so the slippery slope argument is more than an argument. It is what will and must happen.

"Indeed it is"

Yes. It is about state recognition and I qualify. Homosexuals don't, nor do they have a compelling argument that they should.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo:I believe that the church is the bride if Christ. How about you, Glenn?

I KNOW the church is the bride of Christ.

Trouble is, your Christ is a made up Christ, sort of like the Christ of the LDS. You make up a Christ who approves of sin - and that ain't the Christ of the Bible!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Same-sex fake marriage isn't so much about state recognition as it is about forcing the rest of us to affirm them in a behavior they truly know is perverse and abhorrent to God. But they want to justify themselves and demand affirmation. By getting state sanction, they force us to affirm them or be punished. That is the goal, as well as the idea of destroying the institution of marriage all together.

Jim said...

it satisfies the one man/one woman aspect each time the one man unites with one other woman.

You can dance around with this one all you want, but it's just pretzel logic.

You are conflating the ritual of marriage with the continued state of marriage and trying to justify the latter by calling it the former.

And this women not being married to one another is just blowing smoke.

There are thousands of tax benefits to which I am not entitled for one reason or another

But none having to do with your gender or that of your spouse.

But the arguments used to push SSM allows for multiple partner marriages

No. it does not.

You and your friends have yet to provide any legal language existing prior to the last couple of decades that "defined" marriage as one man, one woman. What was the legal "definition" when you married?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim asking for legal language to define marriage in the past is like asking for legal language to define a circle in the past. They want to redefine marriage from its traditional definition and give it a new legal definition. They will soon want to do the same with "circle" and include a square in the definition.

Feodor said...

Glenn earlier: "The problem is that marriage has a definition and it has always been the union of opposite-sex people."

Glenn later: "I KNOW the church is the bride of Christ."


Glenn forgot what he said in between: "A dandelion can not claim to be a rose and then demand to be treated like a rose."

Feodor said...

Marshall: "We've got over 30 comments and no one has attempted to answer the question of where's the harm of NOT legalizing SSSM? I wonder why."


You wonder because you do not rea... - sorry, I keep forgetting - you cannot read for content.

That answers are all above for you, Marshall. And you only have to be a middlin' reader to get it. So, I'll take out all the confusing words and context that so overwhelms you:

1) Marriage is a basic human right (as the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed).

2) There is unceasing harm for a society that denies human rights to the public or any portion of the public.

3) It is undeniably healthier in the long term when basic human rights are exercised within society in love.

Jim said...

Jim asking for legal language to define marriage in the past is like asking for legal language to define a circle in the past.

Uh...no. The circle has been specifically defined since the ancient Greeks.

You're running out of absurd arguments. Then again, probably not.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

And marriage was defined by God at the beginning of Creation.

Jim said...

And marriage was defined by God at the beginning of Creation.

At the beginning? Uh...no. He didn't even make man and woman until the sixth day. He told them to be fruitful and multiply, but he didn't write down any rules for who gets tax benefits and who doesn't or anything else about a ceremony or who gets to partake of it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo said:

Glenn earlier: "The problem is that marriage has a definition and it has always been the union of opposite-sex people."

Glenn later: "I KNOW the church is the bride of Christ."


Glenn forgot what he said in between: "A dandelion can not claim to be a rose and then demand to be treated like a rose."


Could you please explain your point?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

So the sixth day isn't part of the beginning? Part of the creation week? And since God already knows the end from the beginning (having created time, he is outside of it), he did indeed define marriage at the beginning. On day six he first created Adam, and then created Eve and brought her to him and said the reason for it, which defined marriage. One man and one woman. He didn't make Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve.

Jim said...

I believe at the time there WAS only one man and one woman. So there were no alternatives. No Steve, no Madame. Who knows what would have happened if there had been?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"You can dance around with this one all you want, but it's just pretzel logic."

No dancing required nor done, except by you. You dance around the point that the polygamous unions are unions of one man and one wife. But I'll make it easier for you...it's not a union between any of the women that the one man married. Get it yet?

"You are conflating the ritual of marriage with the continued state of marriage and trying to justify the latter by calling it the former."

In your mind, perhaps. But it's not happening in any comment I've posted. I've been speaking solely of the institution of marriage which has always been recognized as being a union between one man and one woman. I speak of the ritual only in referring to the vows taken and by whom. The institution, the state, the ritual of marriage...all that matters is what marriage is. It is not simply the union of any two or more people who commit to each other.

"But none having to do with your gender or that of your spouse."

Actually, this is not true. Businesses owned by women get federal contracts, grants and loans, and there are tax incentives for using women owned businesses. But even aside from that, you suppose that reasons not related to gender are not as significant to those who who are denied those benefits. Nice guy.

"But the arguments used to push SSM allows for multiple partner marriages

No. it does not."


Yes. It does indeed and the arguments are already in use for that purpose. Pay attention.

"You and your friends have yet to provide any legal language existing prior to the last couple of decades that "defined" marriage as one man, one woman. What was the legal "definition" when you married?"

I could point to states that have instituted a definition in their state constitutions, but due to the whining of activists, these are now up for grabs as the SCOTUS deliberates. But we aren't speaking of legal definitions, but the definition that has been in place since long before governments got involved in marriage. As Glenn suggests in a recent comment, there has been no need for government to list a definition within any already existing law since the definition was always understood to be one man/one woman. To pretend otherwise is simply lying, which is par for the course with activists and their enablers.

And now I await Jim's research proving that the ancient Greeks had a definition of a circle codified in their law. I can't imagine the purpose of them doing so. His comments since that just get more idiotic.

Marshall Art said...

"I believe that the church is the bride of Christ. How about you, Glenn?"

Apparently feo isn't hip to metaphors. This one merely illustrates the relationship between Christ and His church. One would think even a false priest would understand this and not attempt to use it to support heretical notions of human sexuality, but then again...

"1) Marriage is a basic human right (as the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed)."

And marriage has always been understood to be a union between a man and a woman. Meet that criteria and there are no issues.

"2) There is unceasing harm for a society that denies human rights to the public or any portion of the public."

Fortunately there is no denial as regards marriage where the traditional definition is still in place. It applies equally to everyone. Your side is demanding something else. However, saying there is harm is far different than demonstrating that any harm exists.

"3) It is undeniably healthier in the long term when basic human rights are exercised within society in love."

Not at all sure even YOU know what you mean by this, but I doubt you could demonstrate any affect on health one way or the other. However, we're not talking about anyone being denied something at all. We're talking about one tiny group of people insisting that they be given recognition for something that is different. The union of two of the same gender is not a marriage.

Feodor said...

That's a very interesting thought, Marshall. Scripture as metaphor. "The church is the bride of Christ" is metaphor.

So the six days of creation are probably metaphor.

Making Eve out of Adam's rib is probably a metaphor.

The poetry of Genesis 1 is most likely a metaphor, too.

I like it. I wonder if Glenn will.

One thing scripture is clear on, though: because of the one man and the one woman, sin entered into the world.
____________

Rights cannot be separated from the individual in whom they are invested and whom they serve, Marshall.

Either an individual has the right to choose whom to marry or they are denied basic human rights.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

Please try to deal in honesty, just for a change. I want to see what it looks like when you do.

I wasn't referring to all of Scripture as metaphor and nothing in my comments suggests any such thing. I'm saying the claim that the church is the bride of Christ is a metaphor.

"One thing scripture is clear on, though: because of the one man and the one woman, sin entered into the world."

Here's another: a man lying with a male as with a female is an abomination to God.

Here's another: nothing in Scripture provides a context where that is not true. Only the morally corrupt pretend there is.

"Rights cannot be separated from the individual in whom they are invested and whom they serve, Marshall."

I would wager that there is much you could tell me that I don't already know. Someday you might want to give it a try.

"Either an individual has the right to choose whom to marry or they are denied basic human rights."

That right has not been at issue. What has been at issue is how that right is defined. The immoral among us demand a new definition of marriage, as they demand a new definition of good and evil or that such a distinction even exists.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
You are being intentionally obtuse.

We know what would happen. God destroyed the earth in a great flood because of all the evil, and Jewish tradition says sexual immorality was a major part of that evil.

God later told his opinion of sexual immorality, including the fact that homosexual behavior is an abomination in His sight. In the same passage in which He condemned homosexuality he also condemned adultery, incest, and bestiality. He also told them to not have many wives - meaning He wasn't keen on polygamy either.

So, from the very git-go, God's plan was one man for one woman. But you can't acknowledge that because then you'd have to accept that what you condone is rebellion to God.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I just want to point out that the homosexual activists from the very beginning of the debate years ago, have said over and over that getting fake marriage isn't really the issue. And we have a recent example:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/lesbian-activists-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
You don't seem to understand genre. The picture of the Church being the Bride of Christ so as to compare it with marriage is nothing but an analogy to explain there seriousness of BOTH relationships. God did the same when he called Israel His bride. God/Israel and Christ/Church are spiritual relationships analogous to marriage in how each should respond in the relationships. Just as a wife can commit physical adultery against her husband by having relations with another man, so Israel committed spiritual adultery by worshiping other gods. This is really elementary theology.

Genesis as a book is in the genre of history - it is literal in its description of the creation.

To have rights to anything, one must be qualified for whatever the rights entail. To be qualified for marriage, one must marry a member of the opposite sex. EVERYONE has the right to do that.

Jim said...

.it's not a union between any of the women that the one man married. Get it yet?

Sure, I got it the first time. But it's an absurd argument, irrelevant, and beside the point. Nobody cares about the state of marriage among a man's multiple wives. It is simply meaningless as far as the subject is concerned. Get it yet?

definition was always understood to be one man/one woman

Have you read your Bible? If I'm not mistaken, King David, for example, had many wives. Abraham had several.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The point is, Jim, that even with multiple wives (which was not approved of by God, by the way), it was still heterosexual.

Does God approve of polygamy?
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2009/07/gods-view-of-polygamy.html

Jim said...

The point is, Glenn, that the US is a secular country with secular laws. God has nothing to do with it. Churches can define marriage any way they want to and perform marriages accordingly. But they can't define marriage for legal purposes. It's not constitutional.

Not everyone believes in our God or our Bible, certainly not in your interpretation of it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim, YOU brought in the Bible with polygamy - I didn't

The point is, that marriage has been defined historically as between members of the opposite sex. You now want to give it a new definition and then call it a right.

Marshall Art said...

"Sure, I got it the first time. But it's an absurd argument, irrelevant, and beside the point."

It's absolutely relevant, Jim. The polygamy ploy is used often in the weak attempt to re-define marriage. The argument is that marriage hasn't always been between merely one man and one woman and polygamous marriages throughout history prove it. But it doesn't. Polygamy wasn't ever universally accepted, but even where it was, it was actually multiple one man/one woman arrangements with the same man marrying more than once. You guys can't just pick and choose when polygamy is relevant to the discussion.

"Have you read your Bible? If I'm not mistaken, King David, for example, had many wives. Abraham had several."

I don't just read it, Jim. I study it. If you would, you'd learn that God tolerated all sorts of things in the Old Testament. It doesn't mean He endorsed them, sanctioned them or blessed them.

As to who gets to define "marriage", I fail to see how so few people and their enablers can justifiably do so. How is THAT Constitutional?

Jim said...

God tolerated all sorts of things

Why can't you?

Jim said...

The point is, that marriage has been defined historically as between members of the opposite sex.

Where?

Feodor said...

"God/Israel and Christ/Church are spiritual relationships analogous to marriage in how each should respond in the relationships."

I have always loved this spiritual analogy, Glenn, and have used it as a guiding light in my marriage.

The amazing thing is, I see the same Christian witness in the spirit-filled marriage of my cousin and his husband: real sacramental significance in their holy bond. God speaks through their relationship, by virtue of their commitment of love, and so they are a true analogy of God's love for the church.

They live out what you proclaim.

Feodor said...

Your verse on a man not touching another man, Marshall? How far away is that from the verse about not touching a pig? Or a lobster?

Feodor said...

Or a menstruating women?

Or who you can and cannot give your daughter to whether she wants to go or not?

Marshall Art said...

"God tolerated all sorts of things

Why can't you?"


You're here, aren't you?

But as you know, since you read the Bible, we are not to yoke ourselves to unbelievers. We are too flee from sexual immorality. We are to cast out the unrepentant.

What God does and mandates we do is not the same.

"The point is, that marriage has been defined historically as between members of the opposite sex.

Where?"


In the vast majority of everything written or said about it throughout the course of human history. Try a little honesty.

Marshall Art said...

"The amazing thing is, I see the same Christian witness in the spirit-filled marriage of my cousin and his husband:"

So you see Christian witness in a union based on behavior God has called an abomination? Not surprising at all. That's not God speaking through that relationship. That's you pretending God is speaking through that relationship.

"They live out what you proclaim."

True enough. They are living out sinfulness and open rebellion against God.

"Your verse on a man not touching another man, Marshall? How far away is that from the verse about not touching a pig? Or a lobster?"

You mean sexually? Really close.

But certainly you are trying to conflate what is and abomination to God with what God encouraged the Hebrews to regard as abomination to them. Doesn't work.

You can try all you want to dishonestly confuse purity, ritualistic and dietary laws with laws regarding behavior, but it's a losing proposition on your part.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim's comment as follows

God tolerated all sorts of things

Why can't you?
==============
This from a person who promotes and supports the most intolerant people - homosexuals and their promoters. They will never tolerate Christians who won't affirm them, and will sue them, fire them, fine them - whatever it takes to punish them for not giving sanction to homosexuality.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim's comment

The point is, that marriage has been defined historically as between members of the opposite sex.

Where?
===========

You are in such denial and lying to yourself. Where? The same place a circle or a square have had historical definitions.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feodor,
A homosexual union can never be analogous to Christ and the Church. There has to be a husband and a wife - not two husbands or two wives. Not only that, It is an abomination to God, and a sinful lifestyle can never be analogous to that which God sanctions.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo asks,
Your verse on a man not touching another man, Marshall? How far away is that from the verse about not touching a pig? Or a lobster?

Homosexualists never tire of trying this canard. It isn't the "distance" from one passage to another - it is the context. Try looking at the context of the passage about homosexual behavior:

http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/bible-and-homosexual-behavior.html

You will find the context is not the same as ceremonial laws for eating. While the context about homosexual behavior is for all people for all time, the context about the food has to do with Israel and Israel only - as a way of separating them from the rest of the world as a holy people unto God.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I guess Feo wasn't finished, as the next e-mail I got had this comment:
Or a menstruating women?

Or who you can and cannot give your daughter to whether she wants to go or not?


CONTEXT!! It would be nice if you could understand what you read. Or do you bother reading it and instead just keep posting homosexual soundbites?

Jim said...

The same place a circle or a square have had historical definitions.

Did Euclid define marriage?

They will never tolerate Christians who won't affirm them, and will sue them, fire them, fine them - whatever it takes to punish them for not giving sanction to homosexuality.

If you provide a service to the public, you provide a service to ALL the public. That's the law. You don't have to sanction anything. Just do your job and let God be the judge.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
So no one knew what a circle was before Euclid?

Jim,
The florist who didn't want to participate in a fake wedding routinely did business with professed homosexuals. She had no problem doing business with them because what they did in their private lives had no bearing on her business with them. BUT, then they wanted her to provide arrangements for their "wedding" and that would force her to give approval. She declined. It was the EVENT she refused to participate in - she was not discriminating against the people.

The job of providing floral services for a wedding ceremony, however, is different than simply selling flowers to a customer because it involves going to the location, creating arrangements, and generally being part of the event.

Just like the photographer who had a whole list of things she would not agree to photograph, all dealing with immorality of some sort. She declined to do a fake wedding and got sued. No one else could sue her for refusing to participate in their immorality, but homosexuals with special rights to force sanctioning of their immorality were able to sue.

We should have the right to refuse service based on the behavior of the individual requesting service. We should have the right to refuse to provide service for events which we find objectionable. And in every state about which I'm aware of such laws, we do indeed have these rights - unless a homosexual is involved and their special rights trump our rights!

Homosexuals are now more "equal" than any one else. It's "Animal Farm" come true.

Jim said...

She had no problem doing business with them because what they did in their private lives had no bearing on her business with them.

This entire paragraph is a contradiction. No problem with their private lives, but then there is a problem with their private lives.

Huh?

force her to give approval

How so? Was the florist required to give away the groom? Bless the couple?

What if the couple was heterosexual but of mixed race and the florist did not approve of mixed-race marriages?

generally being part of the event

This is a really flimsy excuse. I've been to a lot of weddings. I used to play in a band that performed at weddings. In my experience, the florist brought the flowers and set them up for display and left before any ceremony began.

We should have the right to refuse service based on the behavior of the individual requesting service.

Are you thinking that homosexuals are performing sex acts at these events? Otherwise, what behavior at a wedding ceremony and celebration are you worried about? It's just a party, isn't it?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
You really are dense.

The lady did regular business with homosexuals; she was not denying them service due to their sexuality - she didn't want to participate in an event which celebrated the perversion. She should not have to participate in an event - that is totally unfair. It's like forcing an atheist to attend church, or forcing a black person to attend a KKK meeting. No one should have to give service for an event they find offensive.

Don't you homosexualists ever get tired of comparing homosexuality with skin color? Skin color is morally neutral!!

The behavior at a "wedding" ceremony would certainly include a homosexual kiss, I would suppose.

I play for weddings and other events all the time. I have the right to refuse to participate in any event I find offensive, because my very being there would give it tacit approval. I have turned down ceremonies in cult churches (LDS, e.g), Masonic ceremonies, and even a request for a polygamous Irish "handfasting ceremony." Only homosexuals would force someone to participate in an event. The cultists didn't sue me, nor did the Masons, nor did the polygamists. I have yet to be asked to play for a fake same-sex union, but I will refuse to do so. Fortunately in my state, we still have the right to deny service based on our personal moral principles.

The point is, there is absolutely no tolerance by homosexuals because they want forced affirmation and sanction. If you don't give it, you will be punished.

Jim said...

I don't see how providing flowers for a wedding ceremony is "participating" in an event any more than delivering the champagne is.

Is a Jewish florist who delivers flowers to a Catholic church "participating" in the mass?

It's like forcing an atheist to attend church, or forcing a black person to attend a KKK meeting.

No it's not.

The behavior at a "wedding" ceremony would certainly include a homosexual kiss

You didn't kiss your mother at your wedding?

my very being there would give it tacit approval

I don't know why it would. And why would you or anyone else care what you approve tacitly or any other way.

there is absolutely no tolerance by homosexuals because they want forced affirmation and sanction.

Sure, because all homosexuals are just like every other homosexual.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

As far as you are concerned, no one has the right to say homosexuality is wrong, no one has the right to not want to give service to a perverse ceremony, and no one has the right to not want their children in the public schools to be forced to be told homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle.

If a homosexual florist didn't want to service a real wedding, no one could sue him. That is because homosexuals have special rights based on their sexual proclivities.

You are a fool not worth continuing a conversation with.

Jim said...

As far as you are concerned, no one has the right to say homosexuality is wrong,

You can (and do) say it all you want. Knock yourself out.

no one has the right to not want to give service to a perverse ceremony

Anybody being asked to perform the ceremony? I didn't think so. The ceremony is exactly the same as any other wedding ceremony. Nobody's getting buggered while friends and family are watching.

no one has the right to not want their children in the public schools to be forced to be told homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle

Then go to private school. I'm sure you find the teaching of evolution or that the earth is millions of years old immoral, too.

If a homosexual florist didn't want to service a real wedding, no one could sue him.

It would depend on why he was refusing service. He could be sued under certain circumstances. But why would he refuse a paying gig?

not worth continuing a conversation with

That's OK. You continue to lose on this issue.

Marshall Art said...

No worries, Glenn. I'm more than happy to pick up the baton here.

First, Jim's very last:

"That's OK. You continue to lose on this issue."

We continue to lose in the same way a spouse goes and does what the other spouse argued against, regardless of the strength of the other's argument. As I said to Dan Trabue, we aren't losing the debate. Your side isn't debating.

So let's look a some of Jim's recent remarks to Glenn:

"If you provide a service to the public, you provide a service to ALL the public. That's the law. You don't have to sanction anything. Just do your job and let God be the judge."

This is an example of the intolerance of the activists/enablers. They use this law to further their agenda at the expense of those who understand the truth about their disordered attraction and subsequent sinful and harmful behaviors. Yet, the business is forced to support these. In the case of the florist, as mentioned several times, she had homosexual customers AND employees. Yet, unlike the liars who push the agenda and their enablers, she understands and clearly sees the line that is crossed when providing her products for a celebration of their disordered union.

This conundrum was addressed by Rand Paul as he expressed his opinion regarding the law that led to it. It is perfectly reasonable and logical to demand that the government treat everyone equally (as they always have with regards to REAL marriage), but that to demand that from private citizens and businesses infringes on their rights to live as THEY choose to live. Homosexuals have been successful in many states to demand that they receive the same despite the fact that they don't have to act on their depraved compulsions.

The greatest problem with this "law" is that it forces the culture to restrict the influence it would otherwise have on truly problematic behaviors, while the perpetrators of those behaviors would likely still find businesses that would take their money. Like Jim.

"What if the couple was heterosexual but of mixed race and the florist did not approve of mixed-race marriages?"

Ah, yes. The willfully dishonest comparison of race with behavior.

"This is a really flimsy excuse...etc..."

This is a really flimsy attempt to counter the argument. One needn't be present to wish the couple well, need one? Thus, to set up one's product and leave before the ceremony is every bit an involvement in the celebration.

"Are you thinking that homosexuals are performing sex acts at these events?"

More dishonesty. The wedding is uniting of two people who will consummate their union. Thus, a ceremony pretending to unite two of the same gender in marriage will also result in sinful behavior, regardless of what behavior does or doesn't take place at the ceremony or reception. I would not attend either even if one of the sad and sinful two was a child or friend of mine. I would not want to support it in any way as a businessman, either.

more...

Marshall Art said...

"Is a Jewish florist who delivers flowers to a Catholic church "participating" in the mass?"

Reasonable people who understand the intent of the founders would not deprive the Jew of his right to refuse if his faith compels him so.

"It's like forcing an atheist to attend church, or forcing a black person to attend a KKK meeting.

No it's not."


It absolutely is, even if you're too dishonest or stupid (I think it's the former but likely both) to admit it. But more accurately, it's like forcing an atheist to support the preaching of the church or the black person the agenda of the KKK. By forcing the florist, she is forced into taking part in the ceremony by decorating the church or hall for that "special day".

"You didn't kiss your mother at your wedding?"

Not the same way he kissed his wife. How about you, Jim? Did you tongue wrestle with your mother at your wedding?

"I don't know why it would. And why would you or anyone else care what you approve tacitly or any other way."

Some of try hard to please God. We ain't perfect, but we at least try to cover the obvious stuff.

"You can (and do) say it all you want. Knock yourself out."

Not an honest bone in Jim's body. You know perfectly well that Glenn is referring the blowback from speaking truthfully about homosexuality and the homosexual agenda. Doing so makes one a "bigot" and "hateful" and "intolerant". It costs people their jobs and their money.

"Sure, because all homosexuals are just like every other homosexual."

Not at all. Some homosexuals understand that their "feelings" aren't as important as pleasing God. Some understand that they have the strength to overcome anything in their lives. Some are honest and people of character with regard to their compulsions, unlike those you support.

"Anybody being asked to perform the ceremony? I didn't think so. The ceremony is exactly the same as any other wedding ceremony. Nobody's getting buggered while friends and family are watching."

This weak-sauce attempt at cleverness demonstrates more dishonesty. Glenn's point about being punished for refusing to provide to known sinners is clear and unworthy of such a stupid response.

"Then go to private school."

Typical response from the morally bankrupt.

"But why would he refuse a paying gig?"

Are you suggesting that the average homosexual has no standards? Interesting.

Jim said...

The willfully dishonest comparison of race with behavior.

I'm not comparing race with behavior. I'm comparing what someone might consider repugnant to what you consider repugnant.

One needn't be present to wish the couple well, need one?

And one needn't be present to disapprove. So take the disapproval. Leave the flowers.

Thus, a ceremony pretending to unite two of the same gender in marriage will also result in sinful behavior,

What if the couple is in their 80s and celibate?

I would not attend either even if one of the sad and sinful two was a child or friend of mine.

You wouldn't attend your own child's wedding? Too bad. What a schmuck!

Reasonable people who understand the intent of the founders would not deprive the Jew of his right to refuse if his faith compels him so.

Totally irrelevant. The point was whether or not the Jewish florist was participating in a Catholic mass because he brought flowers to the alter.

It costs people their jobs and their money.

The First Amendment does not guarantee that there are no consequences of one's speech.

Feodor said...

So you guys swallow Leviticus 18 whole but strain at Leviticus 19 because why...?

Genre issues? 19 isn't about moral behavior?

19 isn't about being holy?

19 no longer pleases God?

Marshall Art said...

No straining to understand anything on this side, feo.

As to "moral" issues, I've made the point before, but I'm willing to do it again...

BibleGateway allows one to review the many Bibles available. One can start with a keyword and find all the verses that contain it. Try finding "moral" and see how often it shows up. Try finding "immoral" or "immorality" and see how often it is tied to sexual behavior. You can check five or six Bible variations at once (like KJV, NIV, etc) and it will list verses from any that contain the keyword entered.

So, when dealing with what is "moral" from a Scriptural perspective, I try to go by Scripture's use of the word. There, "moral" and "immoral" seem to relate to sexual issues. Just sayin'.

As to the point of this thread, I believe we're dealing with sexual issues. Thus, to try to conflate the point with references to non-sexual issues is irrelevant, unless you're trying to be a lefty.

Marshall Art said...

"I'm not comparing race with behavior. I'm comparing what someone might consider repugnant to what you consider repugnant."

Of course you're comparing race with behavior. To imply that there's a parallel between homosexual behavior and the union of two of different races is exactly that. A comparison.

But just so there's no confusion, only the government was originally intended to treat all equally. There was never any intention of forcing private individuals or businesses to act in conflict with their personal beliefs. The laws as they sit, in that regard, are flawed and cannot help but deny rights of those so forced.

"And one needn't be present to disapprove. So take the disapproval. Leave the flowers."

Forcing participation by forcing the business to sell to those celebrating sin and disorder is forcing approval. You don't get to determine what constitutes approval or not. Not to mention that the homosexuals can find willing florists who, like you, would suspend their beliefs for a few bucks, or are down with the lifestyle.

"Thus, a ceremony pretending to unite two of the same gender in marriage will also result in sinful behavior,

What if the couple is in their 80s and celibate?"


"Hi. I'm Jim and I'm an idiot."

"You wouldn't attend your own child's wedding? Too bad. What a schmuck!"

And you'd choose you sinful child over God's will? Too bad. Better a schmuck in the eyes of an enabler than a fool in the eyes of God.

You implied that you read your Bible. Apparently you skipped the part where Jesus talks about choosing family over Him. Good luck with that.

"Totally irrelevant. The point was whether or not the Jewish florist was participating in a Catholic mass because he brought flowers to the alter."

No. Your example is irrelevant to the actual point which is forcing a business owner to act against his religious beliefs. I don't know if the Jew would be acting against his religious beliefs as I'm unaware of any Scripture that prohibits them from selling flowers to another church. If you have evidence of this, post it.

"The First Amendment does not guarantee that there are no consequences of one's speech."

The 1st is meant to prohibit consequences. That's the whole point of it. Speaking freely could get one is a lot of trouble pre-Independence. The 1st insured that would never happen. But apparently, you pick and choose when a person's rights can be violated. As Glenn pointed out, it is obvious that rights are a one-way street in favor of the activists and their enablers.

The florist story is an example. The homosexual orders flowers for his "wedding". This is speech as he articulated what he wants and why. The consequence should be that he find a more willing florist. But the florist speaks and says she opposes such unions and won't be a part of any such ceremony and will be sued. Intolerance is OK if it comes from the left.

Jim said...

Of course you're comparing race with behavior. To imply that there's a parallel between homosexual behavior and the union of two of different races is exactly that. A comparison.

You really are dense, aren't you? Or are you simply unwilling to let something go when you are wrong. There was no comparison. There was no parallel. There were examples of when someone was faced with a decision based on their strong, personal beliefs of morality.

So, what if the florist was a very conservative Catholic and didn't approve of a Catholic marrying a Jew?

You don't get to determine what constitutes approval or not.

And you don't get to determine what constitutes "sin and disorder".

"Hi. I'm Jim and I'm an idiot."

So clearly you have no answer for the geriatric example.

And you'd choose you sinful child over God's will?

I don't believe that is a choice I would have to make. Like most God-fearing people today, I would support my child. Love is not a sin.

I'm unaware of any Scripture that prohibits them from selling flowers to another church.

Once again your density is exposed. The point is not what one's faith does or does not prohibit. The point is is the provider of flowers to the chapel participating in the mass?

The 1st is meant to prohibit consequences.

Only from the government. If a fast food chicken restaurant owner says something that offends members of the public, the public has the right to not eat there. His profits may suffer. There are consequences.

This is speech...

No, it is commerce.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

So you guys swallow Leviticus 18 whole but strain at Leviticus 19 because why...?

CONTEXT!! Do you ever look at context? Did you even bother to look at the article I linked to at 0931 yesterday? It fully explains the context of Lev. 18, which is totally different than Lev. 19.

But you and your ilk keep pretending to not understand context so you can keep using that old canard. You really just sound stupid.

Feodor said...

Well, Glenn, I'll give you this: you have some guts.

Marshall decided not to answer the question and juked his way with smoke and mirrors as he often does. I think he knew not to engage with the question because deep down he does not trust really conservative scriptural approaches. He sees the platitudes and the simplistic contradictions and the shallow thought. Probably even in his helicopter engineer theologians he finds something lacking and is inwardly ashamed and at a loss for interpretive conviction - which he will never admit.

But you take a good stab.

You've asked to peruse your presentation of "context" and I did. In short, you don't treat context. You simply interpret. You don't present anything of the socio-cultural realities of the newly settled and combined cultic tribes of the Hebrew peoples. No discussion of the temple prostitution traditions of the Canaanites or those of the Egyptians. I know, I know, you object to interpreting the passage as specifically targeted to only temple homosexual traditions - and I quite agree. But you have not presented anything in the sense of context.

What you merely do is claim something like 18 is proscriptive morality (don't do what all others do) and 19 is prescriptive just for the oncoming reality of Israel. Tut-tut, Glenn. A simple reading tears down your wish as empty of validity.

19:2, right out of the box, proves you wrong, Glenn: "Do not turn to idols or make cast images for yourselves..." Well, it seems we're still in the land of what other nations do. And it is plain enough that 19:11 through 17 are all kinds of common sense for all peoples, not some special sauce for Israel alone.

You say the laws of 18 are for all but that the laws of 19 are just for Israel - with no context in hand, mind you. But doesn't this just make 19 some weird mumbo jumbo and not what God says they really are: laws to be holy so that the world has a light to see by. In fact, Glenn, the whole thrust of OT theology is that God's covenant with Israel was to be a beacon, a light, a model for the Gentiles.

It is entirely the case for the Hebrew bible that how Israel was asked to act was precisely what God wanted from entire world in the end.

Which makes your "contextual" idea about Lev. 19 opposed to the deep voice of Scripture.

No wonder Marshall didn't bite. He's proud of his antennae for seeing pitfalls.

So, given your failure, we're back to having to consider that the book of Leviticus - one long scroll by the way without chapters - has to be respected in it's entirety and as fitting comfortably within the structure of OT theology: God's plan is for Israel to be the pattern, the model, light unto the nations.

So given this, the whole of Leviticus thinks its natural to ask all nations to "offer a sacrifice of well-being to the Lord, offer it in such a way that it is acceptable in your behalf. It shall be eaten on the same day you offer it, or on the next day; and anything left over until the third day shall be consumed in fire. If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination; it will not be acceptable. All who eat it shall be subject to punishment..."

and "when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien..."

and "You shall not eat anything with its blood..."

and "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. 28You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any marks upon you..."

It's in this actual context that we read also the comments on not having sex with someone else's slave, just your own. And this somewhat odd construction: שאת-זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תִעבה הוא

You've got guts, Glenn. More than Marshall.

They just lead you into dead ends.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

YOU are wrong. I've got the correct context. What you want to do is practice eisegesis and take current ideas into the text and claim things about the Hebrew culture which is only guessed at by liberals trying to justify perversion.

You are hopeless.

Feodor said...

Ah, well, my hopeless hope is still a greater comfort than your stupefying ignorance. Not to mention your cowardice in not admitting that you have no trumping arguments - just petty aspersions from a petty soul.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
My arguments DO trump yours. It matters not that there were chapter divisions originally, the fact is that the context changes from why God had the other nations destroyed and then to special ways of separating His people out. I gave the proper hermeneutical understanding of Chapter 18, but you and your ilk refuse to accept it because it demonstrates your perversion is rebellion against God.

Feodor said...

How old is the Earth, Glenn?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

How old is the earth? Don't know. But God created time during the time it was "without form and void". Some interesting physicist theories about how long before earth time started - sort of when an event horizon from a white hole crossed over earth, and then God started His six days of creating.

Of course so-called science speculates and makes assumptions so as to fit the lie of evolutionism and totally disagrees with the truth of creationism.

Feodor said...

So the "history" given by Genesis from the beginning to to Joseph can't or doesn't or confuses a timeline?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
IF you are asking if Genesis is literal history, the answer is "yes."

Of course liberals like you won't accept that because it interferes with your evolutionist ideology.

And besides, if the Bible is as it claims to be, then your homosexual ideology would be proven to be an abomination to God. Sexual morality always gets in the way of accepting the Bible for what it says.

Feodor said...

Literal history gives a timeline.

But your Genesis can't.

So, either it or you aren't true.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Genesis has a very definite timeline. It is true. You just won't accept it.

Feodor said...

So how old is the created Earth? You won't give an answer.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Time began about 6000 years ago, but the universe and the unformed earth may be millions of years old earth time.

Feodor said...

An unformed earth. That's beautiful in its nonsense.

See, i knew you were prevaricating. 6000 years. Do you agree Marshall?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
You are really being an ass.

God first created the material, which is why at the beginning of the chapter is says the earth was without form and void. The Bible's timeline says creation took place about 6000 years ago. I would think you would already know that is the YEC stance.

Where is the prevarication, you jerk?!?!

Feodor said...

You're the one being the asshole: how long did it take me to get to answer the question with 6000 years?

Hers another question: material has form and occupied space; how can it be withou form and void?

Marshall Art said...

Glenn,

Ignore the false priest. He doesn't wish to stay on point because he has no argument that isn't the usual progressive, false christian nonsense. It's his fall back tactic when truth interferes with his faux wisdom to offer a tangent that will distract from the original point that threatens his intellectual posturing.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
I answered the questions you asked. You asked specifically how old the earth was, and I said I did not know. The Bible doesn't say how long it was without form and void. THe matter was already created when time was created. Earth time started about 6000 years ago. Creation days began about 6000 years ago. I gave those answers as they were asked. I can't help it if you are too stupid to ask what you really want.

The matter was with form, but according to the Bible, the earth itself, although a collection of matter, it was without its current form and it was void of life. WHat is so difficult to understand about that?!? (especially for one who claims such high intellect)

Marshall Art said...

feo, you cowardly false priest.

The topic is not the age of the earth. The topic is not Leviticus 19. The topic is "where's the harm in NOT legalizing homosexual marriage?"

As to gutless, you haven't answered that question. Let's review:

"
1) Marriage is a basic human right (as the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed).

2) There is unceasing harm for a society that denies human rights to the public or any portion of the public.

3) It is undeniably healthier in the long term when basic human rights are exercised within society in love."


This exercise in ambiguity is classic feo and passes for a straightforward answer in feo's fantasy world. It does not answer the question at all. Gutless.

You claim that I haven't answered YOUR question:

"Your verse on a man not touching another man, Marshall? How far away is that from the verse about not touching a pig? Or a lobster?"

I answered it directly and in two ways:

First, I covered the possibility you were inquiring about sex with animals, since you used the same wording ("touching") and responded this way:

"You mean sexually? Really close."

Then, I covered the more likely and very lame and cowardly shellfish argument:

"But certainly you are trying to conflate what is an abomination to God with what God encouraged the Hebrews to regard as abomination to them. Doesn't work."

And finally eliminated any other possible twisting of Scripture in this way:

"You can try all you want to dishonestly confuse purity, ritualistic and dietary laws with laws regarding behavior, but it's a losing proposition on your part."

And to carry on with the "gutless" theme, your bringing up Lev 19 reminds me of a past discussion you lost on the subject of human holiness.

"The Lord said to Moses, "Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: 'Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy.'"

You never extricated yourself from that bilge of your own making, never resolving your insistence that God created us holy with the fact that He is in this verse, commanding the people to be holy. Why would He do that if his created were already holy? (Don't try to answer that here with more of your strained, grade school explanations. You'll only further embarrass yourself AND it's off topic.)

Then, as the gutless wonder you are, you have never refuted, rebutted or in any way responded to the very tight scholarly work of Oliff and Hodges, but instead, as is typical of your kind, you suggest his expertise in aeronautics somehow disqualifies him. Coward. As if YOU had the talent to master two fields. This from a bio of the man:

"He developed and taught courses at Northern California Bible College (also in San Jose) in Cults, Apologetics, and Creation versus Evolution. He also taught courses on church history, systematic theology, conducting small group Bible studies, and various books of the Bible. On several radio talk shows he discussed scientific aspects of creation versus evolution. Dr. Hodges served as a guest lecturer in Hank Hannegraaf's "Objections Overruled" series and twice as a lecturer at American Vision's Christian Worldview Student Conferences."

You wish you were as learned.



Feodor said...

And where is the "of life" part found in Genesis 1 that accompanies "void"?

Feodor said...

Still too chicken to jump in, Marshall, huh?

Are you on board with a 6000 year old earth, Marshall?

Go ahead, be honest for once.

Feodor said...

Yes, Marshall, you always answer a question in two ways: 1) smoke, 2) mirrors.

"tight scholarly work" is a great way to put it.

We are created holy, Marshall. We are also created free. God made us holy and wants us to continually choose to be so.

Eazy peezy.

Feodor said...

Are you serious?! The man's been on the radio? Wow. I'm blown away.

Marshall Art said...

Now for little Jimmy:

"You really are dense, aren't you? Or are you simply unwilling to let something go when you are wrong."

I'm not the least bit dense, but you are unclear. I'm also not wrong. No matter how you want to play it, I've covered each base. It's not appropriate to compare homosexual behavior to race, and I don't believe anyone should be forced to do business with anyone. How much more do you need to have your poor arguments answered?

"And you don't get to determine what constitutes "sin and disorder"."

I don't need to determine it. It's already well known. The problem now is that because of morally decrepit people like you, feo, Dan and others, too many believe such things are subjective. Sin is easily understood by anyone who is honest in their study of Scripture. Disorder is plain to any honest observer of nature. But courts forcing florists to sell flowers for homosexual unions, or photographers to record those unions is forcing approval on those businesses.

"So clearly you have no answer for the geriatric example."

Pointing out the idiocy of the questioner was my answer. But I'll flesh it out for you since you're an idiot. 80 yr old homos getting married but insisting they'll remain celibate doesn't change a thing. As you know since you claim to read Scripture, Christ was quite specific about lusting being akin to adultery. Thus, if the aforementioned gentleman still regarded each other as spouses, akin to male/female arrangements, they might as well be engaging in the behavior because as Christ taught, they are by virtue of their intention. But there's more...

Bringing up the wildest extremes is a Dan Trabue-like white flag. They don't change the facts anymore than an elderly couple who can't have children are exempted from the legalities of marriage law.

"Once again your density is exposed. The point is not what one's faith does or does not prohibit. The point is is the provider of flowers to the chapel participating in the mass?"

It is you who fails to understand. It doesn't matter in the least what I think as regards the Jew's feelings on the matter. It only matters what he thinks. If he believes it conflicts with his firmly held religious beliefs, he shouldn't be made to sell flowers to the Catholic Church. More importantly, the Catholic Church would like NOT act like whining and sniveling victims and would simply seek flowers from another source, tolerating the feelings of the Jew, 'cuz that's how Christians roll.

Marshall Art said...

"I don't believe that is a choice I would have to make. Like most God-fearing people today, I would support my child. Love is not a sin."

Well, you lefties have a sad understanding of what love is, that's for sure. In this case, however, if your child is engaged in sinful behavior and you support it, as you would be in participating in a ceremony celebrating a sinful lifestyle, then you are choosing your sinful child over God. If your child opened a brothel, you'd attend the grand opening. If sold drugs, you'd keep the books. You're as bad a parent as you are a Christian.

"The 1st is meant to prohibit consequences.

Only from the government. If a fast food chicken restaurant owner says something that offends members of the public, the public has the right to not eat there. His profits may suffer. There are consequences."


Well, which is it, Jimmy? The florist said something that offended the homosexual and they are trying to sue her. The photographer said something that offended the lesbians and extracted $6000 from her. Both of these couples had the right to take their business elsewhere but instead, used the government to punish the business owners for the crime of living their lives as they see fit. To see no problem here makes you a bad American as well.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

Why do you even pretend to be a Christian when your every comment says otherwise?

I showed more than Hodges simply being on the radio. What have you done that demonstrates you are justified in condescending? You're a fraud and your comments support the charge of cowardice perfectly.

"We are created holy, Marshall. We are also created free. God made us holy and wants us to continually choose to be so."

Yeah. You've said as much before and like before offer no Scriptural support. So, easy peezy, you once again prove yourself to be a fraud.

You've also never offered support for your charge of being dishonest. I have no reason to lie about anything I've discussed on the blogs. Unlike yourself, I'm not into posturing.

I will say only this about the age of the earth and no more: I never give it any thought, but nothing is beyond my God. Make of that what you will. I'm sure it will be more proof of your low character.

Jim said...

It's not appropriate to compare homosexual behavior to race

Maybe, but I didn't so your "point" is moot.

forcing approval on those businesses

No it's not. They could wear a t-shirt or badge that says, "I don't approve of homos getting married." That should clear it up for any body in attendance.

80 yr old homos getting married but insisting they'll remain celibate doesn't change a thing.

Who said anything about insisting anything? They may not be interested in sex at all, but are still in love enough to want to get married. Or are you talking about virtual buggering? (I'm watching Four Weddings and a Funeral at the moment, so that seemed like an appropriate term at this point.)

I don't care about the Jew's beliefs. It's not important. The question is is a Ubangi tribesman delivering flowers to a chapel participating in the mass. It's quite simple, actually.

if your child is engaged in sinful behavior and you support it

What does "support it" mean? Buying lubricant and condoms? Telling my child that I love him or her and want them to be happy I believe is quite in keeping with God's desire for us to love one another.

The florist said something

No, the florist refused to provide a service that he was licensed by the state to perform for the public. This is not a free speech issue.

The photographer said something

No, the photographer refused to perform a service that she offered to the public. This is not a free speech issue.

I'll match my parenting and Americanism against yours eight days a week.



Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I know you get a kick out of asking stupid questions as if you don't know the answers, and saying idiotic things as if you think they have real value, but I'll play along anyway.

"No it's not."

Yes it is. What a person does, how a person acts in the course of doing business speaks to others and sets a reputation. To provide products or services toward the celebration of a sinful lifestyle tells others that the business owner approves of the lifestyle enough to do such business. No one should be forced to do business with anyone that the owner feels would reflect upon him in a manner of which he doesn't approve. Nor should he be punished for refusing to do so. It is unAmerican, unChristian and unforgivable.

"Who said anything about insisting anything?"

Typical Jim crap, as if "insisting" is the most relevant aspect of the comment. The point is that sexual activity doesn't determine homosexuality or homosexual sexual desires. Even in separate rooms, due to the attraction for each other, they are still "lying with a male as with a woman". You want to play games with words to pretend what isn't true. Play your games elsewhere.

"The question is is a Ubangi tribesman delivering flowers to a chapel participating in the mass. It's quite simple, actually."

No. You're simple. The question is completely irrelevant. The point is what the Ubangi believes according to his firmly held beliefs and what he is forced to do by the law and the selfish bastards who sue him.

"What does "support it" mean?"

Unless you are attending the wedding to stand up and voice your objections when called upon to do so, you are there to support the union of the child and its same-sex partner in a lifestyle the God you claim to follow calls an abomination. Who the hell do you think you're kidding?

God's desire does not include your child being happy on his terms, but on God's terms. If what makes your child happy is living in sin, then your support of your child's happiness is not the least bit in line with anything that God expects of you.

"No, the florist refused to provide a service that he was licensed by the state to perform for the public. This is not a free speech issue."

It's a free speech, freedom of religious expression and freedom of association issue as well as an issue of property rights. But I acknowledge your cowardly reliance on bad law that supports your corruption. To you, law equals morality.

"I'll match my parenting and Americanism against yours eight days a week."

And be proven wrong every time.

Feodor said...

When you asked where's the harm, I answered the question.

You can't say where it's wrong, you just say it's vague. As if "there is unceasing harm for a society that denies human rights to the public or any portion of the public" is really vague in the era of human rights conversations that goes back to post-World War II.

I ask if you agree with Glenn on how old the Earth is - given how you both read all of Genesis literally (though, somehow, Ephesians is metaphor) and you give this vague bobbing and weaving: "
I will say only this about the age of the earth and no more: I never give it any thought, but nothing is beyond my God."

Ever notice how ring wingers, when anxious and defensive, start owning God?

What God can do is not the question, smoke-and-mirror-deciever.

The question is what did God do as court-reported by Moses himself in Genesis? What does the transcription of the audio-tape of the almighty set down as fact?

Marshall Art said...

Not the least shred of honesty in you, is there, feo?

My question was specific and even more so than the question of Dan's that provoked it. Your answer was at best an opening for a real answer, but didn't provide any clue as to what that harm might be. If the harm would be unceasing, then certainly there must be some specific manifestation to which you might point.

In the meantime, my answer to your wholly irrelevant and distracting question was how I've always answered that question. I'm neither anxious or defensive (though I've long been anxious for some honesty from visitors like yourself). The question is worthless in this discussion.

"The question is what did God do as court-reported by Moses himself in Genesis?"

Then you have your answer. If you don't believe it, say so. I have no reason to dispute the Biblical record. I'm not anxious and defensive at the thought that psuedo-intellectuals might condescend over it, as if they can be certain the record is false. Deal with it while sticking to the topic.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

You are being so obtuse. The earth is without form and void, and THEN God puts life on it. Doesn't that imply that previously it was void of life?

What is your point, anyway? I already know you don't accept the Bible for what it says, which is one reason we can say you are not a believer.

Christ spoke of creation as literal history. Everything he spoke of in Genesis (Adam & Eve, Noah, the Flood, "the beginning") he spoke of being literal. If it isn't literal, then Jesus was a liar, and if He was a liar, then He wasn't God and couldn't save us.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Marshall,

Your wonderfully logical and cohesive responses apparently don't seem to matter to people who only live by their feelings. But I'm having a good time reading them! They are so nailed to the wall and yet so stupid as to not realize that they have so many holes in them that they are bleeding to death!

Jim said...

Even in separate rooms

Virtual buggering, right? I thought it was the behavior that was a sin, not the attraction.

What a person does, how a person acts in the course of doing business speaks to others and sets a reputation.

Is "No shirt, no shoes, no service" speech or commerce. How about "Coloreds use rear entrance"?

I would think a business owner would care most about their reputation for providing goods and services in a way that broadens their customer base, not narrows it.

The point is what the Ubangi believes according to his firmly held beliefs

Why am I coming up with the image of a bag of hammers? Is ANY GENERIC PERSON who delivers flowers to the chapel "participating" in the mass?

Who the hell do you think you're kidding?

You. Obviously.

To you, law equals morality.


No, law equals that by which we must live because we choose to live in this nation of laws. Live them, change them, or move.

Jim said...

Here's good news.

Marshall Art said...

Glenn,

I delete Parkie's idiotic comments, so there's no need for you to address them in any way and thus dignify them. Until he finds the backbone to actually engage in conversation, no one should feel obliged to respond to anything he says. I then deleted your response as it would look as if you're talking to no one. He is a nobody, but that's a totally different thing.

Marshall Art said...

Jim, who is Parkie enough,

"Virtual buggering, right? I thought it was the behavior that was a sin, not the attraction."

Study your Bible more seriously. If yours is the type in which you get to color the pictures, you'll need an adult version. As I said before, Christ speaks of lust as a form of adultery. Thus, if your two old homos married, they obviously are still dealing with each other as normal men would with a woman. Two non-homo men would not marry unless they're looking to play the system for profit. So regardless of whether or not they engage physically, their lusting for each other is just as bad. This is basic stuff really, for those who actually do more than skim the Bible. Lev 18:22 would then include non-contact relations if those relations are the same as between a man and woman. Your example would still be two sinners acting on their sinful desires, even without physical contact.

Worse, this scenario is just a lame attempt to conjure an extreme that you foolishly believe would render my position weak. It doesn't in the least, but makes you even more the fool for trying.

"Is "No shirt, no shoes, no service" speech or commerce."

It is a business owner running his business as he sees fit. Keep this in mind.

"I would think a business owner would care most about their reputation for providing goods and services in a way that broadens their customer base, not narrows it."

Some might. Others might feel their principles are more important than their bottom line. I know this is hard for lefties to believe about business people, but it is far more common than lefties could imagine due to their twisted view of reality. I'm sure you would have no problem compromising your principles for profit, and you would have every right to do so. As for standing up for the truth about homosexual attraction and behavior, this could be a boon for the business. It didn't hurt Chick-Fil-A.

"Why am I coming up with the image of a bag of hammers?"

Because you're an asshole? Because you're looking in a mirror? Could be anything. To suggest it reflects a failure in my reasoning ain't one of 'em. If you think so, then the first possibility is the correct answer.

"Is ANY GENERIC PERSON who delivers flowers to the chapel "participating" in the mass?"

You keep asking this irrelevant question. It has nothing to do with what I think, but only with the belief of the person in question. The point here is that the florist and the photographer feel that serving these people would indeed be participating in their celebration of depravity.

"Who the hell do you think you're kidding?

You. Obviously."


Whew! To hear you've just been spewing bullshit all this time is a relief! And it's the first honest thing you've ever posted.

Marshall Art said...


"No, law equals that by which we must live because we choose to live in this nation of laws."

This is just a convenience for your position. But we're not talking about living by bad law. That's a subject for another post. We're talking about forcing a business owner to act in conflict with their firmly held beliefs through the misuse of law. We're talking about the selfishness of the homosexuals who are willing to sue someone for expressing the truth about their lifestyle.

Imagine I go to a florist and request flowers for my anniversary. The florist says, "I'm sorry, sir, but it would be against my firmly held beliefs to sell my flowers to such a handsome, well mannered man of character as yourself." I offer to pay double. "Please sir. Leave my store. Your striking good looks provoke in me feelings of intense lust for you and hateful jealousy of your wife." Not being a whiny little infant like the florist's homosexuals or the photographer's lesbians, I simply say, "I'm sorry, but flattered, that you feel this way. Have a nice day." Then I go find another florist. I'm certainly not going to sue her, especially since other florists will provide.

But here's the really ironic part in all of this bullshit you've been spewing: You activists and enablers insist that what homosexuals do is none of our business and that we should just mind our own. But here, the florist is minding her own business and the whiny homos, with the force of government are dictating how she minds it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim's "good news" is just more perversion and lies.

Who are the child's progenitors? THAT is what a birth certificate is for - not to promote a queer (strange) agenda.

Jim said...

Then I go find another florist.

And Rosa Parks should have gotten up and sat in the back of the bus.

Jim said...

So when a married couple has a child by means of a sperm donor, does the donor's name go on the birth certificate?

Jim said...

with the force of government are dictating how she minds it.

And the government should let Jimmy Dean's or Foster Farms or Kraft just mind their own business, too, right?

Marshall Art said...

"And Rosa Parks should have gotten up and sat in the back of the bus."

Irrelevant. Plus, I don't know if she was riding a city bus or one from a private company.

"So when a married couple has a child by means of a sperm donor, does the donor's name go on the birth certificate?"

Irrelevant to the topic, to the point that I feel deleting any comment related to this sad story is appropriate. However, donating sperm was never a good idea anyhow.

"And the government should let Jimmy Dean's or Foster Farms or Kraft just mind their own business, too, right?"

Apparently, Jim, you have a problem making your case without going off on tangents. Are any of these companies dealing with issues related to homosexuals suing them for refusal of service? (I will say that reducing or eliminating gov't interference into the private workings of privately owned and run businesses should be the goal.) But more importantly, the homosexuals are whining about people minding their own business while demanding they can dictate how others run theirs. THAT is the point. Try to focus.

Jim said...

I don't know if she was riding a city bus or one from a private company.

Irrelevant. The point is she stood up for herself.

this sad story

What "sad" story?

What's the matter with donating sperm?

reducing or eliminating gov't interference into the private workings of privately owned and run businesses should be the goal.

The goal should be assuring the public that products are safe.

whining about people minding their own business

Clearly, they are NOT minding their own business. They are insinuating themselves into the personal business of their customers.

Try to see the bigger picture.

Marshall Art said...

"Irrelevant. The point is she stood up for herself."

Totally relevant. Is the bus company run by the city, in which case it should not discriminate on the basis of skin color, or a private company that should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis it chooses? (The idea in law is "public accommodation". But I'm not going to split hairs here as regards what constitutes a need for privately owned businesses to accommodate anyone.)

"What "sad" story?"

The sad story of the courts promoting not only SSM, but the willful decision to deny a child a father.

"What's the matter with donating sperm?"

Not relevant to the topic of this blog post. Perhaps another time.

"The goal should be assuring the public that products are safe."

Buyer beware should be the general rule, but again, you're straying from the topic. My point speaks to the notion of the gov't telling a privately owned business that it must do business with anyone.

"Clearly, they are NOT minding their own business. They are insinuating themselves into the personal business of their customers."

Complete and utter bullshit, especially considering that the florist's wish is to stay as far away from their personal business as possible. In the meantime, the homosexuals are more than "insinuating" themselves, but using the force of law to dictate to the florist how to run her business.

"Try to see the bigger picture."

Clearly I've been doing exactly that.

Jim said...

or a private company that should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis it chooses?

Wrong-O, moose breath. Apparently you subscribe to the Rand Paul branch of the civil rights wingnut tree. But this was settled in the Supreme Court in Peterson v. City of Greenville and Lombard v. Louisiana.

Th 1960s have come and gone. Catch up.

willful decision to deny a child a father

No child was denied anything.

Buyer beware should be the general rule

That doesn't work if one or two companies are buying up all the competition. Furthermore, the buyer often can't "beware" until after they are harmed.

but using the force of law to dictate to the florist how to run her business.

The florist can run their business any way they like. The just can't discriminate on the basis of sexual preference in the state of Washington.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim, The florist didn't discriminate against sexual preference, a point demonstrated by the fact that she did regular business with perverts.

The point is that she didn't want to service an EVENT!!! Where does the law say you have to provide services for an event no matter how much you disagree with it? Yep, make those blacks provide services for a KKK meeting, make abortionists attend a La Leche (sp?) group meeting, make Jews provide services for Nazi meetings. Yeah, that should all be done.

Jim said...

The florist didn't discriminate against sexual preference, a point demonstrated by the fact that she did regular business with perverts.

Wrong on all counts.

The florist provided flowers for wedding EVENTS. The florist refused to provide flowers for a particular wedding EVENT, discriminating based on sexual preference or gender identity, which violates the Washington State consumer protection laws.

Where does the law say you have to provide services for an event no matter how much you disagree with it?

Where? State of Washington consumer protection law. And it is not just anything one disagrees with. It would be based on a protected class. The KKK and Nazis are not protected classes.

And I can't imagine why any doctor who provides abortion services would feel animus towards La Leche League.

Marshall Art said...

"Apparently you subscribe to the Rand Paul branch of the civil rights wingnut tree."

There's nothing nutty about it. The cases you cite were settled on appeals to the 14th Amendment which prohibit the states from discrimination. That is, the state governments, not the people of the states. It has since been twisted to include private entities (non-governmental), which, as Rand Paul rightly points out, is beyond the intent of the founders. This does not in any way endorse or criticize the bigotry and prejudice of some business owners. It only distinguishes between who should or should not be under such restrictions. The founders were only concerned with how the government treated the people it serves when they authored the Constitution. They intended the people to have sovereignty over their personal lives and business dealings.

But guess what, fool? What decisions have wrongly been handed down by what courts, or what foolish law has been passed by what assembly of government, the topic here is what harm is done by denying marriage to homosexuals. Your responses continue to show the harm done when the law says homosexuals should be regarded as normal people are.

"No child was denied anything."

You're a liar. The child in your link is denied a father, on purpose, for the selfish whims of the lesbians.

"That doesn't work if one or two companies are buying up all the competition. Furthermore, the buyer often can't "beware" until after they are harmed."

You obviously aren't bright enough to understand what is meant by "general rule".

"The florist can run their business any way they like. The just can't discriminate on the basis of sexual preference in the state of Washington."

And thus, the manner in which the florist wishes to run her business has been dictated by the homos through state courts sympathetic to the homos and thereby showing favoritism that the Constitution was meant to prohibit. The proper judgement should have been, "Take your business elsewhere."

Every argument you have been making demonstrates the harm done in ruling in favor of those who demand to be treated as if they are what they are not. In this case, qualified for marital licensing. It forces the gov't to choose between the fictitious rights of the homosexual t the already enumerated and protected rights of people of faith. And you, being so in the bag for sexual perversion, think its a good thing.

Jim said...

It has since been twisted to include private entities (non-governmental), which, as Rand Paul rightly points out, is beyond the intent of the founders.

Apparently the Supreme Court didn't agree and no court has even considered overturning that decision.

The founders were only concerned with how the government treated the people it serves when they authored the Constitution.

The Founders weren't around for the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Does that make it and all other Amendments after the early 19th century invalid?

the topic here is what harm is done by denying marriage to homosexuals.

OK, that's simple. The harm is that homosexual couples are harmed because they cannot enjoy the legal rights and benefits that other couples enjoy.

But we don't legislate on the basis of what is the harm if we deny rights. We legislate on the basis of what is the harm if we DON'T deny these rights.

When the California Prop 8 case went before the appellate court, the plaintiffs (pro Prop 8) could not provide one single rational harm that would be done by allowing gays to marry. None.

You're a liar.

So's your mom.

How could a child who otherwise would not exist be denied anything?

I understand "general rule" just fine. That's why as a general rule, the public has asked to be informed of food content and nutritional information, chemical dangers and first aid measures, drug side effects, etc. in order to beware. We live in a world and economy where "buyer beware" simply doesn't work anymore. We're not buying chickens from the local farmer or medications from the apothecary.

state courts sympathetic to the homos

They are sympathetic to the law.

those who demand to be treated as if they are what they are not. In this case, qualified for marital licensing.

In this case, they were INDEED qualified for marital licensing. Same sex marriage is legal in the state of Washington. And the count of states continues to grow. Rhode Island this past week.

Feodor said...

So, to sum up by analysis all that you and Glenn have presented in your answers to various questions of mine, here are some suggested reasons why you, Marshall, and your fellows here have built your rock house of sheer absolutism upon the slowly shifting sands of repressed racial guilt and a driving religious need to persecute:

1) You read Holy Scripture by different lenses of realism (or literal fact in your words) or metaphor or anachronistic salvation history. The problem is not necessarily that you have different lenses. In fact, we all must have because scripture elevates different material and motives, writers and contexts throughout. It’s just that you have no considered philosophical criterion on why to change lenses other than when you need to do so to defend a priori theological positions, positions – it should be said – that are outdated and intellectually corrupt in the original.

In short, you read Holy Scripture in the worst of liberal methods.

2) Among your primitive American Christian theological principles is that human kind is born in sin, proleptically unfree and uncreative.
And yet you demand of everyone holy behavior. But only that behavior that, stipulated by scripture that is two thousand to three thousand years old, nonetheless remains only as an extension of mid-century white, middle-class American male definitions of virtue. In other words, only in that scripture where that echoes unconsciously in your mind as a forecast to life as you idealize it in a very narrow vein.

In short, you have the worst expectation of human nature as innate but expect the most tight-assed, double-pleated khaki innocence out of human beings.

3) Finally, you and Glenn and Mark and the King Simp, have this self-torturing fashion of externalizing a rote figure of harsh benevolence found only in the print of , layed out in the chapters and verse forged by the analytical techniques of rationalized Enlightenment – a movement you must theologically find deeply embedded in human arrogance and condemnatory pride.

And because the figure of any remainder of goodness in your religious story remains imprisoned in ink and text or remote in heaven, the key template in which you all titrate your repressed guilt and anger is driving need to punish idea concepts of modernity and modern moral developments – namely and singularly the individual.

In short, you have to punish people, and the crazy thing is that you punish people with a message of what can save them. It’s very like socio-pathological criminals. “I wont kill you if you do what I ask. In fact, you should want to do what I ask just so you don’t die. Since you will only do what I ask by forece and will not want the same thing as I am asking you to do, you must want to die. And since that is what you want, and what I really want, too, I’ll kill you.”

Feodor said...

Oh, and for the last part: it's what you and the others have done to your own God-imaged free self for a very long time. So long, you're probably locked in by now.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

The wedding EVENT is still an EVENT. She didn't discriminate because they were homosexual, she discriminated as to what constituted a proper wedding - she disagreed that it was a wedding, and did not want to be associated with it. After all, it is HER reputation.

The law says you can't discriminate based on sexual "orientation" (So how come they still prosecute pedophiles?). She didn't discriminate against them for their "orientation," she discriminated against their event.

You are so dense. You can't separate their orientation from their activities!

Abortion doctors are child murderers - why would they want to be forced to attend an event that promotes care and feeding of those who he murders?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I'm still trying to learn exactly what right homosexuals have been denied by not being allowed to redefine marriage; i.e., what rights to real married people have which non-married people are denied?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feodor,
I can’t speak for Marshall, but for me you have totally misrepresented what I have said and imagine what I believe.

1. Firstly, I read the Bible using historical hermeneutical principles used by scholars throughout the centuries. I read what the authors intended rather than reading my personal ideology into it - something you fail to do. You want to support homosexuality so you read into the scripture that which is totally foreign to the Scriptures themselves. It is YOU who use “liberal methods.”

2. Mankind is born into sin - that is what the Bible says. Yet we are people with a free will to chose to follow God or to reject him. I have no idea where you found in anything that I have ever written which would lead you to believe that I think people are unfree or uncreative. I don’t believe that, nor have I ever intimated such nonsense.
Nor do I “demand of everyone holy behavior.” I don’t demand it of anyone. I simply state what the Bible says is proper behavior for those who profess to be followers of Christ. I don’t even bother with telling unbelievers what God expects of them. You idea of what Scripture is demonstrates your very low view of it, which again demonstrates you cannot be a true Christians.

3. You seem to think by your many words you can obfuscate the real issues and attack those who prove you are in severe error when it comes to your theological beliefs. In fact, your item number three and the remainder of your comment is about as senseless and rife with false accusations as it can get.

Demonstrating exactly what a complete fool you are, and why I will find debating with you to be a complete waste of time.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

Obviously, Glenn, you don't understand at all what you yourself have absorbed from your reading. Hermeneutics is a methodology of interpretation dependent upon several integrated strands of investigation, one certainly being historical criticism.

You claim that your hermeneutic draws from scholars throughout the centuries. While scholars from ages past serve as models of dedication to scholarship, they cannot serve as sources of any contemporary hermeneutic since their historical criticism has been so definitively surpassed because of the increasing and mounting new documentary evidence that has come only the past 60 years.

Your claim for historicity is belied by history itself.

Another way to know that you have no understanding of what you read is that you claim that I "want to support homosexuality so you read into the scripture that which is totally foreign to the Scriptures themselves..."

You've so missed what I said to you before. I agree that Lev. is talking about homosexual behavior and not just that of temple prostitution of the Canaanites and Egyptians. I said so. But you don't retain anything.

My criticism is that you cherry pick lines from a single, continuous scroll, saying wholly-nilly as your ideology demands, that that one applies to us, that only applies to Israel, this chunk applies "even" to Gentiles and so to us as well, that only to a special time for Israel.

Your blindness, Glenn, is that it is all a call to holiness, first to Israel and then, by Israel's faithfulness, to everyone else.

The only reason that Leviticus 18 and 19 speaks is as a call to holiness for ancient, cultic, tribal peoples.

Ancient. cultic, tribal, peoples who lived in no way like us, with no similar understanding to ours of individual rights for men, women, no understanding of child psychological health and the abhorrence of slavery among other things.

So, no, I don't read into scripture what is not there: a silence on homosexuality. I simply read what is there: prohibition on homosexual acts but full support for polygamy, subjugation of women, slavery, viewing children and women as property as well, finding blood sacrifice to be efficacious and pigs to be blasphemy. Basically, a primitive and mystical understanding that finds real and moral significance in the way trees grow, animals die, and hair curls around the ears. Abhorrence of homosexuality fits right in.

They found the absolute presence of God in every part of every single movement of the natural world and built a hierarchy of power on primitive, male dominant warfare standards, and crowed the top with a war-capable God. It was the best they could do.

You, on the other hand, are hopelessly lost in their now perished and surpassed past.

Jim said...

she discriminated as to what constituted a proper wedding

I'll bet she would deliver flowers to a wedding where an Elvis impersonator officiated. Would she not deliver flowers to a bar mitzvah if the boy was gay? Would she not deliver flowers to a funeral if the deceased was gay? How about if they died of AIDS? Bridge club? Mass? Prom? Would she deliver flowers to a prom where same sex couples were allowed to attend?

she disagreed that it was a wedding

She is not the arbiter of what is and what is not a wedding.

After all, it is HER reputation.

A reputation for not providing services to clients? For whom would her reputation be sullied? Fellow narrow-minded people? Do you think she would get fewer customers by serving these clients or more customers?

So how come they still prosecute pedophiles?

You may be the only person in the country who considers pedophilia a sexual orientation. It's not.

she discriminated against their event.

No. Their EVENT was a wedding. Just like hundreds of weddings she has serviced. The only difference was that she was discriminating against the legal, same sex couple whose EVENT it was.

You can't separate their orientation from their activities!

Their activity was a wedding.

Abortion doctors are child murderers

No, they are not. A fetuses is not a child. Abortion is not murder.

why would they want to be forced to attend an event that promotes care and feeding of those who he murders?

Wow! Talk about dense. How can anyone care and feed something that has not been born? Or are you making the idiotic assumption that abortion doctors perform their service because they hate children?

why would they want to be forced to attend an event that promotes care and feeding of those who he murders?

Density is deep. There are well over 1,000 benefits that married couples have that same sex couples are denied.

Source

Source

Source

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Thank you for once again proving that you look to law to determine morality for you. This discussion is not about what the law says. No one denies what the law says. We're debating what it should say based on original intent of the founders, with which I agree.

"Apparently the Supreme Court didn't agree and no court has even considered overturning that decision."

That doesn't make it right, only what is legal. Big difference and the point revolves around what is right and moral.

"The harm is that homosexual couples are harmed because they cannot enjoy the legal rights and benefits that other couples enjoy."

Boo-freakin'-hoo. That's because they don't qualify. A couple where both are 14 years old can't either. Discrimination? A couple where only one is 14 can't either. Discrimination? A couple comprised of adults who are father and daughter can't either. Discrimination? Single people can't enjoy the same privileges as married heteros. Aren't they harmed as well? I could go on, including that which isn't related to marriage benefits to illustrate that simply whining that one wants it too doesn't compel the state to grant anything to anyone. Because marriage has always been defined in a particular way, and because the benefits granted were to highlight the importance of that well known and understood definition, as well as the benefits to the state marriages so defined bring, homosexuals don't qualify. Neither do those under the legal age, nor do couples closely related. If there is harm experienced by homosexuals, then there is the same harm to all those others mentioned above. But there is no harm to homosexual couples but what they bring upon themselves.

"When the California Prop 8 case went before the appellate court, the plaintiffs (pro Prop 8) could not provide one single rational harm that would be done by allowing gays to marry."

Complete and utter bullshit. Vaughn Walker denied standing to those wishing to make their cases, so it is crap to say that nothing was offered when some were silenced. Also, it is important to understand that Walker, a homosexual himself, was deciding under the delusion that marriage was simply the union to two people in love. The law has never taken this position before. And of course, the most important argument as regards this particular case is that the people of California wanted it as evidenced by the vote that led to the legislation being so scrutinized.

more...

Marshall Art said...

"How could a child who otherwise would not exist be denied anything?"

I'd ask if you are really that stupid, but the question is answered by the question highlighted above. Any child that is conceived for the gratification of two homosexuals automatically denies that child of either a mother or a father. Any child adopted by homosexuals does the same. Selfish people, like the activists and their enablers, such as yourself, don't care about the children involved at all.

"We live in a world and economy where "buyer beware" simply doesn't work anymore."

Only because people like you cringe at the thought of personal responsibility. The issue is irrelevant to this discussion.

"They are sympathetic to the law."

Nonsense. No law has been ignored, no groups have been deprived of rights.

"Same sex marriage is legal in the state of Washington. And the count of states continues to grow."

Few such states legalized SSM as a direct result of the will of the people. When activist judges and leftist legislatures ignore that will, they have failed in their duties as public servants. Lefties only care about the laws they like.

Marshall Art said...

"I'll bet she would deliver flowers to...."

None of your examples rise the same level as a wedding celebrating moral depravity. Try again.

"She is not the arbiter of what is and what is not a wedding."

She is as far as her business's involvement goes. That is, without leftist intervention, she would be.

"A reputation for not providing services to clients? For whom would her reputation be sullied? Fellow narrow-minded people? Do you think she would get fewer customers by serving these clients or more customers?"

Leave it to the immoral to consider the moral narrow-minded. And again I remind you that Chick-Fil-A did quite well after their president stated his opinion on the subject. And really, since homosexuals comprise such a tiny percentage of the total population, I cannot see how anyone would be concerned about losing customers. Would they really feel it financially? I guess it depends on the neighborhood in which the business operates.

"You may be the only person in the country who considers pedophilia a sexual orientation."

No. He's. Not. I would add the pedophiles themselves, as I'm sure they would defend their attractions the same way homosexuals defend theirs.

"The only difference was that she was discriminating against the legal, same sex couple whose EVENT it was."

You're a liar or stupid or ignorant. OR, you're an ignorant and stupid liar. The homosexual suing the florist was a customer before he made wedding plans. Try paying attention. She was discriminating against participating in a sinful event. Her call.

"No, they are not. A fetuses is not a child. Abortion is not murder."

Once again, Jim appeals to law instead of the moral reality. It doesn't matter the stage of development in which the person is.

Marshall Art said...

"Wow! Talk about dense."

That would be what follows the above.

"There are well over 1,000 benefits that married couples have that same sex couples are denied."

Many, if not most, of those bennies can be had by other means, and most of the rest can be altered through legislation and appeals to those who provide them (hospitals, for example). What's more, most of them are denied hetero couples who don't marry and singles, and hetero roommates. Not qualifying for a benefit is not discrimination or harm.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

"repressed racial guilt and a driving religious need to persecute"???

I have nothing for which I should feel any guilt as regards people of other races. YOU, however, wallow in guilt for reasons not even you can explain. In addition, I don't persecute anyone, though you need to believe it since you also feel great guilt for your open rebellion against God's clear and unambiguous teachings in Scripture. As such, you attempt to persecute all those who are so clearly more aligned with His will. What a sad and pathetic false priest you are!

"1) You read Holy Scripture by different lenses of realism..."

Not at all. We read Scripture as it is written, since it isn't mysterious or all that hard to understand. YOU, however, read it through the lens of one who doesn't like what it says and wishes it was different and more appealing to your corrupt "of the world" nature. You're such a sad and pathetic false priest.

"2) Among your primitive American Christian theological principles..."

Not "primitive". "Accurate" as we know that Scripture is not mysterious and difficult to understand.

"And yet you demand of everyone holy behavior."

Actually, God does. We simply try to remind people of that fact. YOU, however, have rejected that and behave otherwise.

"In short, you have the worst expectation of human nature as innate but expect the most tight-assed, double-pleated khaki innocence out of human beings."

Not really. But we DO expect that you will again and again come here and puke your self-serving psuedo-intellectual and quasi-religious crap and pretend it has any real meaning. Thanks for the laughs.

"
3) Finally, you and Glenn and Mark and the King Simp, have this self-torturing fashion of externalizing a rote figure of harsh benevolence found only in the print of , layed out in the chapters and verse forged by the analytical techniques of rationalized Enlightenment – a movement you must theologically find deeply embedded in human arrogance and condemnatory pride."


Says the High Lord of human arrogance and condemnatory pride.

more...

Marshall Art said...

"And because the figure of any remainder of goodness in your religious story remains imprisoned in ink and text or remote in heaven, the key template in which you all titrate your repressed guilt and anger is driving need to punish idea concepts of modernity and modern moral developments – namely and singularly the individual."

My how you go on. I detect quite a bit of repressed guilt and anger in your drivel, FP. Oh, and guess what? The entirety of Biblical teaching is directed toward, guess who? The individual. That is, what we read is directed toward each of us and how each of us should behave. Didn't they teach you that at false priest school?

"In short, you have to punish people, and the crazy thing is that you punish people with a message of what can save them."

I see. So, in your self-idolizing mind, preaching the Word is punishment.

"It’s very like socio-pathological criminals."

I love when you try to get all psychiatric. More laughs result. You don't seem to realize that by enabling sinners, it is YOU who helps them to their demise. WE, on the other hand, are concerned for their salvation.

"My criticism is that you cherry pick lines from a single, continuous scroll... that only to a special time for Israel."

Your criticism is crap. Our position is supported by NT teachings as well, which have spoken about "only what comes out" of us is impure, not what goes in. And of course Paul teaches that the law has its purpose for teaching us how to live. But then, Jesus and Paul...what did they know?

"I simply read what is there: prohibition on homosexual acts but full support for polygamy, subjugation of women, slavery, viewing children and women as property as well, finding blood sacrifice to be efficacious and pigs to be blasphemy."

Then you must read more deeply, seeking any Sunday school teacher to help you with the big words. There is no "full support" in Scripture for any of what you listed.

"They found the absolute presence of God in every part of every single movement of the natural world and built a hierarchy of power on primitive, male dominant warfare standards, and crowed the top with a war-capable God. It was the best they could do."

You're a hoot! It's a wonder you can walk and talk at the same time. You can, can't you?

YOU are hopelessly lost in your own delusion of grandeur and pretension. But you do give me a chuckle.

Marshall Art said...

"It turns out that my suspicion is true: Glenn is your intellectual superior"

He may well be. But you certainly aren't.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feodor,
You want to give credence to 19th century - and later - criticism of the Bible by so-called scholars who reassign various books of the Bible to JEDP theories, etc. They are liberals and you accept liberal "hermeneutics"

No, Lev is NOT just for Israel. Read the bloody passage - God says the sexual immorality was the reason for destroying the other nations - i.e., it isn't acceptable for ANYONE.

No cherry picking at all.

I'm through with your liberal nonsense. As I said, you have a very low view of Scripture.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

I never should have bothered. All you did was prove what a completely brainwashed jerk you are, and how you deny the right of people to object to servicing activities they don't agree with.

A fetus is a baby - abortion doctors are murderers. And yes, they obviously hate babies - Grosnell is a perfect example.

"Benefits" married couples "enjoy" are not "rights." You claimed that homosexuals are denied rights. And the majority of the so-called "benefits" can be acquired by anyone simply through contractual agreements.

Parenting is for real marriage - so children have a mother and a father. You want to deny that right to children just so perverts can brainwash them.

Benefits given to married couples - real marriage - are for the propagation of society, since marriage is the fundamental bedrock of society. That's why heterosexual couples just living together don't get the benefits either.

Homosexuality does nothing positive for society. It should not be sanctioned or benefited in any manner.

Now, what RIGHTS are they denied?

Jim said...

Now, what RIGHTS are they denied?

It's quite simple. They are denied the right to equal protection of the laws under Amendment XIV.

A fetus is a baby

No it's not.

abortion doctors are murderers.

No, they are not.

And yes, they obviously hate babies

Absurd.

Grosnell is a perfect example.

No, he is only an example of the
extreme fringe. Like you.

Parenting is for real marriage - so children have a mother and a father.

Clearly then if a parent expires, surviving children must be taken from the surviving spouse. No single-parent households allowed.

That's why heterosexual couples just living together don't get the benefits either.

But why not? They are just as able to propagate as a married couple. Many do.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

They have all the rights to equal protection. They only want the right to redefine marriage. They are not denied any RIGHTS married people have - they are only denied benefits just like all other unmarried people.

You can deny that a fetus is a baby all you want, but you have to deny medical and scientific facts to do so. If a person kills a baby, no matter what its stage, then that person is a murderer by definition.

Real marriages have both parents - and even if one dies, the missing parent is still part of the equation. You obviously haven't studied the issue.

Unmarried couples who propagate tend to burden society with problem children, but that is a whole other subject, and you wouldn't be interested in facts there either.

Now, I'm finished with you. You are a fool.

Jim said...

Thank you for once again proving that you look to law to determine morality for you.

I don't look to the law for morality. I look to the law for reality.

A couple where both are 14 years old can't either. Discrimination?

No, because there are NO 14 year olds that can marry.

A couple where only one is 14 can't either. Discrimination?

See previous answer.

A couple comprised of adults who are father and daughter can't either. Discrimination?

No, because there are NO fathers and daughters who can marry.

Single people can't enjoy the same privileges as married heteros.

Because they are not married and choose to be not married.

Because marriage has always been defined in a particular way

You have yet to show me the legal wording of the definition of marriage prior to the last several decades in the US.

the benefits to the state marriages so defined bring, homosexuals don't qualify. Neither do those under the legal age, nor do couples closely related. If there is harm experienced by homosexuals,

State marriages were not "so defined" prior to a couple of decades ago. Even so, there is nothing that a heterosexual marriage brings to society that a homosexual marriage can't.

Vaughn Walker denied standing to those wishing to make their cases

Seems that's not true, otherwise he would have simply thrown the case out instead of hearing the case and rendering a decision.

the most important argument as regards this particular case is that the people of California wanted it as evidenced by the vote that led to the legislation being so scrutinized.

You forget that the state of California had previously granted the right to marry to homosexual couples. Proposition 8 took away that right without demonstrating any compelling legal reason to do so, thereby denying gay couples equal protection of the laws according to the 14th Amendment.

Walker had no more reason to recuse himself than a devout Christian would.

Any child adopted by homosexuals does the same.

So no mother or father is better than two of one or the other?

Few such states legalized SSM as a direct result of the will of the people.

State legislatures are not the will of the people?

o. He's. Not OK, I'll give you that one.

You're a liar

So is your mother.

Her call.

Not according to Washington state consumer laws.

It doesn't matter the stage of development in which the person is.

To be a "person", it does.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I would suggest those who believe there are no 14-year-old who can marry, that they review the age limits as demonstrated by this wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

Wow, there are 14-year-olds who can marry in the USA! Of course we knew other countries allowed it, especially in Muslim countries where they allow 12-year-olds to be able to consent to sex, let alone marry.

When liberals look to the law for morality - or “reality” - they have a difficult time accepting the law of slavery which the SCOTUS verified as lawful in previous years, let alone the laws that were in Germany during the Nazi rule which exterminated Jews. Yeah, that’s reality.

So, as it has always stood throughout history, there were no same-sex couples who could marry and no incestuous couples who could marry - whether it was brother/sister or parent/child. That’s because they didn’t fit the definition of marriage. Now those who say same-sex people can marry, say that there are no incestuous couples who can marry. Don’t you just love their arbitrary morality?

People still looking for legal wording of marriage don’t bother consulting dictionaries more than 15-20 years old, but then again they don’t realize that a legal definition never used to be require any more than a legal definition of a circle or square was require because they all had intrinsic definitions. They now disingenuously claim since there is no legal definition, that means they can define it any way they want. Next they will start redefining circles and squares.

There is so much heterosexual marriages bring to the stabilization of society that it is in every history book, yet the only thing homosexual relations - let alone fake marriage - bring to society is degradation and collapse of society. Anyone studying history knows that sexual immorality has been the downfall of great societies. Ah, but we mustn’t let truth get in the way of perversion.

No mother or father is certainly better for the child than to be raised by two perverts who cannot teach or demonstrate proper human sexuality, and who will do nothing but brainwash the children in their perversion.

Lastly, immoral liberals decide there is a difference between a human and a person. Sort of like they did when defining black people. A social construct to promote an agenda, in which they give “personhood” to animals but not to pre-born babies. It is an upside-down and perverse world these people live in.

Feodor said...

"there were no same-sex couples who could marry and no incestuous couples who could marry"

In ancient Egypt, the royal family married brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, etc. so that the royal lineage could be kept pure.

In 1306, Byzantine emperor Andronicus II set down prohibitions against same sex unions saying, "if some wish to enter into ceremonies of same-sex union, we should prohibit them, for they are not recognized by the church."

This, obviously, was a new crackdown on the Affrerement - a written agreement between two people of the same sex in France with an intent to form one household and share "un pain, un vin, et une bourse" (“one bread, one wine, and one purse”). In Italy, the contracts used a similar phrase: a une pane e uno vino.

Because you look to history for morality, Glenn, I'm sure you'll have a difficult time accepting these realities.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

Rare incidents do not make the argument. They just prove that they were abnormal or everyone would be accepting them.

Go ahead and have sex with an animal, because forbidding such was just for the Jews - after all, that is the logic you promote with your hermeneutics.

Feodor said...

If a couple thousand years of Egyptian rule constitutes "rare incidents" to you, then that just piles on the evidence that you define things wholly-nilly.

And it's not me making any argument from history, it was you ("So, as it has always stood throughout history, there were no same-sex couples who could marry and no incestuous couples who could marry...").

And you were wrong.

But in an effort to evade the facts, you try to blame me with what you attempted.

Finally, if "rare incidents" don't make an argument, then why all this emotion of yours against something that, statistically, would be very rare?

Can you spell hypocrisy? (Hint: I just helped.)

Feodor said...

Do you eat pork, Glenn?

Feodor said...

And are you in favor of polygamy?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
The number of years isn't what makes it rare, what makes it rare is that it takes place in few societies.

But marrying one's opposite-sex sibling isn't the problem - at least they are biologically compatible, and I don't really see anything wrong with it if they are adults and in love (after all, before the time of Mose it was common, especially in the decades after creation when everyone was closely related).

The context of the statement to Jim about what was permitted throughout history was the USA.

You really are a jerk. I really need to quit feeding your foolishness. Go play elsewhere - I'm finished.

Feodor said...

I suspect there are many things that you allow that are prohibited by ancient Hebraic law.

And I suspect there are many things that you disallow that are allowed by ancient Hebraic law.

The point is that you cannot use ancient Hebraic cultic laws in any rational systematic sense to propose a sensible moral viewpoint for a democratic state.

Not without setting up nonsensical and hypocritical rules of interpretation.

But as you, in fact, do, perhaps you should tell us what all you really do with a pig.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo, I do have to make one last comment.

Your stupid and asinine claims about Hebraic law is typical of liberals and twisted hermeneutics taking things out of context so as to promote their perverse ideology.

When you face the Lord in your unbelief, you will have no excuse.

Feodor said...

One has to be a jerk when straightening out imbeciles who have no excuse being imbeciles. The proof that your will to be stupid has been made, so soft approaches have to be ruled out.

So, thanks for the affirmation that I'm on the only road that may have a chance.

Feodor said...

So you find these questions and summary point hard to answer, do you?

Feodor said...

I take it that when you say, "jerk," you're really reluctantly saying, "you won."

Because you seem left in silence as the only other response to my characterizations of how you construct your moral commitments.

Feodor said...

So, Marshall, Glenn destroyed his faith in Leviticus (and Deuteronomy for that matter). He says incest between brother and sister is OK.

You, too?
_______________

Glenn, from his own website argument relying on Leviticus proscriptions toward homosexual acts, on Leviticus 18 and 20:

"The Scripture is very, very plain: God says all the listed sexual behaviors are an abomination to Him, and that those who practice these things are worthy of severe punishment....

However, in His discussion about sexual practices He found abhorrent, God says these are behaviors that those outside of Israel are even disallowed, and because they practice such abominations they are being destroyed.

The point is, that the Leviticus passages aren’t just relegated to some ancient prohibition for some people. These passages speak of these sexual practices as something that God detests among people no matter when or where."

Leviticus 18:19:

"You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born abroad."

Leviticus 20:17:

"If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people; he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness, he shall be subject to punishment..."


And then Glenn today:

"But marrying one's opposite-sex sibling isn't the problem - at least they are biologically compatible, and I don't really see anything wrong with it if they are adults and in love..."

Jim said...

those who believe there are no 14-year-old who can marry

I'm not the one who brought up 14-year-olds. That was Marshall citing a disqualification criteria.

they have a difficult time accepting the law of slavery

I have no problem with that at all since I have never lived when slavery was legal in this country.

Now those who say same-sex people can marry, say that there are no incestuous couples who can marry. Don’t you just love their arbitrary morality?

It's not the least bit arbitrary. There are recognizable and provable social harms in incestuous marriages.

People still looking for legal wording of marriage don’t bother consulting dictionaries more than 15-20 years old

No, we're asking you to point out a legal definition of marriage from more than 15-20 years ago.

more than a legal definition of a circle

Is an ellipse a circle? Is a circle with a one inch border one circle or an infinite number of circles.

They now disingenuously claim since there is no legal definition, that means they can define it any way they want.

No, they don't. The definition remains the same. The difference is who may participate.

the only thing homosexual relations - let alone fake marriage - bring to society is degradation and collapse of society.

Wild and baseless speculation.

Lastly, immoral liberals decide there is a difference between a human and a person. Sort of like they did when defining black people.

False.

they give “personhood” to animals

On which planet did you find this?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
No, I'm saying you are DEAD wrong and will wake up in hell at the resurrection.

I'm saying you are DEAD wrong but to argue with a fool like you is a waste of my time.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
Once again you twist context and make it appear that things are different than what they are.

From a viewpoint of what unbelievers teach, and for unbelievers' behavior, I have no problem with incest BIOLOGICALLY - which is what I noted. And I was using YOUR argument about being in love validating their relationship. And I used the example of pre-Moses as to there being nothing wrong biologically.

I have stated, as you note, that all those sexual perversions listed in Lev 18 were an abomination to God. You claim that they are cultural only. So if that is the case, then you cannot be against incestuous marriages or bestiality. (so are you going to say I approve of bestiality?) I am using YOUR arguments against you.

How dense can one be!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

There are recognizable and provable social harms in incestuous marriages.

DUH! There are “recognizable and provable social harms” in homosexual relationships!!!
http://carm.org/collateral-moral-decay
http://carm.org/statistics-hiv-aids-health
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/jun/05060606
http://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/active-homosexuals-18-times-more-likely-to-contract-aids-but-homophobia-is
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-smokescreen-putting-young-mens-health-at-risk
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-couples-less-healthy-than-married-heterosexuals-study-finds
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/cdc-risk-of-hiv-150-times-greater-for-gay-men-than-for-heterosexual-men/

Affects on children:
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_sexpref.html
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/05/should-homosexual-couples-be-allowed-to-adopt.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gold-standard-studys-striking-findings-children-of-heterosexual-parents-hap
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-views-children-gay-lesbian-parents.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/growing-up-with-two-moms-the-untold-story
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/children-of-gay-couples-academically-disadvantaged-study
http://www.ruthblog.org/2013/01/05/study-finds-children-of-same-sex-couples-lag-in-school/
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kids-need-both-mom-and-dad-says-gay-man-opposed-to-gay-marriage-89018/
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/02/26/when-you-find-out-you-married-your-sister-n1519841/page/full/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kids-need-a-mom-and-dad-says-openly-gay-adoptive-parent
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-terrible-injustice-of-same-sex-marriage-my-story


On which planet do I find liberals giving personhood to animals?
according to Thomas I. White, Conrad N. Hilton Chair of Business Ethics at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, the idea of granting personhood rights to nonhumans would not make them equal to humans. They would not vote, sit on a jury, or attend public school. However, by legally making whales and dolphins “nonhuman persons,” with individual rights under law, it would obligate governments to protect cetaceans from slaughter or abuse.
“The evidence for cognitive and affective sophistication—currently most strongly documented in dolphins—supports the claim that these cetaceans are ‘non-human persons,’” said White. As a result, cetaceans should be seen as “beyond use” by humans and have “moral standing” as individuals. “It is, therefore, ethically indefensible to kill, injure or keep these beings captive for human purposes,” he said.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/2012/03/09/nonhuman-personhood-rights-and-wrongs/
http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/scientists-say-dolphins-should-be-treated-non-human-persons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood

Feodor said...

First, Glenn, you have repeatedly said to Jim and myself that we are not worth your time and that you've given your "last" comment. Repeatedly.

And, yet, here you are again.

You can't even hold a conviction, much less an idea.

Second, you write, "I don't really see anything wrong with it if they are adults and in love..."

Notice that this is not conditioned. You don't see anything wrong.

Now you shuck and jive like the prevaricator that you are, and want to abandon what you believe and suddenly take the position of an unbeliever.

It's understandable you want to find a way out of the rat's trap you're in. You've destroyed your credibility in holding to Leviticus and thereby destroyed you're cherry picked argument that scripture still applies.

While having more guts than Marshall who wont openly admit that he believes Genesis is history and so gives us a 6000 year old Earth...

nonetheless, you are nothing but chicanery.

Feodor said...

And now you've added your open ignorance to what we know about genetics and the biological harm of incest.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
I have to continue when you misrepresent me. The context of the string should have been enough for anyone with average intelligence, but that obviously leaves you out.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Incest has less biological harm than homosexual behavior.

Feodor said...

"to argue with a fool like you is a waste of my time."

"I have to continue when you misrepresent me."

Like I said, you can't hold on to a conviction much less an idea.

Feodor said...

"Incest has less biological harm than homosexual behavior."

And this is obvious idiocy.

Jim said...

Link one says nothing about same sex marriage (SSM).

Link two says nothing about same sex marriage.

Link three says nothing about SSM.

Link four is an argument FOR SSM.

Link five is also an argument for SSM.

Link six is also an argument for SSM.

Link seven says nothing about SSM.

Link eight is a "duh" and says nothing about SSM.

All of these links are about the health of homosexuals and say nothing about the harm done to society by same sex marriages. As noted above, several links speak to promiscuity dangers which would be arguments for SSM.

The links in the next section are primarily from one site and they all pretty much site single studies which claim to show that numerous existing studies to the contrary are flawed. About the best they can do is:

Despite considerable research showing that children of same-sex parents fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents, two papers - a review of existing studies and a new study - published today in Elsevier's Social Science Research, find insufficient data to draw any definitive conclusions.

As far as personhood for animals, I had not heard about this before. I don't think it's a mainstream idea. That said, I understand the reasoning and I'd rather grant personhood to a whale than to Exxon.

Incest has less biological harm than homosexual behavior.

What Feo said.

Marshall Art said...

Well, I guess there's no hope of getting this thread back on topic. The Bobbsey Twins, feo and Jim, can't muster up a decent answer to a simple question: where's the harm in denying marital rights to homosexuals?

Perhaps I was too vague. Unlike Dan, I am speaking of state sanctioning. Beyond my concern for their salvation, I don't much care what reprobates do in the privacy of their own homes. They can pretend to be married if they like. I don't see any harm to them from the denial of being treated like normal people who get married. The harm is of their own making and in their own minds. But neither Jim nor feo can come up with a specific harm that such denial presents to them. I'm not surprised.

feo, pretends to answer with his incredible ambiguous 3 point response, which has no meaning.

But he insists that I lack courage for refusing to respond to his off topic question regarding the age of the earth. I gave him the answer I always give because it is true. I don't give it any thought. The reason for this is as simple as he is: It makes no difference. We can't know the truth of it.

I will say this, though: I am not the least bit surprised that feo lacks the courage to have complete faith in God and the answer Scripture provides. Oh no. That would not sound sophisticated and feo can't have that. He has an image his imaginary friends expect him to maintain. For me, I have no problem believing God is capable of creating the universe in the blink of an eye, and if He took six days to do it, that would be because He is free to take His time.

On the other hand, I do not have the same level of faith that man is capable of determining anything so far back in history with any real accuracy. We can only guess based on the limitations of human ability and the devices we use to measure such things.

In the meantime, we must live our lives and having an opinion one way or the other profits us nothing. Unless you're "of the world" like feo and rely on what the world thinks for validation of you're own greatness.

As to incest, two adults (mother/son, brother/sister, whatever) engaged in a loving relationship is no different than any other heterosexual relationship as far as harm to either goes. Dan likes to believe that no such arrangement can exist without harm to one or the other (or maybe both) of the participants. He has no proof that this is the case. feo doesn't either. At best, these foolish boys have only examples of such couples that did have issues. They don't represent anyone more than themselves.

But when discussing all the physical issues noted by outfits like the CDC, these same boys will say they speak only of loving, monogamous and committed relationships. Well, so are the incestuous. All things being equal physically and emotionally, the incestuous couple will risk less harm from their relationship.

What about the kids? Kids don't mean jack as far as the definition of marriage. Or so we're told by the activists and their enablers. So worrying about the kids an incestuous couple might produce is a meaningless attempt on their part.

AS for what Glenn believes about incest, I don't for a minute think he was stating that it wasn't sinful, only that in a discussion regarding "rights", what could be wrong with it, especially as compared with homosexual pairings.

Marshall Art said...

What else we have seen in this discussion is the usual nonsense regarding Levitical law. There is very little mystery surrounding which laws can be discarded and which are proper guides for human behavior. But the activist and his enabler needs to have people believe that if one law stands they all do, and since some clearly no longer stand, none of them can. This is childish and a position only held by "progressives" who claim to be Christian, like feo, Jim, Dan and a few others not currently engaged in this discussion. Actual Christians don't have any problem telling one from another. For example:

Which does not belong?

Example A
1. Thou shalt not steal.
2. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
3. Thou shalt not lie.
4. Thou shalt not eat shellfish.

Example B
1. Thou shalt not have any gods before thee.
2. Thou shalt not lie with a male as thou wouldst with a female.
3. Thou shalt not covet.
4. Thou shalt not trim the hair on the side of your head.

If you didn't choose #4 in each one, you're a Parkie.

Another issue on which we can't seem to get together is the very basis of this conversation does not require acknowledging which states have legalized the abomination of SSM. Jim likes to point to this, as seen in his response to my examples of incest (and the rest) as regards harm also befalling those groups for not being able to avail themselves of the bennies normal married people get.

Dishonesty abounds in dealing with leftists on this issue, as the title of this series indicates. Jim and feo also bring the stupid. So sad that their corruption blinds them so badly.

Jim said...

where's the harm in denying marital rights to homosexuals?

I've answered it several times. You are not paying attention.

Homosexuals are citizens and legal residents of this country. Citizens and legal residents attain certain benefits by being legally married. Denial of legal marriage denies these rights to otherwise "qualified" people for no reason, and therefore denies them equal protection of the laws according to the 14th amendment. Such denial harms homosexuals.

That is the harm to denying marital rights to same sex couples.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Feodor said...

I would add that the harm is to our society as a whole. When we engage in denying one group rights that all others have, we take a step toward fascism. That is corrupting to our use of power. It is an abuse of power. And it leads easily to other abuses.

And for the record, Marshall, since you don't keep it: I never argued that the laws of the Torah have to be taken whole or discarded whole. My argument is that one cannot decide which to keep and which to toss based on the thinking from within scripture itself. The composition of Mosaic law was built for a different time, for different construction of human societies. We share common traits. We are also very different. And one cannot untangle the laws by chapter or even verse on occasion.

As you point out, much of it is common sense. And except for my allowing Example 2B, as Christians we're agreed on your list.

Finally, willingly deciding to flirt with creating diseased offspring is a moral problem with me. And with society for millennia.

Marshall Art said...

"I would add that the harm is to our society as a whole."

That is exactly the what denial of what homosexuals demand would prevent. The difference is, we can easily list the harm that would befall society, as we have been doing all along, and your side can't show anything that resembles harm if you get your way.

If we will be taking a step toward fascism, then one would expect to have already seen signs of it from all the centuries homosexual unions have been denied. Have you seen it?

If we will be taking a step toward fascism, then by denying polygamists, the incestuous and others the same rights leads to the same fascism. It's the same denial rejecting the same arguments.

"My argument is that one cannot decide which to keep and which to toss based on the thinking from within scripture itself."

And your argument can only stand by ignoring the teachings of Jesus and Paul, as well as the experience of Peter in Acts 10:9-23. And by the way, we have no dire need for the separations by chapter and verse except for use as references (as in, see Chapter 2 verse 10).

As to willingly flirting with creating diseased offspring, the homosexuals have taught us that children are not worthy of consideration in determining who can be married. The incestuous don't need to procreate and can prevent it easily. The only consideration, if an enabler wishes to be honest and consistent, is the desires of the consenting adults.

More later.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Thank you, Marshall. You get it. But then, you've proven to be much more intelligent than the bobsy twins.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Hasn't everyone noticed that the genius homosexualists keep claiming that benefits are rights?

These are the same type of people who think there are such things in the government trough that are "entitlements."

Jim said...

Hasn't everyone noticed that the genius homosexualists keep claiming that benefits are rights?

Are you learning impaired?

Equal protection of the laws is a RIGHT guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. If people are denied benefits for no compelling reason, benefits that others get, they are being denied the RIGHT to equal protection.

Is that simple enough for you?

Hey Glenn. When you are 66, will you be "entitled" to your Social Security benefits?

When you are 65, will you be "entitled" to your Medicare benefits?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
Benefits are not rights. Simple as that.
Homosexuals have every equal protection under the law, every right. They don't have rights to benefits for which they are not qualified, any more than anyone else is. That IS the "compelling reason." YOU are learning impaired.

SS and Medicare, by the way, are benefits of returning money to those who paid into the accounts. In fact, they are both called "insurance," and not benefits. You are only eligible for insurance payout benefits if you pay into the insurance.

And, no, I am not eligible for SS because I have not paid enough into the SS account, and I never will. I am eligible for Medicare because I paid for it.

Feodor said...

"I would add that the harm is to our society as a whole."

We are still - and literally - paying for the harm of Jim Crow and poll taxes that kept some gropus for excersizing the rights and benefits that the majority had. And we will continue to pay for that for some time. The Republican party only suffers the surface scratches of the fact that black folks vote so heavily one-sided. I wish that our political stances were a lot more mature, or varied than they are, but they're not.

We are still paying and will continue to do so for paying women only 80% or less of what we pay men for the same job done. We pay for being unable to see all women as talent, as executive talent or leadership talent.

We pay - and literally pay - when we fail to include every individual in access to opportunity and an equal playing field for advancement.

The harm is to our society as a whole.

Another way we pay in regard to accepting gay indentity is psychological. Social repression of dignity creates maladaptive growth in many individuals who deserve that dignity. Make not mistake that many people, most people suffer societies prejudices inwardly and as nobly as they can. But others become vulnerable thinking that they themselves are wrong. In this way, society has suffered untold numbers of bad, horrific and crushingly lonely marriages because many gay people were trying to live out repressive expectations. Children have been psychologically damaged, even abused by self-medicating people in horrible agony.

Therefore, the harm is also to our society as a whole.

" then one would expect to have already seen signs of it from all the centuries homosexual unions have been denied. Have you seen it?"

Yes, and you have, too.

There has been no period of seventy years less bloody, less violent, less marked by war, torture, the agonies of famine, mental illness, proportionate poverty, abuse of power as the last seventy years.

And this is due directly to international agreement and cooperation to uphold human rights. The era of human rights has brought about massive change for the better. We have successively improved societies lot by, in turn, turning our back on racism and sexism, anti-Semitism, prejudice of all kinds. If we can keep this going, things will get better for our society and for all socities to the extent that the rights of individuals are respected.

What, you'd say things were better in 1260? 610? 1800? 1929?

For whom?

Opressing homosexuals is wrapped in the millenia of group bias, prejudice and outright violent oppression. It was ugly and inhuman then and it is ugly and inhuman now and in you.

Here's an easy list for you, Marshall

Example A

1. Polygamist
2. Bestiality
3. Whips and chains, torture and sexual slavery.
4. Two adults in love.
5. Sex between a son and his mother.

Which one is made in the image of God, and so facist to prohibit?

Peter thought the gospel surely did not extend to Gentiles. But God, at Cornelius house, told him that what God has cleansed, you must not call unclean.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh brother! Talk about exaggeration and hyperbole. Now it is "oppression" when we refuse homosexuals the right to redefine marriage!!

Seems some people worship the fraudulent ideas of psychology and yet dismiss the Bible out of hand. I'd say these people are Satan's "useful idiots."

Jim said...

Benefits are not rights. Simple as that.

Perhaps not. However, equal protection of the laws IS a right. It's the cornerstone of the 14th Amendment.

Do you understand that Glenn? Amendments to the Constitution are by definition part of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

"nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

They don't have rights to benefits for which they are not qualified

They are not qualified ONLY because they do not have a marriage license recognized by the government (except in 10 and soon to be 11 or 12 states). Since the state can provide no compelling reason other that "God said so" for denying the marriage license, that denial also denies these citizens equal protection of the laws.

Simple as that.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
You are demonstrating your total ignorance.

Again, you have not, and cannot, demonstrate any RIGHT which homosexuals are denied. There is no violation of the 14th amendment by refusing to allow them to change the definition of marriage, or by refusing to sanction their unions which claim to be marriage.

Benefits are not rights, and therefore are not protected by the 14th amendment. You keep talking about benefits being denied as being rights being denied. They are not the same thing.

Simple as that. End of story.

Now try to force people to accept a circle as a square or a dandelion as a rose.

Feodor said...

"Seems some people worship the fraudulent ideas of psychology and yet dismiss the Bible out of hand. I'd say these people are Satan's useful idiots.'"

Galations 5, Glenn.

"For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Loving one's neighbor includes exposing him for the fraud that he is. After all, you will find in the N.T. where Paul exposes false teachers. Loving one's neighbor does not mean you can't expose him for the fraud and false teacher that he is. Exposing is the most loving thing one can do so as to save him from Hell, as well as protecting others from his false teachings.

And if you are going to quote someone, you should get the quotation marks correct. "Useful idiots" was a citation and not part of my statement except as a citation.

Feodor said...

Loving one's fellow Christian means not putting him or her back under the Law. That's what you want to do. And Paul, in Galatians, is asking that you do not do that.

He, as do I, will implore our gay brothers and sisters not to listen to you for you are a corruption of the Gospel. Attend, Glenn, to the words of your Lord's apostle to those you would cut off from Christ for the sake of your Leviticus:

"For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love."

Jim said...

Glenn, you are demonstrating your total incompetence.

There is no violation of the 14th amendment by refusing to allow them to change the definition of marriage

Same sex couples are denied a legal marriage by the federal government and most states simply because they are gay. Since there is no compelling reason to deny gay couples legal marriage, they are being denied due process and equal protection under the laws.

Gays want the right to marry based on the legal definition prior to the time a few years ago that it was changed to exclude same sex couples.

The ONLY compelling reason that you can give for denying same sex couples the ability to marry is "the Bible says so". But the Bible carries no weight in this matter. Therefore there is no justification in denying marriage to these couples.

You keep talking about benefits being denied as being rights being denied.

The RIGHT denied is not the benefit. The RIGHT denied is the right to due process and equal protection of the laws. These are constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

So telling a homosexual that his sexual behavior is an abomination before God is putting them back under the law!?!?! To tell someone they are sinning is putting them back under the law?!

Feo, you are a blatant false teacher. Get behind me, Satan.

Feodor said...

Satan is already behind you, Glenn. He's whispering in your ear the words that are coming out of your mouth.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

There never was a time in the history of the United States when same-sex unions were considered to be marriage, and only in unusual and bizarre episodes in history did anyone anywhere consider same-sex unions to be marriage. Look at the definition of the word prior to recent times before homosexual activists twisted the word beyond its meaning.

There is every compelling reason to not change the definition. If you change the definition to include two people of the same sex, then you cannot logically deny others to change the meaning to include unions with corpses or inanimate objects.

No-one anywhere denies homosexual people the right to marry - we deny them the right to change the meaning of the word for activist reasons.

Homosexual people are not denied the right to due process. They are being denied a right to redefine words. There is no compelling reason for any society to change the historical definition of marriage just so perverts can get a legally recognized union.

You are not talking about equal protection - you are talking about a right to redefine words and an institution so as to sanction perversion.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo, You are a tool of Satan and a blasphemer.

I am finished with your foolishness.

Feodor said...

This is now, what, the sixth time you've said so. And yet you keep breaking your own proclamation. This is how we know you are a deceiver: you deceive even yourself.

And as a Judaizer, St. Paul condemns you and God will spew you out of his mouth.

Jim said...

So telling a homosexual that his sexual behavior is an abomination before God is putting them back under the law!?!?!

Putting them back under the law? What does that mean? Who is telling a homosexual anything about his behavior? It doesn't matter if their behavior is an abomination before God. God is irrelevant on this (and every) legal issue.

There never was a time in the history of the United States when same-sex unions were considered to be marriage

This is not true. Same-sex unions have been considered to be marriage in Massachusetts since 2003. Prior to the last few decades it wasn't an issue because same sex couples were not asking to be married.

Look at the definition of the word prior to recent times before homosexual activists twisted the word beyond its meaning.

Well we would, but you have yet to provide us any legal source for it.

If you change the definition to include two people of the same sex, then you cannot logically deny others to change the meaning to include unions with corpses or inanimate objects.

This is absurd. Of course you can logically exclude corpses and inanimate objects from marriage. Heterosexual and homosexuals are living humans. Corpses and inanimate objects are not. This may be the most absurd argument you've offered yet.

No-one anywhere denies homosexual people the right to marry

This too is absurd on its face. This "changing the definition" bullshit is a smokescreen and has no meaning.

Homosexual people are not denied the right to due process.

Of course they are. They are denied equal protection of the laws. They are not trying to change the definition of marriage. They are trying to be included because there is not reason for them not to be included.

There is no compelling reason for any society to change the historical definition of marriage just so perverts can get a legally recognized union.

This is jibberish. You don't need compelling reasons to avail yourself of rights. But there must be a compelling reason to deny rights. This are none in this case.

you are talking about a right to redefine words

Nonsense. There is no redefining of the word.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 263   Newer› Newest»