Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drunks

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Shhhhhh... We're Silencing Christians...

Posted by on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:42 AM

Yeah, that's the real problem in America today—the way the gays have managed to completely silence Christians. Can you even recall the last time you heard a peep out of an American Christian? Remember how the gays drove Mike Huckabee from public life? Whatever happened to Rick Warren anyway?

Sigh.

Go and watch the video, marvel at the awesome power of the gay rights lobby, and then take their "Family Values Survey." (Please note: hating and fearing gay people is the only value the Christians behind this survey are interested in.) Unfortunately there's not a "who gives a fuck?" option for the first question ("Do you believe the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin?"), so just vote "undecided." And to this woman...

e3cc/1234366785-usedtobegay.jpg

...I'd like to say this: the gays are perfectly willing to tolerate your story—"tolerate" meaning "put up with" not "be delighted by"—it's your haircut that we can't abide. You can be an ex-lesbian without having to have your hair done by the same woman who frosts the cakes down at the IGA. Thanks to Slog tipper Sean.

 

Comments (311) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Christians just can't understand that their bible is no longer the final authority. If they would just stop trying to force their book down our throats we might be able to get along better.
Posted by Jesus Sucked Cock on February 11, 2009 at 7:52 AM · Report this
2
You can be an ex-lesbian without having to have your hair done by the same woman who frosts the cakes down at the IGA.


Now was that really necessary?

Totally a cheap shot at hard-working, tax-paying, IGA cake frosters.
Posted by What Work Isn't on February 11, 2009 at 7:55 AM · Report this
3
Exactly, Why is the only value Christians have the hate of Homosexuals?
Posted by clearlyhere on February 11, 2009 at 8:01 AM · Report this
4
Man, I get so tired of hearing about "The Homosexual Agenda" like it is some agreed upon manifesto. Nobody can even decide how many gay people there are.

And anyone who has tried to head-up some gay-oriented event or sub-committee could talk about the broad disagreement in that tiny group.

What a bunch of whiners those Christians are.........
Posted by hartiepie on February 11, 2009 at 8:07 AM · Report this
5
And yet if Christians act on their beliefs and try to support Prop 8 they can expect to be hounded from their job.
Freedom to do as I want as long as the Homosexuals approve doesn't feel all that free.
Posted by Tyler on February 11, 2009 at 8:09 AM · Report this
6
I took the survey Dan. What was your answer to the question:

Do you believe that churches and religious organizations should be forced to hire homosexuals?

I said no, as these organizations can discriminate legally based on religious grounds. But I would have said the opposite if "homosexuals" was replaced by "racial minorities they don't like".

This sort of double standard makes me cringe, but I think I'm guilty of it in this case...
Posted by facet on February 11, 2009 at 8:11 AM · Report this
7
Yawn. This is the old dinosaur sect of so-called Christians and while their voice may be loud, their impact is weaker.
Gay acceptance is now permanent and growing.
I just love it on ABC's 'Brothers & Sisters' how Kevin and Scotty have romantic scenes and now the older uncle Sol who just came out has a boyfriend.
Given how our world is smaller and wired, and despite some problems we have as the economy fails and bigots lash out, gay acceptance is on an ever increasing 30% grade trajectory upwards!
Posted by Chip Chipmunk on February 11, 2009 at 8:11 AM · Report this
8
Tyler, you are a joke. It wasn't gay people who took away "Christians" right to marry. All that bullshit about "do unto others..." and "love your neighbor..." are conveniently ignored bible quotes. And in my lifetime I have heard "Christians" "bearing false witness" against gay people thousands of times. Not to mention the fact that "Christians" have been using their bible as an excuse to persecute and murder and enslave millions of innocent people for the last two thousand years. What is happening is that people are waking up to your lies and hypocrisy, mean spiritedness and just plain stupidity. Keep it up and soon you and your kind will be even more isolated as fringe freaks who deserve not a wit of anyone's time.
Posted by Vince on February 11, 2009 at 8:22 AM · Report this
9
Ya know, if we really *were* silencing the Christians, that'd be pretty damn impressive. Because, at least as of 2001 (according to http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_…) about 76.5% of Americans identify as Christian. Granted, some of those Christians are probably gay, and some of them are bound to support gay rights, as much as the family values, anti-gay Christians would like to believe.
Posted by P. on February 11, 2009 at 8:23 AM · Report this
10
Telling that they don't try to hide their racism either. Notice that in the survey they refer to African-Americans getting special rights.

The pink-jacketed narrator lady is a tad bit, um, aggressive. Didn't I see her playing pool down at The Comfortable Shoe? Yes, I'm sure I did.
Posted by Loved by Jesus on February 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM · Report this
11
Anyone else find it hilarious that Pink Jacketed Aggressive Narrator Lady started her talk standing next to a stopped clock under a bell? I think her name must be Amber, as in "stuck in it".
Posted by Loved by Jesus on February 11, 2009 at 8:31 AM · Report this
12
@#7. The impact of the Christian bigots is shrinking and because of that they are becoming more desperate. I think their rhetoric will become more violent and I fear it may cause an increase in gay bashings.
So much of their fear is based on a projection of their own feelings. They assume that since they would deny us our rights that we would deny them their rights. I am sure there is some anger toward people who donated to prop 8 and they should not face discrimination even if they are themselves advocating discrimination. The fact that in the long run they are losing the culture war should be punishment enough.
Posted by Heather on February 11, 2009 at 8:31 AM · Report this
13
My favorite question:
Should children in public schools be taught homosexuality is normal, acceptable, and equal to the traditional marriage of a man and a woman?

Lessee, is sexual orientation the same as a civil contract. Err... I'm sorry, but can someone lend me their Apples to Oranges Converter?

Here is my question:
Should children in public schools be taught that paranoia is normal, acceptable, and equal to a dog license?
Posted by Loved by Jesus on February 11, 2009 at 8:37 AM · Report this
14
My theory on ex-lesbians and why lesbianism seems more plastic than gayishness. Most men really don't want kids or can at least easily do without. Most women really do want kids or at least have a harder time doing without. So lesbians are more likely than gays to put family ahead of sexuality. So I'm perfectly willing to tolerate her story, but I wish she would reflect a bit on what is really motivating her. She might find that instead of the bad faith of religious assent she'd find a perfectly responsible and legitimate preference for a family of a certain sort over her homosexuality. If she were saying that instead of god babble I'd respect her without qualification.
Posted by kinaidos on February 11, 2009 at 8:39 AM · Report this
15
Gee, I dunno Dan, haven't heard a peep out of those gay-friendly Christians...
Posted by Liberal mainline on February 11, 2009 at 8:46 AM · Report this
16
That interview is unanswerable. It is about "Forcing" employers and granting "special" rights. Their center-line is so far skewed that it has no meaningful connection to reality.
Posted by Tembel on February 11, 2009 at 8:48 AM · Report this
17
@6 - yeah, me too. I had the same struggle over that question.
Posted by Christy O on February 11, 2009 at 8:49 AM · Report this
18
@6, I answered that question "no" too. Churches, even the horribly bigoted ones, are granted consistent special privileges as non-profits. In some cases, they use these as ways to discriminate. It's not just not-hiring-"homosexuals"; much more frequently it plays out as discrimination against women. There are still many mainline churches that won't let women take leadership roles, let alone all the evangelical non-denominational churches.

But my reasoning has something to do with this thought: churches generally have a mission, whether it be to serve their communities (y'know, like Jesus did) or to convert the world, they hire people who can support that mission. That goal includes not hiring non-believers to public positions like pastor or sunday school teacher, and I think that's valid.
Posted by mary on February 11, 2009 at 8:49 AM · Report this
19
No way in hell I'm giving out my name, email and zip code for some lousy christian survey. I'd rather be eaten by Lions in the Colosseum.
Posted by Simone on February 11, 2009 at 9:00 AM · Report this
20
What's an IGA?
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on February 11, 2009 at 9:01 AM · Report this
21
5, If fundie right wing Christians are against gay marriage, they shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. Fundie right wing Christians have the right to live by their faith.

Prop 8 was a measure to force everyone else to live by fundie right wing Christian beliefs too. Apparently, only fundie right wing Christians have the right to live by their faith.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on February 11, 2009 at 9:02 AM · Report this
22
@14 You forget the fact that men who don't find women a sexual turn-on don't get erections with them. Erections don't happen by shear will, they happen as a response to sexual exitement. Women don't need an erection to have sex. They can "pretend".
Posted by Vince on February 11, 2009 at 9:03 AM · Report this
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on February 11, 2009 at 9:03 AM · Report this
24
Since we deride Xtian condescension toward us - so backwards! so ineffective! so outdated! - how do we figure our condescension toward them is somehow going to work better? Because we're cleverer?

Condescension is a political fail on serious matters. it remains effective in antismoking and antimullet activities, but not with the real stuff. At this point it's just each team huddling up for a satisfying circle jerk.

Doesn't mean we have to stop, but let's not pretend it's more than dawdling.
Posted by tomasyalba on February 11, 2009 at 9:09 AM · Report this
Posted by skew the "survey" on February 11, 2009 at 9:11 AM · Report this
26
@19 I used an old email that no longer works, but once existed. And I used my middle name because I have no imagination to just make one up.

@6,18: I said no. I believe that churches shouldn't have to hire people that actively disagree with their teachings. Also, they shouldn't have to perform my gay marriage. And I'll happily not buy any of their products, so it's fair.
Posted by Tiz on February 11, 2009 at 9:20 AM · Report this
27
Sometimes their obsession with gays baffles me. So they think homosexuality is a sin. Okay. Would they have made an hour long video about how a group of prideful people are waging a secret campaign to get Americans to be more accepting of pride? Or envy? Or gluttony? Where are the videos condemning the fat acceptance people?
Posted by Julie in Eugene on February 11, 2009 at 9:22 AM · Report this
28
21
For centuries Homosexual marriage has not been recognized and that was the law everyone lived under regardless of their religion or if they had any religion at all.
Homosexuals want to force society to change marriage laws to reflect their religious view of what marriage should be.
Separation of church and state keeps one group from forcing their religious views onto society.
So stop.
Posted by Harmon on February 11, 2009 at 9:29 AM · Report this
29
@1 said:

"If they would just stop trying to force their book down our throats we might be able to get along better."

Clearly, Christians are the religious equivalent of foie gras eaters, and consider the rest of us their "geese".

Somebody call NARN, stat.
Posted by COMTE on February 11, 2009 at 9:32 AM · Report this
30
8
It doesn't really matter if I am a "good" Christian or fit your definition of what a Christian should be or follow the Bible or if I am a mean hypocrit.
In a democracy I can put my position out in the marketplace of ideas and have it accepted or rejected.
Homosexuals try to force the position that opposition to Gay marriage is not an legitimate opinion and those who hold it are fair game to any abuse, harrassment or retaliation.
Those activities (seen after Prop 8 but not unique to it) are no different than KKK nightriders intimidating Blacks into not pressing for their rights.
Posted by Tyler on February 11, 2009 at 9:37 AM · Report this
31
I took the survey, and I even used my real name etc. Perhaps, I made a bad choice, I'll have to wait and see. Maybe, I'll find myself smashing against a brick wall, or a good discussion can come from it. Last, week I had a great one with a pastor.
Posted by kim on February 11, 2009 at 9:39 AM · Report this
32
28, For centuries slavery was recognized. Does that make it right?

Next, marriage is a legal status, and contract regulated by the government. Atheists are allowed to get married. Should we ban that?

Gay people are not trying to force Christians to enter into same sex marriages, but Christians want to force their religion on gay people. Really you've got to come up with a valid argument.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on February 11, 2009 at 9:40 AM · Report this
33
@30. The KKK was a pretty strange analogy to use... Especially since "homosexuals try to force the position that opposition to gay marriage is not a legitimate opinion" makes me think of "blacks try to force the position that opposition to civil rights is not a legitimate opinion". Wanting to denying people civil rights is not a legitimate opinion. Got it?
Posted by Julie in Eugene on February 11, 2009 at 9:45 AM · Report this
34
29, No, Christians have more in common with NARN. NARN wants to ban meat. They think everyone should live as they do.

The foie gras eaters are more like gay people. They just want the right to eat what they like. They are not forcing anyone else to eat it.


Posted by Rob in Baltimore on February 11, 2009 at 9:46 AM · Report this
35
@32. They don't have a valid argument. Specious reasoning is all they've got...
Posted by Julie in Eugene on February 11, 2009 at 9:47 AM · Report this
36
@28:

That's the stupidest anti-gay marriage argument EVER.

For centuries polygamous marriage was considered acceptable, but it was eventually outlawed. For centuries miscegenational and interfaith marriages were not recognized and THAT was the law everyone lived under regardless of their religion or if they had any religion at all.

Marriage is not now, nor has it ever been some immutably fixed institution, and in fact, for most of the time it's been around it hasn't even been a religious institution, but rather an economic one more akin to a transfer of property rights between a father and a son-in-law than anything else.

The notion that marriage has always been some sort of religious sacrament, and is therefore under the exclusive jurisdiction of religious authority is complete and utter bunk. Organized religion has developed a very lucrative racket over the millenia by co-opting the trappings of the marriage ceremony, and they're afraid of losing a good chunk of that income when people - straight people that is - start to realize that civil marriage can be equally as satisfying, equally as profound, and equally as bonding as any religious one.

It's not JUST the fear of Teh Gays, it's also the fear that many organized religions will lose their near exclusive monopoly on administering and consecrating the marriage bond that scares the bejeebuz out of them.
Posted by COMTE on February 11, 2009 at 9:48 AM · Report this
37
@30

That's exactly the analogy I've been searching for all morning. Thanks!
Posted by What Work Isn't on February 11, 2009 at 9:48 AM · Report this
38
30, Civil rights should not be up to the public to decide.

Should a town that is 90% Christian be allowed to vote Jews to be lesser citizens?

Interracial marriage bans were overturned by the courts. Should interracial couples have been forced to convince the population of the deep south before they could get the right to marry?
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on February 11, 2009 at 9:49 AM · Report this
39
32
Marriage IS a legal status, and contract regulated by the government. Atheists are allowed to get married because it has nothing to do with religion.
Homosexuals want to change the law based on their religious view of marriage.
Leave your religious beliefs out of everyones laws.
If you want your preacher to do something for you go for it.
Leave my state constitution out of it.
Posted by Tyler on February 11, 2009 at 10:01 AM · Report this
40
39 I can't follow your logic. Sorry.
Posted by kim on February 11, 2009 at 10:08 AM · Report this
41
It is obscene to compare Homosexual marriage to the Black struggle for freedom and Civil Rights.
Blacks saw that when they voted three to one against homosexual marriage in Californis.
Try again.
Posted by Tyler on February 11, 2009 at 10:08 AM · Report this
42
39, No they don't. They want the LEGAL right to marry. I've not seen even one protest or a single gay person asking for the religious right to marry. It has nothing to do with religion. That argument is a very weak diversionary tactic.

You also failed to address the fact that atheists can get married. Gee, I wonder why?

Do you really not have any better arguments? Really?
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on February 11, 2009 at 10:08 AM · Report this
43
Uh, and it's not obscene to compare gays to the KKK? Try again.
Posted by Julie in Eugene on February 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM · Report this
44
41, why do you feel is it obscene to compare interracial marriage rights to gay marriage rights? Can you explain?
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on February 11, 2009 at 10:19 AM · Report this
45
Tyler, Same sex marriage will soon be as accepted as interracial marriage. The opponets of both will end up looking like the fools that they are. If you are against gay marriage then don't marry a gay person. Marrriage and America belong just as much to homosexuals as it does to you. It is accurate to tie gay rights to the civil rights movement because the civil rights era was the springboard for Stonewall and the modern gay rights movement.
Posted by Heather on February 11, 2009 at 10:21 AM · Report this
46
@28 / 39 / et al.

Please understand that religious marriage has nothing to do with it. Gays can already get a minister or rabbi in many denominations to perform a religious marriage ceremony, but it doesn't do diddly squat for tax purposes. After 21 years in a committed relationship, most of it as main breadwinner, I still have to file as "single / no dependents" even though neither one of those is true.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on February 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM · Report this
47
Tyler, you know you're not supposed to be on Slog during library research hour. Get to work or you'll have to go back to class.
Posted by Darcy on February 11, 2009 at 10:31 AM · Report this
48
43
The anti-religious thuggish terrorist tactics disappointed gays engaged in post Prop 8 were exactly like what the be the KKK (and Nazi Brownshirts) did in their day.
Posted by Harmon on February 11, 2009 at 10:34 AM · Report this
49
P.S. If equal rights for black people had been left up to popular vote, we would still be living in a society where segregation was legal.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on February 11, 2009 at 10:34 AM · Report this
50
48
Bummer about all those beaten-up & murdered Christians.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on February 11, 2009 at 10:36 AM · Report this
51
44
Blacks were enslaved and denied human rights based on their race.
Homosexuals want to force society to endorse and accept behavior choices that are biologically perverse and carry a high social cost.
Perhaps a black California voter could explain it to you better.
Posted by Tyler on February 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM · Report this
52
40
sorry.
Would it help if I borrow my son's crayons and drew a picture?
Posted by Tyler on February 11, 2009 at 10:40 AM · Report this
53
47
Darcy, you're just cranky because your diaper is full.
I'm sure an attendant will be along soon.
Posted by Tyler on February 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM · Report this
54
@53: Aw, hit a nerve? Sorry, it's just that the reasoning you're attempting here is so specious and devoid of logic that I assumed you're a student at a particularly shitty junior high school.
Posted by Darcy on February 11, 2009 at 10:45 AM · Report this
55
49
Have faith in Democracy and the people.
Blacks did win their Civil Rights thru legislation and now we have a Black President and a strong national consensus on racial equality.
Trying to go around the people by finding sympathetic judges to throw out voter passed amendments is undemocratic and a short sighted shortcut.
Posted by Tyler on February 11, 2009 at 10:46 AM · Report this
56
@30 - Those activities (seen after Prop 8 but not unique to it) are no different than KKK nightriders intimidating Blacks into not pressing for their rights.

Try again. In this analogy, the gays are the Blacks pressing for their rights, and the Christians are the KKK nightriders trying to take those rights away. Except that the KKK was outspoken and honest about their actions and intent, and the Christians are all whining, "You're trying to make me feel bad about oppressing you! How can the world tolerate such violent injustice as name-calling and guilt? Name-calling violates my right to oppress! I'm the REAL victim here! Wah!"
Posted by lola on February 11, 2009 at 10:48 AM · Report this
57
54
Don't wiggle.
You'll leak on the sheets.
Posted by ! on February 11, 2009 at 10:48 AM · Report this
58
51: In other words, you are saying that denying human rights based on race is bad, but denying human rights based on sexual orientation is good?

Is your position that denying human rights can be a good thing, as long as it's against someone you don't like?

Nobody is telling you that you have to accept anything. Is a Jew who eats kosher forcing their religion on you? Does that mean you you must eat kosher? Do you even care what a Jew eats? Since the majority of people don't eat kosher, should we ban the practice?

You don't have to eat kosher.
You don't have to go to a kosher luncheon.

You don't have marry someone of the same sex.
You don't have to go to a gay wedding.

Problem solved.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on February 11, 2009 at 10:49 AM · Report this
59
56
Gays were the thugs.
Look it up on Utube.
Posted by Harmon on February 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM · Report this
60
48, really? In Nazi Germany gay people were locked in concentration camps up and killed. (Would you compare Jews in a similar way?)

Where are the Christian concentration camps, gas chambers, and ovens?
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on February 11, 2009 at 10:53 AM · Report this
61
60
In Nazi Germany the top Nazis were homosexuals.
It's in Wiki.
Posted by why don't more gays name their kid Hitler? on February 11, 2009 at 10:58 AM · Report this
62
@59 - You don't get to assign someone else homework. Show us the money or shut it.
Posted by DavidG on February 11, 2009 at 10:59 AM · Report this
63
@55: Really? Black Americans won their civil rights through legislation? I seem to recall a group of "sympathetic judges" throwing out discriminatory legislation, thereby ending segregation. I must have been misinformed.
Posted by Darcy on February 11, 2009 at 11:00 AM · Report this
64
58
God help us-
It must be lunchtime-
Rob has marched out his "kosher is gay" story.
Posted by yummy! it gets better every time we hear it on February 11, 2009 at 11:00 AM · Report this
65
@61: And in Medieval Europe, the top Burning People At The Stake guys were all Christians. What's your point?
Posted by Darcy on February 11, 2009 at 11:02 AM · Report this
66
I took the survey and was fascinated that they referred to "special rights for African-Americans." So, civil rights for African-Americans are "special rights" to these people. So revealing.
Posted by Sam on February 11, 2009 at 11:02 AM · Report this
67
62
Wow Davie, everyone saw the Utube video of Gays assaulting the old lady in California.
Posted by do they have internet in your town yet? on February 11, 2009 at 11:02 AM · Report this
68
64, yeah, it works every time. Nobody has been able to counter it.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on February 11, 2009 at 11:04 AM · Report this
69
Yeah, David, don't they have internet in your town where you're commenting on Slog yet?
Posted by how about electric lights? on February 11, 2009 at 11:09 AM · Report this
70
68
they're all in a boredom induced coma
Posted by 'cept for the ones that blew their brains out on February 11, 2009 at 11:18 AM · Report this
71
Darcy @63, those "activist" Supreme Court judges had some nerve overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, no?

You are more optimistic than I if you think the anti-gay marriage crowd should have a basic understanding of history...
Posted by Julie in Eugene on February 11, 2009 at 11:18 AM · Report this
72
@71: I know, but some days I wake up all bright-eyed and full of hope... Sigh.
Posted by Darcy on February 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM · Report this
73
61
Actually, homosexuals were hunted down and killed and/or put in concentration camps by the Nazis (including the ONE top official who was gay) Its called Paragraph 175. Look it up on Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_1…
Posted by UNPAID COMMENTER on February 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM · Report this
74
71
Thirty Million slaughtered babies are so grateful for activist judges like Butcher Blackmun.
Posted by Hitler is jealous, he only killed 6 million on February 11, 2009 at 11:24 AM · Report this
75
72
That's a side effect of the Aricept
Posted by Nurse Cratchett on February 11, 2009 at 11:29 AM · Report this
76
The problem is that there is no such tolerance from the Homosexual side when Christians try to express their beliefs. It's either being called a bigot or having your name on a list to be persecuted by Homosexuals with an axe to grind. Otherwise why would Homosezuals be putting out such a list of donors. Sounds Nazi like to me.
Posted by Deandrae on February 11, 2009 at 11:46 AM · Report this
77
Why do you HATE me the way you do? All I want you to do is live the way I want you to live. Is that so wrong? I want you to be pure, to be righteous, to stop living your sinful life-style. I want you to do thinks God's way, not your way. It's all about you, even though I talk about it in terms of what "I want". Really it's all about you and finding the LOVE of Gheezuz.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on February 11, 2009 at 11:51 AM · Report this
78
76, No, you can be religious, and believe that homosexuality is wrong. You can even believe that God hates fags if you want. What you don't have the right to do is say that I have to live by those beliefs. Nobody is going to make you have gay sex, or get married to someone of the same sex, but prop 8 forces gay people to live by Christian rules.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on February 11, 2009 at 11:58 AM · Report this
79
78
Marriage between man and woman is not a Christian invention. Mother Nature invented it. She plumbed men and women to make it work. She is sooo smart.
Posted by Marriage- so simple even a caveman can do it! on February 11, 2009 at 12:03 PM · Report this
80
70, Thanks, once again you inadvertently prove my point.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on February 11, 2009 at 12:03 PM · Report this
81
Do you really believe in a "Mother Nature"? Really?

It is natural for a certain percentage of the population to be homosexual, but for the sake of argument let's say that it is not:

Driving a car isn't natural.
Commenting on a blog isn't natural.
Marriage isn't natural.

Are all these things wrong too?
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on February 11, 2009 at 12:06 PM · Report this
82
80
you're so welcome!

(?)
Posted by 70 on February 11, 2009 at 12:07 PM · Report this
83
81
must stay awakeeee.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz on February 11, 2009 at 12:09 PM · Report this
84
Yep, "gay violence" and "gay bigotry" is all around us. Just look at all the cases of violent gay gangs tying straight people to fences and leaving them to die, or hanging them from tree branches. See, Teh Gayz are JUST like the KKK! They're setting straight people afire and dragging them to death behind pickup trucks! They're forcing straight people out of town at sundown at gunpoint! Bad Gayz, bad, bad!

Posted by Geni on February 11, 2009 at 12:09 PM · Report this
85
@76 "having your name on a list to be persecuted by Homosexuals with an axe to grind".

Me choosing not to patronize a business that is owned by someone who donated to Prop 8 is not persecution. It's capitalism. Please make a note.
Posted by Julie in Eugene on February 11, 2009 at 12:10 PM · Report this
86
84
Don't forget the part about their leaky Depends making a mess on bus seats and at the computer terminals at the public library where they oogle high school wrestling photos.
Posted by please clean up after yourself on February 11, 2009 at 12:16 PM · Report this
87
One annoying aspect of trolls is how predictable they are. Not funny. Not logical. Same objections and taunts in almost every post discussion.

This makes them b-o-r-i-n-g.

Please don't feed the trolls any more.
Posted by hartiepie on February 11, 2009 at 12:22 PM · Report this
88
As a heterosexual in a secular marriage, I fail to see what religion has to do with marriage.
If it's a religious institution, why was a judge able to marry us?
I do not believe in God, and no deity has any place in my marriage. We married for the socioeconomic benefits.

Marriage may be a sacrament in some churches, but its importance to the community at large is as a legal contract and a civil right.
Posted by Heather on February 11, 2009 at 12:25 PM · Report this
89
@20, a grocery store. I frost cakes there. I'm not joking.
Posted by Dcal on February 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM · Report this
90
78, Great, let me get this straight. Since yo don't like the outcome of a democratically held election you thinks it's Okay for people who donated for Proposition 8 to be put on lists. You think it's Okay for them to have their jobs taken away, to be threatened by crazies, You think its your right to disturb religious services. How about the verbal and physical threats targeted at black people by Homosexuals, I'm guessing you also think that's your right. What you consider your right amounts to nothing more than silencing those with opposing views and to try to legitimize your plans by comparing it with legit causes like the real discrimination Blacks faced based on their skin color not the sexual behavior they chose to engage in. If you really believe in respect for rights you should start by respecting the law enacted with the approval of the people. Disagree with it all you want but don't make threats, harm others and then run to cry your rights are being denied by people whose only crime is to want to protect their society from the promotion of a high health risk behavior.
Posted by Deandrae on February 11, 2009 at 12:51 PM · Report this
91
@79, you ignorant slut:

"Mother Nature" didn't "invent" marriage; if anything, monogamy is inherently UNnatural, as it artificially restricts the ability of males to follow their biological imperative, which is to impregnate as many females as possible in order to ensure the propagation of their genetic line.

Although many species naturally exhibit monogamous behavior, it's not exclusive, nor even the norm, as polygamous behavior is far more prevalent. And, as recent observations have born out, a number of species have been shown to engage in homosexual behaviors, so ever there nature seems to allow for tremendous leeway when it comes to bonding relationships.

In short, "mother nature" is unambiguously against you on this issue.

FAIL.
Posted by COMTE on February 11, 2009 at 12:51 PM · Report this
92
@ 52

No, you don't need to borrow your son's crayons and draw me a picture. First, your argument would make more sense if you could explain why you define homosexuality as a religion. I've never heard of homosexuality being a religion. Does your having a son indicate you are a member of heterosexual religion? Never heard of heterosexuality as a religion either. Second, you could try and answer a respectfully asked question with respect. Your posts suggest either your knickers are in a big twist or your incredibly impolite. I'm going to cut you some slack, a little grace here, and conclude your just extremly frustrated.

Hope your day improves.
Posted by kim on February 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM · Report this
93
@90:

Why is it okay for them to be "put on lists" by the backers of Prop 8, but NOT okay for opponents to see the lists someone else ALREADY PUT THEM ON?

And, of course, it's perfectly acceptable in the minds of many Prop 8 supporters to fire people for THEIR beliefs, to discriminate against THEM for the way they live, to deny THEM the legal rights afforded other citizens because of who they choose to love - but when tit comes for tat, they scream blood murder when the tables get turned.

See, that's what we call "hypocrisy": when you think it's okay for you to do something, but it's not okay for someone else to do it back at you.

And in case you hadn't heard, religion is something you CHOOSE; you are not born believing in a god, you LEARN to believe in one. So, your entire argument can be turned 180 degrees against you for the very same justifications you posit.

"High risk health behavior" THAT's your rationalization? ROTFLMFAO! That's RICH! In that case, let's ban het sex, since far more straights contract STD's in this country than do gays. Let's outlaw drinking, and overeating, and not exercising, and smoking (well, we're getting close on that one) - because, by YOUR way of thinking apparently, ALL of these are high risk behaviors!

See, it's this kind of assinine, half-baked, wing-nuttery that makes you people look like complete and utter idiots.
Posted by COMTE on February 11, 2009 at 1:02 PM · Report this
94
@91 has it right.

Civilization is defined as a social consensus overriding our natural animal inclinations in favor of living together civilly. An appeal to nature is fallacious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_n…
Posted by DavidG on February 11, 2009 at 1:06 PM · Report this
95
91
you illiterate moron.
the post you respond to cites marriage but you rant on (and on and on) about monogamy.
they both start with 'M' and deal with relationships but they mean different things.
go sit in the corner.
Posted by (please try not to play with yourself while you're there) on February 11, 2009 at 1:21 PM · Report this
96
95
How does 91 have it right? He thinks it is OK to lick his own ass because he saw his dog do it.
Posted by kim on February 11, 2009 at 1:25 PM · Report this
97
@ 96 Don't post using my name please.
Posted by kim on February 11, 2009 at 1:30 PM · Report this
98
@96 That doesn't matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Posted by DavidG on February 11, 2009 at 1:35 PM · Report this
99
@93

The only ones who have prompted government officials to put on disclosure lists Proposition 8 backers so that they can target those that supported the law are Homosexuals.

How come homosexual groups never admit that homosexuals already enjoy civil partnerships in places like California? So much for the "deny THEM the legal rights afforded other citizens" part.

Don't know what world you live in but in the real world the only ones whose means of support for them and their families has been threatened are those who voted in a different way than Homosexuals.

How about the use of technology to hunt Proposition 8 donors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/busine…

See your hypocrisy?
Posted by Deandrae on February 11, 2009 at 1:39 PM · Report this
100
@99, there's a big difference between voting by secret ballot and giving money expressly to quash people's rights. The laws are there to provide transparency of who gives financial support to political causes in order to protect the people from dishonesty and misinformation.

The disclosure lists already exist. It is the public's right to see them. Always. You want to see the list from the pro-monorail campaign? You have the right, just as everyone else has a right to see the lists from Prop 8.

Oh, and I'm not gay, but I sure would like to know who gave money to support Prop 8. It's none of your business whether I want to see the list to send them a thank-you note and cookies or to boycott them.
Posted by lily on February 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM · Report this
101
97
no problem
Posted by kim on February 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM · Report this
102
@99: California, like many states, makes publicly available all donors to political campaigns. It's not a gay thing. Don't be such a stupid fucking moron. As for equal rights, please explain why, as a legally married person, I have to pay thousands of dollars extra in federal income taxes each year simply because the federal government says I'm not really married.
Posted by gay dad on February 11, 2009 at 2:37 PM · Report this
103
@99

For one thing, you're comparing systematic oppression and abuse of gays vs. sending mean emails to Prop. 8 supporters. You're correct that neither is right, but whining about big bad gays calling you big bad names makes you look like a big fucking baby.

For another -- I'm not gay, but I have no problem calling you out for being a bigot. You're not being "targeted" by The Homosexuals, you're being taunted by Progressive People Who Oppose Bigotry (Sexual Orientation Unspecified).
Posted by lola on February 11, 2009 at 3:19 PM · Report this
104
103
That's right,
you heard me...
I'm not gay
(not that there's anything WRONG with that...)
I'm n o t gay.
Posted by lola on February 11, 2009 at 3:48 PM · Report this
105
@104
My point being -- orientation is irrelevant here, Deandrae's dreaded The Homosexuals! with their Agenda! ain't the only ones who think she's an idiot. That's an equal-opportunity* conclusion.

*not that, according to Deandrae, The Homosexuals should be allowed equal opportunities.
Posted by lola on February 11, 2009 at 4:04 PM · Report this
106
@105 don't post using my name, please
Posted by kim on February 11, 2009 at 4:11 PM · Report this
107
@95, you masturbatory-obsessed cretin:

MARRIAGE is a social mechanism developed over time to enforce MONOGAMOUS BEHAVIOR in homo sapiens. @79's ridiculous assertion that "Mother Nature invented it (marriage)", aside from being laughable on its face, mistakes the man-made social institution (marriage) for the behavior characteristic found in nature (monogamy), hence my excoriation of their argument, which should be self-evident to even the most thick-headed numbskull, given the fact that no other species in nature that practices monogamistic behavior also has developed a social institution anything remotely akin to what humans call marriage.

So, if you have a problem with the semantics of the argument, you'd be well advised to place blame where it squarely belongs - on the muddled thinking of the poster to whom I responded.

Idiot.
Posted by COMTE on February 11, 2009 at 4:15 PM · Report this
108
You know, there are still many really loud Christians here at the University of New Mexico. Can this silencing extend a bit further please!?
Posted by Sarah N on February 11, 2009 at 4:17 PM · Report this
109
@105

But mostly
My point being
that I'm not gay.

That's right,
you heard me...
I'm NOT gay.

(not that there's anything WRONG with that...)

but I'm n-o-t gay.

happy.

but not gay.

not.

gay.
Posted by lola on February 11, 2009 at 4:21 PM · Report this
110
@107

So, are YOU gay?
Posted by lola on February 11, 2009 at 4:23 PM · Report this
111
The problem with Speechless is that it exploits the feeling of entitlement that some Christians have in this country. They have had their minds filled by James Dobson and company with the idea that America is their country and the rest of us are here by their will and pleasure.

That idea of entitlement makes them susceptible to any anecdote or lie that comes down the pike about them being silenced. We have seen this so many times with the religious right taking incidents and manipulating them to claim that lgbts are out to get Christians. A perfect example is the Ocean Grove Pavilion. The religious right claimed that the church who owned this pavilion was "forced" to allow gays to have marriage ceremonies there. However the true story was that the church was getting tax breaks for the pavilion and a requirement of those tax breaks was that the facility should be open to all.

The program that was to air is filled with half truths like this. If I were a Christian, I would be less worried about being "silenced by lgbts" and more worried about the untruths put out by those who claim to also be Christians.
Posted by a. mcewen on February 11, 2009 at 4:27 PM · Report this
112
107
Your making that up, aren't you.
An obviously pulled-out-of-the-ass gay boy version of marriage.

Marriage was invented so men could keep their wimmin away from other men.

Men. And Women.
See how that works?
Posted by marriage- so easy a caveman can do it (but not chris) on February 11, 2009 at 4:31 PM · Report this
113
Tyler (and the other Trolls) are Ted Haggards and Larry Craigs. He's got his wife and kiddies for window dressing and sucks cock on the side. Of course he's against gay marriage. He'd have to face the truth about what a cowardly hypocrite he really is.

p.s. Marriage was invented so women could be bought and sold as property. I'm sure all you good "silent" Christians would love to return to making all the uppity women chatel, but wakey wakey assholes! That ain't gonna happen! Unless you marry one of those dimwitted Duggar-spawned Quiverfull women. But not many wenches are looking to sign up for that shit. Neither are men with dicks (you know you don't have one). Real men and real women want an equal partnership with an equal partner (male or female). The rest of us know your gay/female/non-white bigotry comes from your self-esteem issues (caused by your tiny dick and your sense of white male superiority).
Posted by Captain Kirk Likes Green Women on February 11, 2009 at 4:59 PM · Report this
114
@ 103

I'm sorry Lola you have the right to give out all the cookies you want but you don't have the right to blacklist people who disagree with you and then go around saying you're the victim of discrimination.
Posted by Deandrae on February 11, 2009 at 5:14 PM · Report this
115
See, guys? Marriage is between one man and one woman. I read that on a bumper sticker, so it must be true! And that must be the only possible form of human sexuality out there: a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman. Everything else is too complicated for me to comprehend; therefore, it must be unnatural. Nevermind all that history and all those biological studies and facts suggesting that heterosexual, monogamous relationships have NEVER been the only valid form of human sexuality; my dipshit priest said otherwise once, and I'm going to believe him because I'm too stupid to differentiate between a valid argument and an ignorant homophobic rant.

Also, Tyler, when it comes to civil rights, the majority's desires are irrelevant. If you're so patriotic, you should already know that the Bill of Rights' ENTIRE PURPOSE is to dictate what the majority can never do to the minority. For instance, forcing people to live by a particular religion's beliefs is one of the great ten big no-no's, no matter how many people belong to that religion. If 99.99% of the country suddenly converts to Islam tomorrow, you should not be forced to face Mecca and pray 3 times a day. While the majority of the country is supposedly Christian, gays should not be forced to pretend that they're straight. Laws that violate this part of the constitution are supposed to be challenged and overturned; it's the entire reason we have a constitution.

And the only way that anyone can possibly think that homosexuality is a choice is if they are a closet case. Think about it. Their lives would be so much better if they'd realize that there's nothing wrong with their gay side; it's their conflicted, closeted, homophobic side that needs to be stomped out.

More...
Posted by Case in point: Ted Haggard on February 11, 2009 at 5:15 PM · Report this
116
No @107, marriage was invented so that men could pass down the wealth and status they'd accumulated in a patrilineal succession, ensuring that the men maintained perpetual control over it. And of course, whatever religious authority happened to be dominant in a culture made sure they got a cut of the proceeds in exchange for legitimizing the deal.

Sexual exclusivity is only one function of marriage, and from a purely historical perspective, not even close to the most significant: transfer of wealth and property, assignment of hereditary rights and titles, establishment and perpetuation of patrilineal bloodlines (just to cite a few obvious examples), have traditionally held much more importance in upholding the popularity of the institution than has the notion that males needed marriage in order to fend off potential sexual competitors - that particular aspect of social relations having always been more effectively handled with a sword than with a wedding ring.

Marriage has never been a terribly effective mechanism for "keeping wimmin away from other men", as the number of cases of adultery in this country alone should make abundantly clear. In fact, if one is being completely objective, one would have to conclude this specific function of the institution has been an abysmal failure - if it weren't the case, roughly half of all marriages (in this country at least) wouldn't end up in divorce, now would they?
Posted by COMTE on February 11, 2009 at 5:21 PM · Report this
117
Deandrae-

How many times does it need to be said? That list was not garnered by some sort of gay big-brother intelligence agency. EVERY contributor to EVERY campaign is put on a list, and citizens have a right to view every single list. After that, what with this being a democracy and all, they're free to refuse to shop at the store whose owners helped legally end their marriage. So you want homophobes to have the option of donating secretly? Speaking of "special rights"...

What a bunch of whiny pussies you homophobes are. Sorry; "scrotums." You have no problem forcing your religious values upon others in ways that do real harm to countless lives, but then you cry your chickenshit throats hoarse when you, through entirely legal means, end up having to own up to it.
Posted by God Hates Homophobic Hypocrites on February 11, 2009 at 5:22 PM · Report this
118
102@

1- The publishing of such lists have been almost exclusively advertised on solely websites that cater to homosexuals.

2- You're a not married, Federal law is quite clear on which unions are recognized in order to qualify for tax exemptions. You made the decision to renounce those benefits by entering a civil union with a member of your same gender. Therefor you're not being denied any rights you're choosing to deny them to yourself by electing to enter in a union that's not recognized on the federal level. It's called freedom of choice.
Posted by Deandrae on February 11, 2009 at 5:35 PM · Report this
119
116
why do you keep answering trolls?
Posted by Billy Goat Gruff on February 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM · Report this
120
@118. Jesus. Are you a fucking retard? Every single campaign contribution to a candidate or a ballot initiative is public record. Right now, I could look up anybody's contribution, either for or against Prop 8. I could look up anyone who donated to George W. and boycott their businesses.

The fact that these lists exist does not mean that anybody is being persecuted. And the fact that anybody chooses not to give money to people who donated for Prop 8 does not mean that anybody is being persecuted. Hell, if it does, I'm an equal opportunity persecutor, since I would look up who donated to any ballot initiative that promoted discrimination based on sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc., etc., and not spend my money there.

I try to take the high road in the gay marriage debate most of the time, but sometimes people are so fucking dumb I can't stand it.
Posted by Julie in Eugene on February 11, 2009 at 5:59 PM · Report this
121
@119:

It's good brain-exercise.
Posted by COMTE on February 11, 2009 at 6:36 PM · Report this
122
Deandre, you must have the anti-Proposition 8 folks mixed up with the American Family Association when they boycotted Ford, McDonalds, Disney, etc.
Posted by a. mcewen on February 11, 2009 at 7:08 PM · Report this
123
I know this is off topic, but there seems to be two of us posting as kim. Posts 95, 101, and 106 aren't mine, so I'm changing my name to avoid confusion.

Best wishes.
k
Posted by kim in portland (formally just kim) on February 11, 2009 at 7:09 PM · Report this
124
Do you think any of them trample homeless people in order to get to their screaming rally?
Posted by Leo on February 11, 2009 at 7:55 PM · Report this
125
So I planned to watch Speechless ... but it's an hour long (WTF? An HOUR!?!). It's ok though, I live in Texas so there's probably no rhetoric in this video I haven't heard before.
Posted by sickgirl on February 11, 2009 at 8:33 PM · Report this
126
can i force feed her and later, many months after having killed her, eat her liver?
Posted by ringuworm on February 12, 2009 at 12:40 AM · Report this
127
I FIND THATIN MOST HETERO PEOPLE JUST DONT GET GAY PEOPLE .
AND ALOT OF THEM JUST HATE FOR THE SAKE OF US BEING DIFFERENT .
AND MOST OF THEM CLAIM TO BE SO RELIGIOUS , HELLO "HATE IS NOT A FAMILY VALUE "
I WANDER DOES THE BIBLE SAY IN IT TO HATE GAY PEOPLE ?
AND ALOT OF THEM TRY TO USE THE BIBLE AS A WEAPON AGAINST US STILL ! I THINK HALF ITS CONTENTS ARE MADE-UP B*LLSHIT , ANYWAY !
IT IS REALLY SAD TO THINK THAT PEOPLE THAT CALL THEMSELVES "MEN & WOMENS " CONTRIBUTE TO KILLING THIER OWN KIDS , BY MAKING THEM SO UNCOMFORTABLE IN THIER OWN SKIN, IF THEY TELL THIER PARENTS THEY ARE GAY . AND IN SOME CASES COMMIT SUICIDE !
WAKE UP PEOPLE ...
Posted by dont matter on February 12, 2009 at 4:38 AM · Report this
128
123
Maine or Oregon?
Posted by kim on February 12, 2009 at 5:04 AM · Report this
129
"You're a not married, Federal law is quite clear on which unions are recognized in order to qualify for tax exemptions. You made the decision to renounce those benefits by entering a civil union with a member of your same gender."

The power to create and dissolve marriages is not a power granted to the federal government by the U.S. constitution -- that's a power reserved to each state. States are permitted to refuse to recognize each other's marriages under some circumstances, but if a state says two people are married, the federal government lacks any power to say otherwise. That portion of DOMA is clearly unconstitutional, and I'm surprised a state like Massachusetts hasn't taken legal steps to stop the feds from usurping the state's power.
Posted by Jon on February 12, 2009 at 6:27 AM · Report this
130
OR
Posted by kim in portland (formally just kim) on February 12, 2009 at 7:42 AM · Report this
131
129
If Mass does that it will start the ball rolling on amending the Federal Constitution to ban gay marriage.
Smart folks know Civil Union with the same benefits as marriage is the way to handle it.
Militant Homosexual Pricks are in a pissing contest with the Religious Right and are determined to get the word 'marriage' just to stick it to the right.
Obama won't be happy to see the culture wars heat up that way.
The right will fight to the death over the word 'marriage' and it will energize a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise get involved and will alienate a lot of people who otherwise are supportive of gay rights.
Liberal California voters rejected gay marriage twice; that should be a hint to the halfway clever.
Sure a judge or eventual win at the ballot will grant gay marriage there but in most of America it isn't even close.
Many states have amended their state Constitutions to ban gay marriage and also to ban civil union and also to not recognize even civil union from other states; and passed those amendments with 80% of the vote.
Those folks will go livid at liberal states attempts to force their Federal dollars to support gay 'marriage'.
Posted by Harmon on February 12, 2009 at 8:33 AM · Report this
132
The "Christian Nation" Myth

http://infidels.org/library/modern/farre…
Posted by Heather on February 12, 2009 at 11:04 AM · Report this
133
1. The bible can't possibly condemn homosexuality, since it was written by cultures that had no concept of sexual orientation and viewed marriage as the aqcuisition of females for the sake of reproducing and expanding a man's estate.

2. I grew up in Minnesota, raised as a weekly churchgoing, confirmed Lutheran. NOT ONCE in my time living there, in all the hundreds of sermons I had to sit through in dozens of churches, did I EVER hear a sermon condemning gays. Two or three times, I heard sermons defending them and their full rights, and one of the biggest churches in our state had a married-to-her-partner, openly lesbian lead pastor. I'm not talking about some fringe Christians how are tentatively supportive of gays, I'm talking about the leading Christian religion in a state that, while it's pretty economically liberal, is only moderately so in terms of social policies and opinions. In my experience, MOST Christians are pro-gay!

I don't blame non-Christians for getting the idea that Christians are intolerant, fascist morons, but I am getting SO sick of these assholes going around proclaiming that they, alone, represent THE voice of Christianity, and that all who support gay rights are standing against EVERY Christian church. It's just not true.
Posted by Laurel on February 12, 2009 at 12:02 PM · Report this
134
Has anyone else started receiving their newsletter? It appears networks are refusing to air their hour long Silencing the Christians video. They are frustrated so they are polling their readers as to why. Number one reason thought to be behind network refusal, fear of wrath and backlash from the Homosexual community. On a bright note, they have a link for sex advice. Watch our Dan Savage.
Posted by kim in portland (formally just kim) on February 12, 2009 at 12:32 PM · Report this
135
The thing is, you can say all you want, do all you want, but the fact is that, you're acting and talking out of ignorance, Dan Savage. Yes, there maybe Christians who hate and are afraid of gay people, but there are also ones that treat them like everyone else. The issue as far as I am concerned is the act of homosexuality and not the homosexuals themselves.

Homosexualism is a sin like stealing, lying, killing, fornication and all the other offences you are familiar with. The thing is that human beings always want to do what they like and that is why you can't bear to listen to a God that opposes most of the bad things you get yourselves involved in.

If you think that you're silencing Christians, think again. I am a Christian and you and no one will ever be able to silence me because my God will protect me.

And please, can you stop insulting God or Jesus Christ? Tell your fans that too. It's best you do not talk about someone you do not know and are not interested to know, okay? Whether you like it or not, God controls the air that you breathe. With a snap of his finger, you can lose the wonderful life he has given to you.

You are a great columnist, the least you can do is respect the God who gave you your talent.
Posted by The Truth on February 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM · Report this
136
re: getting along better (#1)...I don't want to get along with you. You signature says enough for me. Please be aware that the BIBLE IS the FINAL WORD for many people.
Posted by SPEAKS_WISDOM on February 12, 2009 at 3:27 PM · Report this
137
@135 - The concept of irony completely eludes you.
Posted by Jeff on February 12, 2009 at 4:11 PM · Report this
138
@ 135,

Do you mean homogenitalism when you say homosexualism? If you do then your right, homogenital behavior is listed as a sin, but homosexuality is not. There is no word in either ancient Greek or Hebrew for homosexuality, just homogenital and the words used in conjunction with it condemn homogenital behavior between heterosexuals. The word homosexual first appeared in the Bible in 1946, there are no words for homosexual or homosexuality in either ancient Greek or Hebrew. I know this is a hot topic, and I appreciate your love for the Lord and his word, but in doing so remember Jesus himself said nothing for or against homosexual (loving relationships between same sex adults) nor did he address homogenital behavior. In fact, when Jesus addressed the centurion in Luke 7:1-10 and Mark 8:5-13 there was opportunity to do so. If you know the story then you can remember that the centurian comes to Jesus pleading for his beloved, highly valued, young servant, but in Greek the words to describe the servent were highly valued, catamite, and slave. Roman officers traveld with catamites, young men who were their sexual partners. Jesus didn't condemn the centurian for his relationship, but holds the centurians faith up as an example. Jesus healed the young man, and that is the least we can take from the interaction. Compassion is the way to love as we are commanded to love, not hell fire and damnation. Thus, we have no record of Jesus saying anything positive or negative about either homosexuality or homogential behaviors, so we have to rely on the Holy Spirit to illuminate things for us in 2009. What appears important is to cherish not the just the words of Christ but also his silence. What has become a big deal to the church today, might just be a diversion. God loves us no matter what our sexual orientation is, so maybe we shouldn't make it such a hot topic.

Best wishes.
More...
Posted by kim in portland (formally just kim) on February 12, 2009 at 4:47 PM · Report this
139
I appreciate your comments Kim. But the thing is, I'm using "homosexualism" because that's the word that people are familiar with. I'm not using it because it's in the Bible. Of course, I know the word is not in the Bible. The Bible describes the act but does not use the word. The word was formed by human beings.

I do not hate anybody not even gay people (I don't even like to call people gay, but that's the only way people understand what you're talking about). The only thing I'm not in support of is the "sexual" relationship between people of the same sex which is against God's doctrines. I know it's not easy to be in their situation because what their experiencing has to do with their emotions or feelings. But still they have a "choice" to surmount what the feel and then feel the way God meant them to feel.

Their feelings aren't genetic. No matter how you look at it, I am absolutely sure that something in their environment is the cause of what they are feeling. The devil is real and will use anything or anybody to distort God's creation. But no, "some"(not all) of them won't accept it and won't even try to find out why they feel the way they do.

I'm also appalled my the insulting comments on Jesus Christ. It just has to stop. Most of the people insulting him, don't even know enough about him. They just hear things and conclude without carrying out their own research. Always remeber that there will definitely be people who preach the word of God in the wrong way without knowing it. There is a heaven and a hell, but God wants all of us to go to heaven. Hell was made for devil and his angels. People who end up going to hell, are people who hear the word of God and stubbornly refuse to adhere to it. God is love and loves everyone, that's why he gives us many chances to repent. But some people just don't get enough. God is not a fool.

Please, remember that Jesus Christ and God are one. They say and believe the same thing. They encourage love for one another but also urge us to live according to their statutes and ordinances. Thus, we definitely should love one another but that doesn't mean that we have to close our eyes when we see what is wrong and pretend it's not happening.
More...
Posted by The Truth on February 12, 2009 at 5:52 PM · Report this
140
Hey Truth,

Thanks for writing back I appreciate it. I also appreciate why you choose to use the term homosexualism. We share many points in common, and some we do not. Those we don't I'll try to explain, just so you know where I'm coming from. In the end I believe we will have to agree to disagree.

I believe that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are three in one. I also believe that the word of God is without error, I don't believe we humans are without error. We are fully capable of translating scripture inaccuratetly, even when we have the most sincere intentions. Even the apostles Peter and Paul had to be corrected. History is also on my side, I hope you will agree that in the past scripture has been misused to support slavery, aparthied, and Nazism. So, I come to the scriptures with humility, I'm there to learn and understand. This subject has been a long journey for me, with much prayer and study. It's a journey I'm still on. It's God I trust to keep me on the path and as it is written in the book of Jude; "To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy-to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore." So, I am writing to you as a person of sincere faith to another follower of Christ. I do not toss scripture cavalierly aside.

I am not a literalist. In saying so, I mean I don't read scripture with a literal (just the words on the page)approach. I approach scripture historically, linguistically, anthropologically, and in context to the written receiver. I believe this to be important inorder to truly understand scripture, it does not make it any less a miracle or treasure to me. Here is an analogy. Say you and I just met, and I am new to this country and I am just learning English. Where I grew up I didn't have any exposure to English culture. You and I are talking and you tell me the friend you are going to introduce me to, John, is a bit out in left field. Being new to English I am not going to understand the cultural refrence to "left field". I am going to think your friend John is standing on the left side of the field, and depending how grumpy I am, I may be irked because I know what the actual words "out", "in", "left", and "field" mean. That is just, a lame, way of trying to express the need for cultural context when reading scripture and why we need to know the linguistic, historical, and athropological background.

Here is where we differ my friend (this goes back to my previous post), using ancient Greek and Hebrew and looking at the culture of both the ancient Greek and Hebrews (historically and anthropologically) the Bible does not condemn homosexuality or the homosexual sex. Linguisticaly, historically, and anthropologically it condemns homogeniality (in both the Old and the New testament) between heterosexuals, rape, pederasty, and the use of sex as a form of temple worship to pagan gods. I am sure you will agree that all of the above are indeed sexual sins. The second thing we disagree on is what you term "choice". I do not believe any human has a choice in regard to our sexual orientaion. The American Medical Association, etc. agree with me. So, because of the above I can not in good faith before the Lord suggest that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people choose to live a celibate life.

Lastly, I don't like to here God made fun of. I find it hurtful, but I also have great compassion. Dan Savage and others who share his sexual orientation have been called abominations. They have suffered greatly at the hands of some Christians, not all but some very vocal ones: Dobson, Fallwell, Robertson, Warren, etc. Many of them spent years praying and begging God to change their sexual orientations. Those prayers went unanswered, I believe because God gave them their orientations as a gift. Many of them have been thrown out by their church families and their families of origin. Some have even lost their jobs because of their sexual orientation. They have many, many reasons to be both hurt and angry. I believe God understands why they hurt and why they lash out, and why many loose faith. This is why I love them, they are my neighbors. We are called to love those who are not like us and to love them as ourselves.

Thank you so much for reading this. I do appreciate your heart and your writing me.

God bless you.
More...
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 12, 2009 at 6:54 PM · Report this
141
I must say, you are a really humble and nice person and I'm pleased to meet you, Kim!

Okay, let me clarify myself more. Firstly, "homosexuality" (the word is used specifically in 1 Corinthians) is actually in the Bible (Pardon my mistake above). Please, take a look at Leviticus 18:22 and then 1 Corinthians 6:9. I do not think it refers to heterosexuals alone but to everyone of us. After all, God made us to be heterosexuals all along- a man with a woman and vice versa.

He gave the first man he created a woman and not a man. All the people whom God blessed, married only people of the opposite sex. He strongly condemns homosexuality as an abomination.

Just read the passages above carefully and I hope you'll understand. Please, I also want you to understand that I'm not here to argue, condemn or judge people. I'm only here so that we can learn from each other and know the truth.
Posted by The Truth on February 12, 2009 at 7:20 PM · Report this
142
I almost forgot. When I meant "choice", I didn't mean people choosing how they should be made. Yes, God makes us the way He wants or deems fit. What I meant is that, when a person realizes that he is doing something that is against the word of God, he has the choice to either repent or continue dwelling in iniquity. God has given us the choice to choose between right and wrong. So, those who believe they're gay, have the choice to say "I'm going to pray to God and ask Him to help be the right way (heterosexual) in which he planned that I would be all along" and then such a person will start working towards having a changed life with God by His side. That's what I meant.
Posted by The Truth on February 12, 2009 at 7:28 PM · Report this
143
142, which god? Zeus? Apollo? Thor? Odin? Aphrodite? Tyr? Marduk?
Over the millenia, humans have conjured up thousands of "gods" - there's no more evidence to support the existence of the one YOU choose to bow down to than there is for any of these others!
APOLLO had male lovers - maybe he's a better god than yours! At least the pagans didnt kill people for having different religious beliefs than theirs!
Christianity has an extremely bloody and violent history - thus christians today are in NO POSITION to dictate to others how they should behave!
The people who ran the Spanish Inquistion were pious devout people who spent hours in prayer - and evidently, god told them heretics should be tortured and then burned alive! The cathar wars in Medieval France, hundreds of thousands of people accused of "witchcraft" and burned alive by people who took a verse of the Bible literally, the virtual extermination of the native people of this continent - christianity has a LONG list of crimes at its door! Even the holocaust is an outgrowth of centuries of christian antisemitism in Europe!
Christians being persecuted today? Laughable! What conservative fundamentalists call persecution is simply people NOT AGREEING with them!
Posted by ray on February 12, 2009 at 8:08 PM · Report this
144
Ray, if you read my other comments above, you'll definitely see where I mentioned that certain Christians go about preaching the word of God the wrong way. They talk about all the bad things that will happen to a sinner and forget all about the love God has to give. God hates nobody. He just wants us to live a good life, a life free of sin, a pure life free of the evil and filthiness of sin, a life according to His own doctrines. These christains try to dictate to people how they should live. Actually, they are supposed to share God's word with people and help them understand and come to terms with it. It is always a person's choice to follow God or not. You are either for God or for Satan. You can't denounce God and belong to no one. You must definitely belong to either one. That's the choice we all have to make.

The God I worship is called the "I Am Who I Am". He has so many other names like "Yahweh, Alpha and Omega, Elshaddai, Lion of Judea, Lily of the Valley, etc. If you want to know more about Him, you can always buy a Bible and read it. That's how you'll know Him and not depend on what others tell you.

Please, remember, not all christians are the same! Don't judge all christians by the works of just a few.
Posted by The Truth on February 12, 2009 at 8:57 PM · Report this
145
Mr. Truth:

I grew up in a conservative Christian family. My dad is a professor at a Christian college. For years I believed fervently in the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, and saw as my desperate life mission the need to spread God's truth to all people in the world, to save them from the fires of hell that surely awaited them. I viewed myself as a warrior, fighting God's fight in a battle between the forces of absolute Good and the forces of absolute Evil.

But gradually, I came to question things. Why is the Bible inerrant, when it was assembled by committee hundreds of years after Jesus lived, and when not a single word of the New Testament was written by an eyewitness to the events they record? Could not human error and political maneuvering have influenced the Bible we have today? And how does God allow for salvation for those who live their entire lives without coming into contact with Christianity? Has he created millions of people throughout history just to condemn them to hell, giving them no chance for salvation? And hell -- how can God dispense eternal punishment for a finite life lived in sin? I came to realize that this is not a God of mercy. This is not a God I could believe in. If this was the way God treated His creation, I would rather go to hell than bow down for Him.

But I don't think that God is really God. That is a jealous, tribal God of human creation, made up to manipulate people. Just look at how successful it's been! It has been an ideology that has motivated the crusades and centuries of colonialism in the name of spreading the Gospel. It has certainly been successful at promoting itself, but at what cost? No, Christianity does not have an exclusive lock on truth.

When Jesus said in the book of John, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but through me", truer words have never been spoken. But who is this Jesus? Is he a Jewish preacher who said some nice things? Is he the literal fleshly son of God who came to earth only once and will one day return in a vengeful fury? No, he is neither of those things. The eternal, real Jesus - the Jesus that was Word with God from the beginning - is the eternal soul of those who seek him, who sacrifice their egos and earthly nature for something higher.

In this sense, Jesus is always with everyone. Everyone who has ever lived, anywhere in the world, has been introduced to him. This is a Jesus who has many faces (as you say, many names). God takes many forms (I would say, every form), and the one that you follow need not be the one that everyone follows.

Since you cannot know the mind of God any better than any of the rest of us can, a real follower of Jesus would mind his own relationship with God, and allow others to walk with Jesus in the way they know Him. Your way is not the only way.
More...
Posted by DavidG on February 12, 2009 at 10:58 PM · Report this
146
@141,

I believe you might be missing the point. The word "homosexuality" is not in the Bible, as the Bible wasn't originally written in English.

1st Corinthians employs two different Greek words that have commonly been translated as "homosexuality." One is "malakee/malakoi," which literally means "soft." It was used elsewhere in the Bible to describe a person who is morally weak, not homosexual.

The other word is "arsenokeeteh," which is an ambiguous compound word possibly coined by Paul. No one is quite certain what it means: it could refer to male prostitution, gay sex, masturbation, etc.

The word "paiderasste" is the Greek word referring to male homosexuality. It is no where in the Bible. Had Paul wished to condemn homosexuality, one assumes he'd use the word for it.

As far as Leviticus goes, wearing mixed fibers is also serious offense. Some people would agree polyester is an abomination, but simple cotton blends, too?

Generally, Old Testament law isn’t taken as the final word. For example, according to OT law, a virgin who is raped is to be married to her rapist. That doesn’t seem to garner a lot of support or enthusiasm these days. Is that wrong?
Posted by TK on February 13, 2009 at 12:36 AM · Report this
147
First, I'd like to thank Kim in Portland and T K for the scholarly and rational posts. [I had to look up the word homogenitalism, however, and I'm not sure how that would be more sinful than, say, heterogenitalism.]

"The Truth" (a rather arrogant handle, I would say) wrote "I'm using "homosexualism" because that's the word that people are familiar with."

Really? I have honestly never heard that word before. I always thought the word was homosexuality. Silly me. From now on, I'll refer to Christianity as Christianism.

The same poster wrote: "Homosexualism is a sin like stealing, lying, killing, fornication and all the other offences you are familiar with. The thing is that human beings always want to do what they like and that is why you can't bear to listen to a God that opposes most of the bad things you get yourselves involved in."

Regarding sentence 1: Stealing, lying, killing, and adultery are all mentioned in the 10 Commandments. You know, the original Top 10 list. The important stuff. Nowhere is homosexuality mentioned in the 10 Commandments. If it were such a major sin, don't you think it would be?

And shouldn't this be an argument for making gay marriage legal so that those poor souls can stop committing adultery?

As for the second sentence, remember this?

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. Luke 6:37.

All too often forgotten by those who practice Christianism and other religions, who go on judging those who are different just because it makes them feel superior.


Posted by Unitarian on February 13, 2009 at 3:29 AM · Report this
148
147
You know, when you start doodling on slog in the middle of the night because you can't sleep it is easy to make a jackass out of yourself.
Posted by try Nytol next time on February 13, 2009 at 6:15 AM · Report this
149
Hey Christians.

It's your book, he's your god. Just leave the rest of us alone.
Posted by Heather on February 13, 2009 at 6:20 AM · Report this
150
Heather, do you believe homosexuality is morally wrong?
Do you believe homosexual marriage is wicked?
Posted by Will on February 13, 2009 at 6:37 AM · Report this
151
148-
Who said it was the middle of the night? It was 11:29 a.m. my time. Not everybody lives in the same time zone, or haven't you heard.

And - How does one make a jackass of oneself? Doesn't seem easy to me. Seems like it would make sex reassignment surgery seem like a piece of cake by comparison.
And it would be difficult to post at the same time, especially with hooves.

Must go now, as my weekend is beginning.


Posted by Unitarian on February 13, 2009 at 6:40 AM · Report this
152
I actually know of many Conservative Christians in my state though who honestly feel in this new 'radical' word that not only are they being silenced, they are being oppressed.

As a female secularist from a bible belt town, I have of course never been opressed. I feel so sorry for this new minority. Yack...
Posted by Sarah N on February 13, 2009 at 7:23 AM · Report this
153
@#150---I believe homosexuality is morally just fine. I support same sex marriage. I happen to be a lesbian and I really don't give a shit what somebody's book may say about it. This is a free society and we no mroe have to follow the bible than we do the koran. America is a secular nation so the bible is not the final authority for making public law and policy.

In a free society if you oppose homosexuality your only option is to not sleep with sommeone of the same sex. This is not just my opinion. it is the law of the land. In 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot control what consenting adults do behind closed doors. This battle is won. Next we will secure same sex marriage rights in all 50 states.

I don't just love the sinner I really love the "sin."
Posted by Heather on February 13, 2009 at 7:34 AM · Report this
154
@13 you rock.
Posted by nicole on February 13, 2009 at 7:50 AM · Report this
155

Homosexual marriage has never been recognized in America for the first 200+ years of its existence as a nation and 400 years as a society. Now along come homosexuals wanting to change the bedrock institution of society based on their views of what is moral and right. I am uncomfortable with altering marriage just to conform to the views of 2% of the population without some reason other than they believe it is right. Our law is not based on the Bible so when homosexuals argue that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality my reaction is "Why do you get to imprint your (or anyone else's) interpretation of the Bible into Civil Law?" Keep your religion out of state law.
Posted by Will on February 13, 2009 at 8:57 AM · Report this
156
For most of the first 200 years in America some states outlawed interracial marriage. Some used to argue that if interracial marriage were allowed that it would end traditional marriage. Along came the civil righs movement and in 1967 the Supreme Court said that states could not forbid interracial marriage.

Bedrock institutions change as well as come and go. Slavery was a bedrock institution at one time. There were at one time even laws that said that a woman must obey her husband. Those days are gone.

Same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for a couple of years now and I doubt it had any negative impact on hetrosexual marriages. In the end your discomfort with altering marriage really is your problem. The fact that rights are being expanded is good for society. Even if only 2% of the population directly benefit from same sex marriage what skin is it off of your nose? Weather it is 2% or 10% of the population who are lesbian or or gay America still belongs equally to us. The percent of the population that is homosexual is difficult to determine anyway because of fear of discrimination or outright violence. I assure you it is much higher than 2%.
Posted by Heather on February 13, 2009 at 9:21 AM · Report this
157
@155 - Really? 'Cuz you'll find much more than 2% of the population in support of gay marriage. (Like myself - straight man, pro-gay-marriage.) Try at least 40% at this point, and more and more each day as younger generations grow up realizing that gay people are just as harmful/harmless as any other arbitrary group of people in society.

Also, nobody's using the Bible to justify gay marriage. That's just the point. We didn't bring the Bible to this fight. Gay marriage is right for other reasons that have nothing to do with the Bible. So, Mr. "keep your religion out of state law", where were you when Focus on the Family and the Mormon Church were donating huge sums of money to banish gay marriage? What right to these religious organizations - acting as organizations, mind you, not just individuals within them - have to organize to institute their religious views into law (under tax-exempt status, no less)?

Furthermore, you can't argue that because something is the status quo, it must remain so. Slavery was a bedrock institution for 200+ years in this country. Do you want to bring that back?

No, gay marriage is right and good because gay people need to have equal rights and privileges under the law. If you'd ever met any gay people you'd realize that most of them just want to live normal lives in healthy, committed, loving relationships, just like everyone else. They're not going to get that by trying to cram themselves into a straight lifestyle (witness Ted Haggard). And any laws that discriminate against gays signal that gays aren't normal, which simply isn't true. Gay people have always been a minority, but they've existed in all times in all societies at about 10% of the population. They're not space aliens, you know. They're kids from your town, and everywhere. They leave and gather in big cities like Seattle and San Francisco so they can get away from assholes like you.
More...
Posted by DavidG on February 13, 2009 at 9:25 AM · Report this
158
The fact that some laws were unjust does not mean that other laws are.
Blacks, more than any other demographic group, overwhelmingly reject gay marriage and the comparison of gay marriage to Civil Rights. Perhaps homosexuals need to educate Blacks about Civil Rights in America...
There has to be a better reason for gay marriage than 'interracial marriage used to be illegal'.
Posted by keep your moral views out of my law on February 13, 2009 at 9:28 AM · Report this
159
Good morning Truth,

Thank you for writing back again. I appreciate your reading my post and responding. I appreciate your encouragement to study the scriptures yet again. You are right, I do not want to argue. As Proverbs 27:17 says "iron sharpens iron", we can learn from each others perspectives. Alas, my friend we will likely have to agree to disagree.

I appreciate post 146, it illuminates many of the ancient Greek words I was referencing. So, I will start with the Lev. passage. To read that exactly as it is printed in my Bible (NIV)it reads as you say. It does not read the same in either ancient Hebrew or in ancient Greek. It reads more as (I'm paraphrasing in English here), " You shall not lie with a male as the layings of with a woman; it is an offense to the holiness code. The word (toevah) is what we mistakenly translate as abomination, it means ritually unclean. Toevah is used in every passage of the holiness code that we translate as abomination: no shellfish, no touch a dead pig or animal (there goes football :)), no yelling at your parents, no having sex with your wife while she is on her cycle, etc. In the book of Acts chapter 10, God lifts the toevah when he addresses Peter and tells him "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." Now for the "layings of a woman", the word layings is plural because vaginal, oral, and anal sex was permited between men and women (in fact the ancient Hebrew word for woman translates as orafices (sp?)), this is known because of 1 and 2 century writings in both ancient Hebrew and Greek. Anciet Hebrews believed true sex to be defined as penetration, therefore their writings permit all sexual contact between individuals of same gender (including oral), but males having anal sex with males. So why could males have oral sex and not break toevah and males and females have anal sex and not break toevah? Because, ancient Hebrew society was patriarchal and a male submitting (being the bottom) was viewed as acting like a woman. A man acting like a woman was toevah. In fact writings of the same period record the Israelites, Cannanites, and Egyptians using anal sex as a form of torture in battle, thus they would rape the warriors of the loseing side to humilate them and make them like a woman.

As, far as your statement about God not blessing those who have homosexual relationships, remember the biblical writers (writing in ancient Hebrew and Greek) have no words to define homosexuality as an orientation (or words to reflect an understanding of a lifelong committed same-sex relationship), I don't think we can say that my friend with confidence. To read the story of King David and Jonathan in 1 Samual and 2 Samual, in ancient Hebrew suggests that they were lovers. Their story translated in English can even lead one to believe that they were lovers, "I grieve for you Jonathan my brother; you were dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women" (2 Sam. 1:26). God did indeed bless King David, and Jesus also blessed the centurian I wrote about earlier in Lk. 7:1-10, and Mk. 8: 5-13. Not to mention the story of Daniel and his finding favor with the eunuch in Babylonian court. My friend, the ancient Hebrews and Greeks had words for abomination (something horrifically disgusting and hateful), they had words for sin (meaning completely unforgivable), they even had words for eunuch and celibate and they didn't use them in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. If they, the ancient writer chose toevah (ritual uncleanliness) then that is what they wanted to say. Ancient biblical writers never condemn same-sex acts as abominations. In fact until 1147 intimate same-sex relationships were permited between priets and nuns. The word homosexual is an English word, it doesn't exist in ancient Hebrew or Greek, and it was firt printed in the Bible in 1946.

Another area where we are going to disagree is the idea that with enough prayer someones sexual orientation can change. Many homosexuals do exactly that, they spend years and years praying to be changed. They enter into ex-gay and reparative therapy, where many undergo electroshock treatment, exorcism, conversion therapy, sexual reorientation therapy, sexual identity therapy, gender indentiy therapy, gender affirmatative therapy, context specific therapy, and in rare occasions emasculation of their genitalia. And all of that doesn't work for the great majority, and the few who claim it do struggle with remaining faithful. You may have heard of Michael Bussee co-founder of Exodus International, and John Paulk founder of Love Won Out, both of they returned to same-sex relationships. Two books you should read are Mel White's, Stranger at the Gate: To be Gay and Christian in America, and Mitchell Gold's CRISIS: 40 Stories Revealing the Personal, Social, and Religious Pain and Trauma of Growing Up Gay in America. Some website you might find helpful:

http://www.faithinamerica.info

http://www.soulforce.org

http://www.truthwinsout.org

Thank you so much for reading and writing to me. I appreciate it very much. I respect your position, but my friend I think for now we must agree to disagree.

Best wishes.
k
More...
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 13, 2009 at 9:41 AM · Report this
160
There are many leaders of the Black Community who support gay rights and acknowledge the connection of gay rights to the Civil Rights Movement. The President just appointed an openly gay Black man to his new commission on faith.

We can only speculate, but I would say that if he had lived Martin Luther King would have supported the gay rights movement. Also you should remember that the single most important Black figure in the U.S. happens to be the President of the United States and he has repeatedly expressed his support for gay rights including on the White House website.
Posted by Heather on February 13, 2009 at 9:50 AM · Report this
161
144,im quite familiar with the bible, which is exactly why I dont consider it literal truth now! The more you actually know about this book and its history, the less likely you are to accept it as the truth you claim it is! For me it's simply mythology, the same as Zeus and Apollo and the other gods I mentioned in my previous post! I dont have anything against christianity, but it has no more validity than any other religion - certainly there's no proof for it, any more than there is for Scientology! Christians need to practice their religion quietly and leave others alone! Campaigning against same sex marriage and telling gay people their natural sexual orientation comes from "satan" is not going to change anyone! And by the way, the "conflict" between god and satan was borrowed by the early christians from Zoroastranism, a persian religion! Zoroastrians believed in a struggle between the powers of light and darkness - the early christians just transferred this concept into their own religion and made god the power of light and satan the power of darkness! In the old testament, satan is just one of god's angels and no more!
Posted by ray on February 13, 2009 at 9:53 AM · Report this
162
157
Thank you for your comments, David.
Are you new to SLOG?
The role of the Mormon Church has been hashed ad nauseam here but perhaps you missed it.
The Church itself seems to have contributed about $195,000 (mostly in staff time and services) to organizing.
Members of the Mormon Church as individuals are reported to have donated a considerable percentage of the pro Prop 8 funds raised, $20 million or so depending on whose numbers you look at.
As individuals and citizens they; or members of any denomination, or people with no particular religious beliefs; are free to participate in the process as they choose.
Do you object to individuals with opinions different from your own participating in democratic referendum campaigns? Should only people whose religious beliefs you approve of be able to participate?
I am concerned that you seem to feel Mormons don't have the 'right' to be part of the civic conversation.
Posted by Charles on February 13, 2009 at 9:56 AM · Report this
163
160
Heather, you are so precious.
Talk is cheap.
SLOG is very familiar with Obama's actual record on gay marriage.
The 'leaders' in the black community are paid off whores who have sold the best interest of their race down the river for their own position within the Democratic Party.
Perhaps you noticed that Obama conspicuously does not come from that segment of the black 'leadership'.
You do speculate, and have no basis on which to put words or positions in the mouth or mind of MLK. Please do not do so.
You do not address the fact that Blacks, more so than any other demographic group, reject gay marriage and the notion that gay marriage is a Civil Rights issue.
Posted by Will on February 13, 2009 at 10:05 AM · Report this
164
Will, you are so annoying.

I think you seek to drive a wedge between the Black community and the gay rights movement. The opposition within the Black Community to gay rights is not some solid and immovable wall. As with other parts of society there is still work to be done to convince people in the Black community to support same sex marriage.

My guess that Dr. King would have supported gay rights is based on his history of supporting human rights for all people.

President Obama has stated his support for civil unions and he views that as different than same sex marriage. To me that is a hair splitting difference since most if not all of the rights that go along with marriage are granted by civil unions. All of the couples that I know who are in civil unions call it a marriage and had weddings. it is a civil rights issue and that is why more people are supporting both civil unions and same sex marriage. Those of us who support same sex unions will continue to present it as a civil rights issue even it that does not meet with your approval because that is how we will win.
Posted by Heather on February 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM · Report this
165
Heather, you drive the wedge by asserting that MLK would support gay marriage.
Presenting it as a Civil Rights issue is inaccurate and alienates the Black community, who know Civil Rights when they see it. That is why they voted 3 to 1 against gay marriage in California (and everywhere else)
As you note Obama does not support gay marriage. You may be too optimistic, gay marriage is losing ground; 30 states so far have banned it and even a Democratic President doesn't support it.
Posted by Will on February 13, 2009 at 11:07 AM · Report this
166
Will-

Since when is the black community the sole arbiter of what does and does not constitute a civil rights movement? Besides, people aren't drawing the parallels between the gay rights movement and the black rights movement in order to argue that legalizing gay marriage would make the blacks happy. The reason that people are pointing out the parallels is because the same ass-backwards mentality that was used to make interracial marriage illegal is being used again to make gay marriage illegal. They are also noting that, in both cases, denying the group in question their civil rights was the more "popular" viewpoint during the peak of all the legal battles.

This doesn't mean that the Californian black community's viewpoints on gay marriage are relevant to its validity (as if the "black community" is some sort of hivemind). Every black person on the planet earth could despise gays with all their hearts, and the parallels between the black MOVEMENT and the gay MOVEMENT would still remain. Besides, it's not as if "gays" and "blacks" are mutually exclusive, just because you have divided them into separate categories of token minorities in your mind.

Does anybody have a real reason to believe that gay marriage should be illegal, or that homosexuals are dominating the media and silencing Christians? Anybody? So far I've only heard that "It will change our traditional view on marriage," "It's a popular viewpoint," "The blacks voted for prop 8 so it can't possibly be oppressive," "It's a sin," etc; none of which are proper legal grounds on which to deny people their rights.
Posted by "Sin" is not a legal term on February 13, 2009 at 11:16 AM · Report this
167
166
The better question is, "does anyone have a real reason that gay marriage should be legal?"
The status quo has stood for thousands of years.
No one has made a case how it will be good social policy to change.
Posted by Let Science Rule on February 13, 2009 at 11:20 AM · Report this
168
167- I already addressed your argument: the one that legalizing gay marriage will "change tradition." For one thing, homosexuality hasn't been illegal for "thousands of years." For another, if you view longevity as the one and only parameter on which to measure something's validity, then put your money where your mouth is and go live in a cave. Housing has violated the status quo of humanity's forest-dwelling roots. Also, never seek medical attention for an injury, and never cook anything. By your logic, all those practices should be banned, because they're all relatively new developments in human history (newer than homosexuality, even), and are therefore violations of our "status quo." Status quo is such a nebulous term anyway, since things are constantly changing, and there never has been some magical, constant "status quo" that people like you seem to worship. It is not only temporary by definition, but it's stupid as hell to think that it is always the best case scenario. Better not put an end to those wars between Israel and Palestine! They're part of the STATUS QUO! You'll RUIN it if you save all those lives!

The point of tradition isn't simply to keep things the same no matter how counterproductive they are to humanity. When a something, even a tradition, doesn't benefit humanity in the slightest, people are supposed to dump it in exchange for something that works better. This is called "progress," and it's the reason you haven't already died of smallpox or starvation.

You want a reason that homosexuality should be legal? Well, I could argue that you shouldn't need one; that people like you are the ones who are trying to shove YOUR homophobic beliefs down the throats of gays who just want to mind their own business, and so it's YOUR obligation to give compelling reasons why. But I'll give you a very simple one: because it would benefit homosexuals without hurting heterosexuals. Sure, some people will be pissed that they can no longer watch a bunch of queers suffer, or pissed that their ever-precious status quo has changed yet again (trust me, it was going to change anyway), but all in all, more people will be more free to do what they wish with their lives.
More...
Posted by "Sin" is not a legal term on February 13, 2009 at 11:51 AM · Report this
169
168
Actually homosexuality has been illegal in a lot of places for thousands of years but that is not the point and no one but you brought it up and you did not address the point, which is that Homosexual marriage has not been recognized for thousands of years.
Just because it has been that way for thousands of years doesn't mean it is a good idea but it also doesn't mean it is an out of date useless idea either.
One can find no social benefit to homosexual marriage without being homophobic. However that narrow minded position is driving many who are sympathetic to gay rights away.
You studiously avoid the point, which is, please tell why it is good social policy to change the definition of marriage.
What does society get in return for the extra money it will pay out in social benefits?
Posted by please correct your paper and return it .... on February 13, 2009 at 12:57 PM · Report this
170
Is anyone else getting spammed because of taking that fucking survey? Goddamnit.
Posted by April on February 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM · Report this
171
@169 - The same thing that it already gets from paying out social benefits to straight couples. Gay couples will get married, settle down, adopt kids (yes, even kids that otherwise might've been aborted), pay taxes, and live stable, healthy lives. You'll probably see illegal drug use and unsafe sex practices decline too as there's now a stable lifestyle option available, so medical costs will go down. There's a huge economic upside here that you conveniently ignore.

@162 - Charles, go back and read my post again. I specifically called out the institution, not the individuals, for exploiting their socially-granted tax exempt status to engage in public policy. I said nothing about keeping individuals from contributing. I think private individuals should have every right to donate to the cause of their choice, including banning gay marriage. I also think that anyone who donates money to any political cause should have their names on the lists that are compiled so that I don't have to give them my money for being close-minded hateful bigots. Important distinction: I could not disagree more with their viewpoints, but I defend their right to disagree. That's why we're talking now. Nobody here (who's serious, anyway) is saying you should be silenced or locked up for your warped and perverted "values". Capice?
Posted by DavidG on February 13, 2009 at 2:16 PM · Report this
172
@ 164

Are you aware of how offensive it is for black people to have to hear others compare their civil rights struggles with a sexual lifestyle? It's disrespectful for those who had to fight to be allowed to drink from water fountains for those whose children had no way of moving up career wise and on and on. People who want to hump their same gender don't face that! Dr. King's main source of inspiration was his religion, as a baptists minister with strong moral principles it is doubtful he would've seen sexual perversity which goes against God's nature as a "human right" when its something that is opposed to human welfare. Believe whatever the heck you want to believe but stop defaming black civil rights with your warped ideas of what human rights are. High health risk behaviors that produce nothing for society are not rights. Comprende?
Posted by Deandrae on February 13, 2009 at 3:52 PM · Report this
173
169- you're backpedaling. The illegality of gay marriage was brought up- it's what this entire thread is about. Your reason to keep it illegal is because "the status quo has stood for thousands of years," implying that it's been consistently illegal for thousands of years. Now you're saying, "well, it has not been fully recognized in several societies over a period of thousands of years." I'd tell you to make up your mind, except it doesn't matter because both arguments are equally weak. So your new defense is that, while its longevity doesn't mean it's a good idea, it doesn't mean it's a stupid idea? Hey everyone- 169 has saved the anti-gay movement: its longevity is not the thing that makes it a stupid idea! What powerful logic! What a shame that we have overlooked such a valid defense of keeping the gays oppressed.
I don't care if its longevity isn't the REASON that it's an out-of-date, useless idea. This doesn't change the fact that it IS an out-of-date, useless idea.

And no, I didn't avoid your argument. I told you exactly why it's good social policy to legalize gay marriage: the quality of life for currently-oppressed gays would increase, while the quality of life for heterosexuals would suffer no dents. If you want to know about the economic costs vs. benefits of allowing a few extra marriages (the treasury wouldn't exactly be drained dry by allowing a few extra couples to claim a spouse as a dependent, btw), you shouldn't have asked why it would be a good social policy. You should have asked why it would be a good ECONOMIC policy. Don't accuse me of avoiding the point just because I can't psychically divine your real meaning when you screw your words up or fail to specify. As far as the economic benefits go, 171 has already answered that: people who are put into a more stable economic position through their marital tax benefits tend to spend more steadily. Plus, you seem to be forgetting that homosexuals are part of society; the world isn't grouped into "society" and "homosexuals," and helping one will hurt the other.

Not that it matters, anyway; the validity of oppressing people is not based on whether or not it's profitable. Slavery was very profitable; all that free hard labor. From your definition, how did society benefit from all those "wages" and "social services" that they suddenly had to start giving to the slaves once they were no longer allowed to regard them as livestock? Or do you think it was a mistake to end slavery?

The social (if not economic) benefit is that our society will be more just and its members will have more liberty to do harmless things like marry each other. To not see this as a benefit, you either have to be a homophobe, an apathetic sociopath, or a greasy misanthrope posing as a sociopath because he thinks that parroting pseudo-objective utilitarianism makes him seem "edgy."

Speaking of avoiding the point, now it's your turn: how would society benefit from refusing to recognize gay marriage? As I said before, making (or keeping) gay marriage illegal is the aggressive act of intrusion, so it is THIS act (not legalizing gay marriage) that requires a reasonable defense. Do you have one? Or do you still think that this imagined historic timelessness of homophobia is a good enough reason for it to continue?
More...
Posted by "Sin" is not a legal term on February 13, 2009 at 3:56 PM · Report this
174
Deandre, once again, you've managed to make an argument that was refuted before you even posted. Isn't that just like a homophobe? Here, I'll spell it out very, very simply for you:

First, "civil rights" is not synonymous with the black civil rights movement. Civil rights is what the black population was after, which is why we call it the civil rights movement. It is the term we give to basic human rights for equal treatment. Black people are not the only people who have been denied these rights, and they are not the only people who want them. Gay people are another group that have been denied civil rights: maybe not the exact same civil rights (they can drink from the same fountains, for instance; whoopdedoo), but a set of civil rights nonetheless. They, like the black population, are trying to regain these civil rights that have been denied to them. Therefore, the black rights movement and the gay rights movement are BOTH civil rights movements: there is more than one! Because their end goal- equal treatment- is the same as the black population's end goal, and because much of the mentality and logic behind their oppression is similar, people are drawing parallels between the two movements in order to make their point. If straight, white, Christian men are ever denied their civil rights, even they can have a civil rights movement. Isn't this fun?

Meanwhile, it is not an insult to the black community to point out the parallels between their rights struggle and that of the gays. Many leaders of the black civil rights struggle have pointed this out themselves, and several prominent black civil rights leaders were ALSO GAY. Have you ever heard of Bayard Rustin? Look him up. Do you think he would be insulted that the black rights struggle helped to teach people that they, by extension, probably shouldn't deny civil rights to other groups either?

As far as homosexuality being a huge health risk, I'll use that as my argument when I vote to ban spinach, peanut butter, and driving. Oh, and gay MARRIAGE is a health risk? So it's riskier for gays to enter a monogamous, lifetime commitment than it is for them to go through a series of lovers? That's not even like banning driving for being dangerous; that's like banning SEAT BELTS because driving's dangerous. Nice logic. Like I said; isn't that just like a homophobe?

And can you prove that homosexuality goes against God's nature? Can you prove that God wrote the bible that people like you keep (mis)quoting? No? Then that belief doesn't qualify as basis for establishing US laws. Don't get me wrong, you can believe that there's a god and that he wrote the bible and that he hates gays just like you do, and that hating gays is #1 on his big, cosmic list of priorities. Believe that all you want, and I won't argue with you. But you can't make secular laws based on that belief. Sorry. You just have to keep those beliefs inside your head and church, no matter how true you think they are.

And hey, if those beliefs turn out to be true, then god will send all the gays to hell and it won't matter that they got to enjoy a good marriage first on earth, will it?
More...
Posted by God Hates Homophobic Hypocrites on February 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM · Report this
175
171
173
So it will hardly cost anything to pay benefits to a few gay couples but gay marriage is going to provide loving stable homes for all the neglected kids in America.
This sounds too good to be true.
Why don't you girls huddle and get your story strait then try again.
Posted by can't wait to hear what's next on February 13, 2009 at 4:36 PM · Report this
176
@174

There are no parallels between sodomy and discrimination based on ones race.
Ethnicity is something we are born into, we can't hide it. Sexual depravity is something we decide to do. What about that don't you understand? or do you just want to defame black people with your absurd comparisons?


I don't need the Bible to know that homosexuality goes against nature, I just need to look at nature, try to the same.
Posted by Deandrae on February 13, 2009 at 4:39 PM · Report this
177
173
The status quo is and has been no gay marriage.
You need to make a compelling case to change it.
None has been forthcoming.
Posted by wishing is not a legal concept on February 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM · Report this
178
174
If nature meant for homosexual men to 'love' each other it seems they would have been provided with a vagina.
It seems kind of mean to make them use their anus as a sex organ.
Posted by Mother Nature must hate gays on February 13, 2009 at 4:44 PM · Report this
179
@178 - Not all gay men have anal sex. Not all people who have anal sex are gay men. You need to read more Dan Savage.
Posted by DavidG on February 13, 2009 at 4:50 PM · Report this
Posted by DavidG on February 13, 2009 at 4:53 PM · Report this
181
Also, @176 - violence has been (and continues to be) perpetrated against gays and even straights who are suspected of being gay. This is discrimination, regardless of what they're doing in their bedrooms. And it continues as long as gays are seen as categorically inferior to straights, which legitimizes all manner of discrimination. That is all the reason you need to change the status quo: the status quo is broken and harmful and needs to be changed.
Posted by DavidG on February 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM · Report this
182
177-
I did make a compelling case. The quality of life for a segment of the population would increase, at the expense of no one. I made that case several times. I also argued, over and over again, why something being the "status quo" isn't reason enough to support it. You even (somewhat accidentally) conceded this point before giving me the ever-so-strong argument that it ALSO isn't reason, in and of itself, to oppose it. Also, measures like Prop 8 are active measures to BAN gay marriage, whether it was recognized before or not. This is at least as new as giving it full recognition, by your logic.

Status quo or not, it is more intrusive to control what kind of marriage people can have than it is to stop that kind of intrusion. That is why people who want to continue that sort of intrusion are the ones who need the compelling reason; "status quo," no matter how many times you shout it out, is not a compelling reason, nor does it place the obligation on those who want to change it. You have given me no reason that homosexual marriage should be made or kept illegal or unrecognized. You just keep repeating "status quo." Before you repeat it again, just re-read all my arguments about why that is not a strong argument for anything, ever, and save yourself the trouble.

Besides, in a way, allowing gay marriages is already written into our law. What with all those "civil rights" laws that, while open to interpretation, forbid the government from controlling benign aspects of people's private lives, and I'd say gay marriage qualifies. Unless you have a reason to think that it harms third parties somehow.

176- people's sexuality IS biological. Whether they actually have sex with those that they are attracted to is a choice, sure, but it's not a choice that should be made illegal for them. How convenient for you that the "choice" to have a heterosexual relationship just happens to coincide with your un-chosen attraction to the opposite sex (assuming you're straight). I'll tell you what- never, ever have sex with anyone that you're attracted to again. Only have sex with horrendously ugly people, or only have gay sex (assuming you're straight). Then, you will have some room to tell gay people that they should "choose" a lifetime of heterosexual sex rather than marry each other. Otherwise, you're a giant hypocrite. Unless you think that being attracted to a member of the same sex is a choice. If that's the case, you should read the last paragraph of post #115, and then take a long look in a mirror.

And for both 176 and 178, smarter people than you have taken long looks at nature. They have spent their lives studying human nature and human sexuality from a biological standpoint. Guess what they agree on? Homosexuality is not only natural and biologically engrained; it is beneficial to the survival of our species. Look up studies on the "altruism" gene and, assuming you have any IQ at all, you'll understand how. I'll trust scientifically tested theories and facts and data over some asshole's observation that "men don't have them any vaginers! How can thar be gays in nature??"
More...
Posted by "Sin" is not a legal term on February 13, 2009 at 5:08 PM · Report this
183
@181

No one is in favor of violence against "gays" but you are making an argument in favor of special rights for them. Alternative sexual acts are not some minority group.
Posted by Deandrae on February 13, 2009 at 5:13 PM · Report this
184
@183 - This is about marriage, not about sex. Gays are going to have sex no matter what; besides, sodomy and other forms of gay sex are already legal (in most states anyways). These are not special rights. These are normal rights. The same rights everyone else has: to marry the consenting adult of their choice. How hard is that to understand?
Posted by DavidG on February 13, 2009 at 5:35 PM · Report this
185
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexua…
Posted by Interesting on February 13, 2009 at 5:46 PM · Report this
186
@165
In March 2004 Coretta Scott King in a speech at Richard Stockton College in New Jersey affirmed her belief that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.


"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," King said.


"A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."


She has frequently denounced other black leaders who support amending the Constitution.


King has frequently said that her late husband also supported gay rights and saw it as a civil rights issue.
Posted by Interesting on February 13, 2009 at 6:37 PM · Report this
187
@165
Just for clarity here is a link to that statement.

http://www.gaypasg.org/GayPASG/PressClip…
Posted by Interesting on February 13, 2009 at 6:40 PM · Report this
188
176:

As has been said here before, nature in fact has several examples of nonhuman animals engaging in homosexual behavior, and not just as a one-time thing, in most cases the animal in question is exclusively homosexual. Your opinion that being gay is a matter of choice has already been disproven. As a person who obviously feels oppressed because of something you can't change, don't you think gay people would change if they could and avoid similar oppression?
Posted by waffre on February 13, 2009 at 6:53 PM · Report this
189
To David G, Unitarian and Kim,

Please, do me this favour and read what I write and get "exactly" the meaning intended.

One thing I've learnt in my life is that trying to win an argument is not always the ultimate and getting into an argument without thinking deeply about what the other is saying will only lead to more argument.

David, I'll like you to understand that there is only one true God but He has other names as well that are mentioned in the Bible. Yes, I know certain religions have names for God too. But their having different names for God doesn't really change anything as long as they all are worshipping this one true God and also acknowledge His only Son Jesus Christ the way God intends and the Bible instructs. I do not force nor intend to force anyone to do what they do not desire to do. I am not forcing people to worship God the same way that I do. All I am trying to say is that we need to worship this one true God (no matter the name you call Him) in Spirit and in Truth. All I'm saying is that we need to obey his doctrines. That's all. I'm not here to argue or push people around, okay?

Unitarian, I'll like to thank you very much for replying my post by trying to make a mockery of me first. Everyone is prone to make mistakes. If u read some of my other posts you'll notice that I used the correct spelling of "homosexuality". The wrong spellings were mistakes that came about while trying to reply promptly to certain people here. If u read all my posts here with an open mind, you'll have no cause to call me proud. I'm not here to make people think I'm superior. I'm only here telling people what I believe is the truth. All the wrong things you accused me of stem from the fact that you "probably" did not read my other posts nor did you even try to understand the things that I'm trying to pass across. I never judged anybody here, I only tried to tell people what the Bible says. PLEASE, try and read my other posts.

Kim, so far so good, learning is a very wonderful thing and I've learnt a lot from you. I understand that you care for gay people, but I also want you to know that I care about them too. But no matter how much I care for them and feel sorry for what they are going through in the hands of the society, it cannot make me nullify the truth about what they are involved in. Even if the whole world agrees with what is false, it will never become true. The truth will always stand, if not now, then in the future. I rest my case for now. Nice talking to you, Kim.
More...
Posted by The Truth on February 13, 2009 at 10:28 PM · Report this
190
The only thing that could silence a christian is the 2-for-1 buffet special at Sizzler.
Posted by Agenda Andy on February 14, 2009 at 2:23 AM · Report this
191
@172, I think #186 has provided the answer unless you want to maintain that Mrs. King was missrepresenting her late husband. I had heard Mrs. King supported the gay struggle for civil rights I just did not have the exact quotes available. What I think is insulting to Dr. King' memory would be to imply that he would endorse bigotry.

Comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement for Black rights is not only appropriate, but it elevates the stature of both movements.

Both the late Dr. King and Correta Scott King supported equal rights for lesbian and gay citizens. Mrs. King endorsed equal rights for same sex couples. Deal with it.
Posted by Heather on February 14, 2009 at 4:49 AM · Report this
192
@189 "I do not force nor intend to force anyone to do what they do not desire to do. I am not forcing people to worship God the same way that I do. All I am trying to say is that we need to worship this one true God (no matter the name you call Him) in Spirit and in Truth. All I'm saying is that we need to obey his doctrines. That's all. I'm not here to argue or push people around, okay?"

Why do we need to do those things? Why do people who worship other gods also need to acknowledge Jesus as the son of god? Why do you think your opinions about god should be considered "the truth" and everyone else's false? How is legislating your particular dogma against gays not forcing others to live as you think they should?

Christians are finally being held to account for their actions and attitudes and are obviously finding transparency uncomfortable.
Posted by jack on February 14, 2009 at 8:57 AM · Report this
193
81,

You have a good point. One could also argue on the "mother nature" side of things, that homosexuality is indeed natural. Research has shown that heterosexual brain patterns are remarkably different from that of homosexuals. Plus, one course in genetics will teach you that there are so many details that go into determining gender itself (only just begins with the Y chromosome!) Homosexuality is also quite prevalent in many other mammalian species, including dogs, apes, giraffes, dolphins....So... differences in sexual orientation are as natural as differences in the color of skin.

But, I suppose that argument is a lost cause considering so many Christians still strongly believe that the earth was created only about 6,000 years ago and in 7 days and species have remained completely the same since then. *sigh*
Posted by Jess on February 14, 2009 at 9:15 AM · Report this
194
Ms King does not speak for Dr King.
The notion that MLK endorsed homosexuals marrying is bullshit in the extreme.
Gays should make an ad about that and run it for the next referendum.
Expect to lose the black vote 90-10 then.
Posted by LeRoi on February 14, 2009 at 10:19 AM · Report this
195
I would guess that Mrs. King knew a bit more about what MLK stood for than you do, LeRoi. Nobody said that Dr. King had ever expressed and opinion about gay marriage. What Mrs. King pointed out was that her late husband viewed gay rights as a civil rights issue. I would guess that percentage wise there are as many lesbian and gay folks in the Black community as there are in the general population and that you will be as unsuccessful in silencing them as you are other gay folks. Same sex marriage is going to be a fact of life. Just adjust youself to that.
Posted by Heather on February 14, 2009 at 10:30 AM · Report this
196
195
Thank you for the warning, Heather ...
I shall adjust, and brace myself.

The progress to this point has been dizzying, after all.

Thirty states have amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.
Some have banned civil union as well.
Some also go out of their way to pointedly not recognize homosexual marriages or civil unions other states may grant.
Thirty states where the people voted, by as much as 80%, to outlaw homosexual marriage.
California voters did it twice, btw.
Goods old liberal California.

How many states' voters have approved homosexual marriage?
Let's see, that would be ..., oh yes, ZERO.

Of course there are states where judges have imposed their will and over ruled the wish of the people.
Tyrants in Black Robes.

In those states they go through bizarre contortions to keep the voters from having their say.
Poor Massachusetts voters.

And a California judge will no doubt soon overturn that state's voters (again).

But tyrany is a flimsy foundation for social change.
And it breeds deep resentment.
Posted by death to tyrants on February 14, 2009 at 12:45 PM · Report this
197
195

Perhaps America's first Black President needs to be educated about Civil Rights.
He opposes gay marriage, you know.
Maybe you need to let him know what Dr King would want, Heather.
Posted by LeRoi on February 14, 2009 at 12:50 PM · Report this
198
You could make the same lame arguments about Brown v. Board of Education that desegerated schools, Roe v. Wade or the decision that made interracial marriage legal in all 50 states. Sometimes the rights of minorities are not popular, but pepole eventually accept these decisions. Before 1967 there was deep opposition especially in the south to white people marrying black people, but now it is a fact of life.

I think the fact that same sex marriage has been a fact of life in Massachusetts and with no dire consequences has normalized it in the eyes of millions of people. The same thing is true of the states that recognize civil unions. Courts defending the Constitutional rights of minorities is a poor example to point to as a form of tyrany.
Posted by Heather on February 14, 2009 at 1:01 PM · Report this
199
Good Afternoon Truth,

It was very nice meeting you as well. Thank you for taking the time to exchange ideas with me. I regret that we could not agree more, as I appreciate your thoughtful and intelligent heart. You are correct I do love them, and I want for them to have equal rights in all arenas of life. It's good to know that someone as compassionate as you stands on the other side of this line in the sand. Although, we disagree we share a common heart for the great "I am".

God bless you and best wishes,
k
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 14, 2009 at 1:02 PM · Report this
200
LeRoi, Presidentt Obama does support civil unions which in reality gives legal sanction to same sex unions. Frankly I see having civil unions as a foot in the door that will eventually lead to acceptance of marriage.

President Obama on his White House website restates his full support for full civil rights for gay and lesbian citizens. He also just appointed am openly gay Black man to his commission on faith and neighborhood development. Maybe you should explain to him why this is wrong, LeRoi.
Posted by Heather on February 14, 2009 at 1:07 PM · Report this
201
200
I don't think it is wrong.
And I support President Obama.
I agree with him that homosexual marriage is poor social policy.
I guess Barak and I will both be adjusting ourselves.
Posted by LeRoi on February 14, 2009 at 1:26 PM · Report this
202
198
Before the Civil War the judiciary was an obstacle to abolitionist efforts. Dred Scott decision, etc.
After a great struggle the will of the people (a will that had been molded and shaped by President Lincoln) was expressed in Constitutional Amendments 13-15 that freed slaves and granted Civil and Voting Rights.
How much struggle will it take before the will of the people shakes off judicial oppression on the issue of homosexual marriage?
Homosexuals activists would be wise to learn from Lincoln and educate the public rather than always attempting to negate their will thru judicial measures.
Posted by we shall overcome! on February 14, 2009 at 1:35 PM · Report this
203
198
Yes, sometimes the rights of weak powerless minorities are not popular.
Ask any of the 35 million babies slaughtered since Roe.
Oh yeah, you can't.
Cause they were slaughtered.

Nice piece of judicial activism, there.

Hitler killed 6 million.
In Hell he shines Blackmun's shoes.
Killing 35 million innocent babies trumps Hitler.
or Stalin.
Blackmun is a big deal in Hell.

You are so right.
Judicial activism rocks.
And protecting the weak doesn't.
Posted by Government: of the Judges, by the Judges, for the Judges on February 14, 2009 at 1:43 PM · Report this
204
Roe v. Wade did not just fall out of the sky as "judicial activism." Before 1973 women were demanding control of their on bodies. There were demonstrations across the country for abortion rights, lawsuits and lobbying efforts that lead up to Roe. The Supreme Court does not operate in a vaccume. It does respond to social and political movements.

In 1970 voters here in Washington made this the first state to legalize abortion by passing Rererendum 20. Several states had also liberalized abortion laws because of the rising feminist movement of the era.

Court decisions like the 2003 Supreme Court decision that abolished state laws against private sexual activity were also the direct result of the gay rights movement and a growing consensus among the American people that lesbian and gay people are equal citizens of this country deserving of full equal rights.
Posted by Heather on February 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM · Report this
205
204
Roe short circuited the democratic process in which the people and states debate, discuss and reach a consensus which is reflected in their laws. It may be messy and take longer than some want but it is the only way lasting change can occur. Civil Rights was a long painful journey from slavery to segregation to a Black President but we have a Black President because we have formed a national consensus about racial equality.
Abortion is still an open oozing divisive political war because the process was not allowed to run it's natural course.
Gays want to do the same thing with homosexual marriage. Instead of letting it be debated and voted on they want to find a judge to give them a shortcut to what they want. Any victories so won will leave bitterness in their wake and the issue will not be resolved no matter what judicial rulings are on the books.
Posted by DEMOCRACY- Automatic For The People on February 14, 2009 at 3:53 PM · Report this
206
185
Words can not express how uninteresting this is.
Posted by Keep your Religion out of our Laws on February 14, 2009 at 4:00 PM · Report this
207
I believe in mandatory abortions unless you are married and have a verifiable source of income. I also believe in mandatory abortions for women under the age of 22 or over 40.

Further, I believe that abortion should be free to any women who wants one, when she wants it. The sperm donor (husband, boyfriend, whatever) should not be involved in the decision, or even notified.

I would like to see us triple that 35 million figure. There's already too many people on Earth.
Posted by Abortion YES! on February 14, 2009 at 5:46 PM · Report this
208
"Ask any of the 35 million babies slaughtered since Roe.
Oh yeah, you can't.
Cause they were slaughtered."

Hey, who let the retard in?

Anyway, the 35 million aboritons weren't "babies": They were balls of cells. But even if they were babies, who gives a fuck? Babies are just annoying smelly mess machines, useless until they learn how to walk and talk and wipe themselves.

And the dirty little secret of the "pro life" crowd is that they love the babies but they hate the children. If those 35 million cell clusters had been allowed to develop into children, they'd all be bitching about how much it costs to feed, clothe and school them.

Anti-abortion freaks who mouth concern about "the babies" are really just prudes who don't want to see a woman get away with having no consequences sex. They could give a shit about "the babies"
Posted by Fire up the vacuum cleaner on February 14, 2009 at 6:04 PM · Report this
209
Take the little bundles of joy cells out of a pregnant woman and put it somewhere else then. Will that make anyone happy? People need to leave the breeders alone and find a better hobby. If you can't take the fetus's home and grow them in your little pot nursery, then you need to back the F up.
Posted by ProudParentOfaPenguin on February 15, 2009 at 11:52 AM · Report this
210
30: There is one huge important difference between the anti-prop 8 crowd and the KKK: A conspicuous lack of lynchings and burnings.
Posted by Max on February 15, 2009 at 2:09 PM · Report this
211
If you don't believe that a large percentage of abortions are done out of simple medical expediency, done to assure the best interests of the woman involved, you have a dangerously naïve assessment of the very real risks of even an uncomplicated human pregnancy.

Childbirth was a leading cause of death until this century.

If you don't believe that the first, seventh, fourth, fifth, and tenth amendments to the US Constitution convey a broad right of privacy that empowers a woman to weigh the pros and cons and decide for herself whether or not abortion is in fact in her best interests then you lack basic reading comprehension skills.
Posted by Max on February 15, 2009 at 2:17 PM · Report this
212
Well said #211.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 2:32 PM · Report this
213
The American people time and time again have spoken when given a chance through the democratic process. They have rejected the wishes of gays to destroy the family by cheapening it with their mock weddings. Government cannot sanction two people of the same gender wanting to play house.
Posted by Loveschild on February 15, 2009 at 2:35 PM · Report this
214
This is repectfully asked.

1. How does gay marriage destroy the american family?

2. How is a gay wedding a mock wedding?

At present it seems the biggest threat to families is divorce, and it's heterosexuals who are divorcing. Doesn't the desire of same-sex couples seeking to declare that they want to affirm lifelong loving commitments exemplify marriage at it's best. I fail to see how such lifelong commitments by same-sex couples hurts the rest of us. Instead, their desire to partake in marriage, sends a message that commitments for life can provide one of life's most humanizing relationships. I think that both civil unions and same-sex marriages could actually serve to strengthen the institution of marriage and family.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 2:52 PM · Report this
215
Sorry for the typo at 214, it should read "respectfully". I need to edit better.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 2:55 PM · Report this
216
Two people of the same gender playing house is unproductive. The only baby they can have is doll or if they go somewhere were they can adopt. It would be nothing but a cheap imitation of the real thing plus it would send the wrong message to children that two grown up men behaving like little kids by playing mom and dad is right when everyone knows it's not because nothing comes out from that childish play.
Posted by Loveschild on February 15, 2009 at 3:16 PM · Report this
217
So, they are unproductive because of their inability to concieve children? So, what about heterosexual couples who are unable to concieve due to infertility, or elderly couples, or healthy adults who do not desire to have children of their own? Couldn't you describe those same couples as "unproductive" or as "playing house"?

Why is it childish play for same-sex couples to raise children, be they concieved through sperm donations or brought into a family by adoption? Is it not better to provide homes for orphans, and foster children? There is no scientific evidence that children raised by same-sex couples become inclined to adopt a same-sex lifestyle anymore than childern raised in the general population are inclined to adopt a same-sex lifestyle. I still think providing families for children regardless of parent gender orientation would strengthen familes not harm them.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 3:37 PM · Report this
218
addition to comment 217

What about single parents, be they single because they never married, are divorced, or widowed? Are they "playing house" as well, because they don't have an opposite gender partner in their family?
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM · Report this
219
So, diminishing the population like in Western Europe where gays have been allowed to play house legally is strengthening the family?

Why don't we just skip granting gays the right to play house and just hand over our sovereignty to Mexico...better yet to Al-Qaeda. Because if we go through with this childish experimentation there will be no more native born U.S citizens to defend the nation in the future. You're advocating for the termination of the Union. Way to go, patriot!
Posted by Loveschild on February 15, 2009 at 4:12 PM · Report this
220
I think you have deviated from the original topic? Do you not have an answer to my questions?

First, the U.S. of A is not a nation with a diminishing population. Second, approximately 90% of the Union's population is heterosexual and thus able to produce native born U.S. citizens. Third, only same-sex male couples can't concieve, same-sex female couples can and do produce native born U.S. citizens by using sperm donors. Therefore, there is no immediate threat to either Mexico or Al Qaida gaining a position to overthrough the U.S. due to a reduction in the population of native born U.S. citizens. Thus, I'm afraid your argument that same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages being a threat to national security does not hold up.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 4:36 PM · Report this
221
Why do gays hate Christian so much? The Christians are just expressing their freedom of speech. I see so much hate an aggression from homosexuals.
Posted by just drop it on February 15, 2009 at 4:37 PM · Report this
222 Comment Pulled
223
Why do gays hate Christian so much? The Christians are just expressing their freedom of speech. I see so much hate an aggression from homosexuals.
Posted by homosexualsdontneedmorerights on February 15, 2009 at 4:38 PM · Report this
224 Comment Pulled
225 Comment Pulled
226 Comment Pulled
227 Comment Pulled
228 Comment Pulled
229 Comment Pulled
230 Comment Pulled
231 Comment Pulled
232 Comment Pulled
233 Comment Pulled
234 Comment Pulled
235 Comment Pulled
236 Comment Pulled
237 Comment Pulled
238 Comment Pulled
239 Comment Pulled
240 Comment Pulled
241
One can ask why do some Christians hate gays so much? Why do some Christians feel the need to impose their faith on others? Why do some Christians feel the need to carry "God hates fags" signs? Why can't gays be allowed to speak freely? Unfortunately, I see more hate and aggressions from Christians towards homosexuals, than homosexuals towards Christians.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 4:47 PM · Report this
242
If homosexual marriage is legalized should polygamy also? If not, why?
Posted by rob on February 15, 2009 at 4:54 PM · Report this
243
241
No one is imposing anything.
Existing law bans homosexual marriage.
The existing 225 years old laws have nothing to do with any religion.
Homosexuals now want to force a change in civil law to reflect their moral view of what marriage should be.
It is incumbent on those who want to change the law to show why it should be changed.
Posted by Keep your religion out of my laws on February 15, 2009 at 5:02 PM · Report this
244
That is a good question, rob? I haven't given it much thought. Legalizing marriage between homosexuals would still maintain the position of marriage being between two individuals of age of consent. When and how was it determined that marriage was between just two? Some could argue that the Bible contains many polygamous relationships and thus it is neither unnatural or unethical. Your thoughts.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 5:03 PM · Report this
245
@216--Maybe nobody told you, but gay and lesbian couples already are adopting children and raising them. Some lesbian couples conceive a child and raise the kid themselves or can adopt them out to a gay male couple. This was happening before the movement for same sex marriage and civil unions. This is in part what has driven the demand for same sex marriage benefits.

Happily children all over the world already have gotten the message that this is the normal and natural state of affairs. This is why acceptance of homosexuality will continue to grow over time. I hope it has the effect of allowing kids who realize that they are lesbian or gay themselves to come out of the closet and accept who they are. The negative messages they might get from parents or church should be undermined as often as possible.
Posted by Heather on February 15, 2009 at 5:05 PM · Report this
246
@243

Could one not argue that faith is being used to indirectly impose itself? For instance when the argument against same-sex unions is based on the belief that homosexuality is a sin, and against God's will. Or when the argument that marriage was defined by God and is a sacrament is used?

Personally, I propose that the government should get out of the marrying business completely. Instead states should grant the same civil rights and legal benefits to both heterosexual and homosexual unions. And make them unions (not marriages) regardless of the gender of the couples involved, that way those who want to have a union that is blessed as a sacrament can do so if they choose.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 5:13 PM · Report this
247
why do the post numbers jump from 223 to 241?
Posted by ? on February 15, 2009 at 5:21 PM · Report this
248
Kim: Since when are lesbian couples able to conceive without sperm?

I have to admit you have stun me with that. I have read about female Komodo dragons giving birth without the product from the male but female humans is some new to me.
Posted by Loveschild on February 15, 2009 at 5:28 PM · Report this
249
@248 Lovechild. Lesbians like any other women can get the sperm from a clinic or from a willing male donor. It is really not all that complicated and is something that nobody will ever be able to control or regulate.
Posted by Heather on February 15, 2009 at 5:42 PM · Report this
250
247
Posts 223 -241 said the same thing by the same poster. So, I think slog deleted them.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 5:43 PM · Report this
251
Loveschild @ 248

My post said that they use sperm donations. If they have their babies in the U.S. their children are native born U.S. citizens. Loss of native born U.S. citizens is what you made your post @ 219 about.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 5:47 PM · Report this
252
Loveschild,

Are we ever going to address the questions @ 214 or @ 217?
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 5:56 PM · Report this
253
214 answer is 216.

217 answer: Two elderly heterosexual couples unable to have children as any other infertile heterosexual couple are not a bad example for children to see because their unions are not mimicking the unions that contribute to childbearing. When kids see them they won't get the idea that two men or two women can produce children. As oppose to the mock marriages gays want to impose on our laws.

251 answer: I'm glad you made clear this was false:"only same-sex male couples can't conceive, same-sex female couples can", no same sex couples be it male with male or woman with woman can produce children without the contribution from the opposite sex. That's why gay marriages would be mock marriages by childish adults wanting to play house that would desensitize so much the future generations that they will end rejecting childbearing.

Posted by Loveschild on February 15, 2009 at 6:34 PM · Report this
254
Thank you for your answer to 214 and 217. You still didn't directly answer, but I will accept your response. We can agree to disagree.

Now, in your post @ 248 you appear to not have paid close attention to my entire sentence in post 220. I didn't say anything false or change what I said. I never said children could be concieved with out the contribution from the opposite sex. I said that lesbians can have children, with the contribution of a member of the opposite sex, and those children born here would be native U.S. citizens.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 7:01 PM · Report this
255
Got it. I thank you also for yours.

By the way I'm not opposed to visitation rights and giving gays some leeway on inheritance issues. I'm just opposed as many concerned people are, about allowing them to equate their unions with that of heterosexuals.
Posted by Loveschild on February 15, 2009 at 7:12 PM · Report this
256
Loveschild,

Please explain, and I mean this sincerely, why you think that same-sex marriages will result in future generations becoming desensitised and begin rejecting to bear children. Do you have any research to support your view? I have two children, and my husband had a gay parent. Neither my husband, his brother, nor his sister are gay. All three are heterosexuals, happily married with children. There is no research that I know of that supports your premise that children raised by same-sex couples grow up to choose same-sex lifestyle. That said, is the inability of same-sex couples to have children, without the assistance of a member of the opposite sex or adoption, your only reason to oppose same-sex unions? Or does the idea of same-sex people living in a loving relationship while providing a home to child, be it concieved through aid of a member of the opposite sex, foster child or adopted, offend you?
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 7:15 PM · Report this
257
Loveschild,

Really, I'm not trying to drive you crazy just to understand. I appreciate your answering very much. So, do you think they can have legal unions as long as they aren't thought of as a marriage or called a marriage? And what makes their union less than heterosexual unions? Is it the ability to reproduce?

Thanks for responding.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 7:21 PM · Report this
258
Deandre,

I may be speaking too late to ask you this but why is it that heterosexual African-Americans think that they can speak for the entire race in this matter. As it is, we lgbt African-Americans have a voice in this too but you never hear us because folks like you hog up all of the attention.

It's not a matter of comparing, it's a matter of families and relationships being protected. When we play the comparison game, we play into the hands of the religious right - who really don't give a damn about lgbts or African-Americans of any orientation.
Posted by a. mcewen on February 15, 2009 at 7:37 PM · Report this
259

Kim: You asked, "do you think they can have legal unions as long as they aren't thought of as a marriage or called a marriage?" Yes. I would also add to that, as long as the complete same benefits given to married couples are not given to them. Then I have no problem with them having some sort of legal unions and some reasonable benefits accorded to their needs, being legally recognized for them. Because I'm sure you'll agree with me that gays don't need all the same rights that married couples get.

You asked,"what makes their union less than heterosexual unions? Is it the ability to reproduce?" Yes. Please don't take this as disrespectful on my part but I think you should reconsider your position concerning this point.
Think about it, had that parent of your husband always pursued a gay life, your husband would have never been born and you wouldn't have the same family you enjoy now. That's if you meant that the parent was the biological mother or father of your husband. Can we at least agree on this point?
Posted by Loveschild on February 15, 2009 at 7:55 PM · Report this
260
Loveschild, Please explain, what constitutes as "same benefits", and how are the rights they need different from married couples.

I will think as you have asked me to, but I don't think my position will change. One reason is my husband's mothers sexual orientation has never been an issue for my husband, it is a fact. His mother is a lesbian. He has never wanted to pursue a gay life, he has always known he was heterosexual. Second reason, as I don't know how being homosexual eliminates the desire to be a parent, nor do I think it should eliminate someone's right to be a parent. Gay or straight we all have the same human desire for fullfilling human relationships. It's human to want to bound to your beloved, be it a marriage or civil union, and it's human to want to love and raise I child. So, can we agree to disagree?
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 8:13 PM · Report this
261
I think I am getting tired. Sorry for all the typos in post 260.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 8:15 PM · Report this
262
They do not need the same benefits because they don't form families by themselves through cohabitation. I'm not saying that a single gay person is inferior to others, I'm saying that same sex couples are by nature inferior to heterosexual couples. Being that their reality, government has no obligation nor can they obtain any benefit from treating them the same as heterosexual couples.

Kim, how can your relationship with your husband that has grown with two more members due to your union be considered the same with that of two men who have produced nothing with solely their union? It can't, yours is superior and needs to be protected legally and encouraged to continue through benefits that compensate what you two are contributing to your country.
Posted by Loveschild on February 15, 2009 at 8:40 PM · Report this
263
Same sex couples by nature are inferior? I think that you are making bad judgements there. Who decides that?

If you judge the superiority of couples by their ability to reproduce then you are basically saying that heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce are inferior by nature and should not have protection. This would include couples where one partner is infertile or impotent and elderly couples.

I don't think you thought that through.
Posted by a. mcewen on February 15, 2009 at 9:02 PM · Report this
264
Loveschild, you are simply wrong on so many levels, I can't even begin to know where to start. What I can say is, aren't you the "superior" heterosexual couple, with your "they shouldn't be given the same benefits as you" speech. Ugh, you are one ugly person, starting from the inside-out.
Posted by BobbyP2001 on February 15, 2009 at 9:05 PM · Report this
265
Also for the record, lgbt couples do form families via adoption and artificial insemination (two methods also done by heterosexuals).

It always amazes me how when people talk not protecting same sex couples for the sake of the children, they always intentionally omit the fact that thousands of lgbt families in this country include children.

I'm not accusing you of that, loveschild, but I think that intentional omission speaks to the hypocrisy of some of those who would stand against lgbt marriage protection. The inference and connotation that they are protecting the concept of family by doing and saying things to make families who don't fit their definition of the term feel inferior.
Posted by a. mcewen on February 15, 2009 at 9:07 PM · Report this
266
Loveschild,

I'm afraid we are stuck. We are going to have to agree to disagree. I do appreciate your taking the time to respond.

Gay families do need the same benefits, because they are families. Many same-sex couples do have children. Their relationship is real, and the children they are raising are real, and they deserve equal protection under the law. These families already exist.

You're right my relationship with my husband has grown with our two children, but so has Mr. Savage (who started this post) with his husband and their son. I honestly do not believe that my union with my husband is superior to Mr. Savage and his husband's. Nor do I think my husband and I's parenting or family is superior. I guess I am saying, I don't see, believe, or understand how being heterosexual is superior to homosexual. Neither are special, neither are superior. Despite the difference in sexual orientation the love, commitment, fidelity and devotion are the same. Because, I believe all love flows downward from God. The ability to love is part of what unites us in our humanity. Their family doesn't replicate mine in its outward apprearence, but does in love and parenting. Sorry, if you think that makes me a bad patriot. I could argue, but I don't like agruing, that desiring freedom from oppression makes me a true patriot.

Thank you again for responding. I appreciate hearing your opinions and the reasoning behind them. I respect your position. We shall agree to disagree. I have no more questions for you.

Best wishes,
k
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 9:15 PM · Report this
267
Loveschild,

Since when has the human population been dangerously low, where a union has to result in children in order to be valid? Most people view marriage as a decision by two adults to spend the rest of their lives devoted to each other. Many choose to have children as well, and I'm sure it's very fulfilling, but think about this: there are reasons that the government doesn't make it mandatory to have children once you are married. Do you think they should? Also, even if you want to view marriages with children involved as "superior to" or "more beneficial than" those without, why does the government have to officialize this opinion as if it were fact? How do married couples without children harm married couples who have children? Does a child evaporate every time a gay couple gets married? Do you think that these gay people would be more likely to have kids if they were NOT married? I'm a heterosexual who never plans to have children. Ever. Should I be banned from getting married? Should my marriage receive less benefits than one with children? Wouldn't it be more expensive for the government to establish all the new beureaucracies that would be required to keep track of each individual marriage's fertility than it would be to simply have one set of benefits for all marriages and civil unions?

Also, since when is adopting a child less valid or productive than having one the old fashioned way? Shouldn't one argue that those heterosexuals who have children that they can't take care of are the unproductive ones? Isn't it therefore at LEAST as productive to adopt a child that someone else has already had? Why does a married couple who adops a child need fewer benefits than one who gives birth to one? Is it easier to raise an adopted child? Are they less expensive? Does adoption need to be discouraged? Is it harmful for lesbians to take on a sperm donor? Is it really that important that only the genes of the married couple go into their child? Would such a child be "lower quality" than one whose genetic parents are married to each other? Isn't it a child with two parents either way? Will it make any difference to the government or society that one of its parents was a sperm donor?

Even if gay couples never have children and never adopt, how will this cause the US population to go extinct? Do you think that every single US citizen is secretly gay, and that the illegality of gay marriage is the only thing keeping us in the closet?

We've established that your average homosexual marriages are not harmful, do not encourage children to be gay, and do not set any better or worse of an example to children than your average heterosexual marriages. So why, then, should they be discouraged or seen as a "mockery?" You say it's because of their inability to have children with each other, but in order to explain why that's important, you have to answer all my questions.
More...
Posted by No religion-based answers, please. The US isn't a theocracy. on February 15, 2009 at 9:29 PM · Report this
268
Kim: I agree we're stuck here. I believe gay unions are not the same as heterosexual families and can't be equated to received the same responsibilities nor the protections married couples have. I think you're letting the love you feel for your mother in law obstruct any reason based pragmatism on this subject. I understand it, respect that love you have for her and for your husband and at the same time disagree with your conclusions.
Posted by Loveschild on February 15, 2009 at 10:05 PM · Report this
269
Loveschild: Thank you for understand the love and respect I have for my family. We believe differently. Neither your nor my reasons were able to change each others minds. Hopefully, we have caused one another to think and reflect. I disagree about your theory that love is obstructing my ability to have any "reason based pragmatism on the subject". My convictions do not arise from anyone one individual they come from my own heart and mind. They come from my own willingness to question, in fact they extend from my relationship with Jesus Christ, my work as a molecualar biologist, my willingness to learn from others, and my own life story. We can not tell each others hearts or minds what to believe, we each form our own convictions. You see too many differences between heterosexual and homosexual marriages and families, and I see how very much alike we all are. You believe differently, and I can accept that. I wish you well.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 10:27 PM · Report this
270
Loveschild,

Again I'm sorry for the typos.

Best wishes,
k
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 15, 2009 at 10:29 PM · Report this
271
To get back to the topic of the original post:

It disturbs me that there seems to be a big "Christians vs. supporters of gay marriage" theme going on in so many threads.

Not all Christians oppose gay marriage (many have posted intelligent arguments here) and not all opponents of gay marriage are Christian, or even religious.

The problem is that it becomes too easy to start referring to "Christians" when in fact we are talking about a diverse group of people who have one thing in common: an obsession with keeping same sex couples from having the right to marry.

There are many other people, (Christian, agnostic, etc.) who aren't completely comfortable with the idea of gay marriage, but who recognize that this is not the most important issue in the world. Doing something about the climate change crisis and world poverty MIGHT be a bit more pressing. I believe that many of the people in this category will eventually come to be more comfortable with the idea of same sex marriage, but they need some time to get used to it. Making blanket statements about "Christians" will only antagonize this group.

Proposition 8 is a lost battle, but it represents a battle, not the war. Eventually, more and more people will come to realize that the arguments against same-sex marriage are full of fallacies (plenty on this thread to choose from), and will start becoming more accepting.

Although I am not pleased with the results of the Proposition 8 election, it was up to the people of California to make a choice, and they voted. Now, unless there is evidence of election fraud, let's stop pointing fingers at different groups in California (Mom, he's picking on me!) and focus on how to do better next time.
Posted by Mrs. Norris on February 16, 2009 at 2:22 AM · Report this
272
You make some good points.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 16, 2009 at 7:23 AM · Report this
273
Why is it that SOME Christians and SOME homosexuals love to over generalize and lump ALL individuals in with two categories of over zealous retards.

Posted by Morris on February 16, 2009 at 8:52 AM · Report this
274
No idea. Maybe, some prefer to argue in generalizations, rather than address specific points or a specific person?
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 16, 2009 at 9:01 AM · Report this
275
271: I agree with your last paragraph, the blame game needs to stop.

I also find that zealotry from both homosexuals and Christians don't allow for a reasonable conclusion on this subject. I find that once this two groups are kept out of the constructive decision making the people in the middle as it has occurred many times before will always end up making the best pragmatist decision on this subject.
Posted by Loveschild on February 16, 2009 at 1:36 PM · Report this
276
Nice to read your around today, Loveschild. Thanks for responding yesterday.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 16, 2009 at 2:38 PM · Report this
277
Thank you kim. Nice to read you today also.

By the way, You wrote that you were a Christian, If you don't mind me asking, If you're a regular church attendant, what type of scriptures does your Pastor use to teach the views you hold on homosexuality?
Posted by Loveschild on February 16, 2009 at 4:23 PM · Report this
278
Loveschild,

The church I attend and I both use the NIV. It may help you to go up and read earlier posts 135,138,140,141,142,146,149,189 and 199, they are a conversation between a poster named The Truth (Truth for short), and a single comment by T.K.and myself. It may explain my being a Red Letter Evangelical (or the other names some use to describe us as Evangelical Lefts or Progressive Evangelicals). I don't really care for any of the names. You'll see that I also read the scriptures in their original texts, ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek.

I'll be back much later if you have more questions.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 16, 2009 at 4:53 PM · Report this
279
My only question would be if you can be a Red Letter Evangelical and still want to protect the family by opposing same sex marriage. I consider myself to be ideologically and politically on the left but I don't support that. Are there many like me within your denomination and are they able to freely express their views on this subject?
Posted by Loveschild on February 16, 2009 at 5:22 PM · Report this
280
I meant are they able to freely express their opposition within the church?
Posted by Loveschild on February 16, 2009 at 5:26 PM · Report this
281
Loveschild,

I have never heard either the subject of homesexuality or same-sex marriages addressed in my present church from the pastor. My previous church supported your position. We left that church, because it wasn't outward focused and because they disagreed with my supporting women who divorce due to escape domestic violence, in addition to their position on homosexuality. When I left my position in molecular biology, and I became trained to work with DV through a Christian ministry called ARMS. (Not, that you needed that information about me, but it would make sense with my previous posts on how my convictions are formed.)

Best wishes.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 16, 2009 at 6:56 PM · Report this
282
Loveschild,

I am friends with many who are like you, liberal but want to keep marriage a sacrament. You seem like a kind person. I would support your right to speak your beliefs in my church any day. You have a right to your convictions, especially when we disagree.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 16, 2009 at 6:59 PM · Report this
283
Loveschild,

You might want to read Tony Campolo's Letters to a Young Evangelical.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 16, 2009 at 7:11 PM · Report this
284
Loveschild,

I guess you can say from all the above responses, that it is not my pastor who teaches me on homosexuality. It's the Holy Spirit. Not that many years ago, I had a conviction more like yours. By this I mean, keeping marriage a sacrament with a yes on civil unions. It wasn't until an athiest friend, who I deeply respect, told me that she hated my faith because it means I would reject my own child if they were homosexual. Hearing that was like being punched in my gut. So, I began praying about it and reading the NIV, NLT and Stroms Concordance. I started with the story of Sodom, and with each crossreference the story reveals itself. The sin of Sodom isn't that they were homosexual, it was that they were inhospitable, liars, adulters, they perverted justice and denied mercy and care to the poor, orphaned, widowed and oppressed. God had made up his mind to destroy Sodom long before the angels met Lot. This awakened the questioner in me. It is I who choose to search scriptures in their native Hebrew and Greek. I'm not alone as you can imagine, many theologians and scholars have been doing it. Study upon the scriptures applied to homosexuality has been going on for about 25 years. When I read them in their original form I cannot in good faith say they condemn homosexuality or same-sex unions. So, it is not just my hearts desire and love, it is also my study, and prayer life that forms my opinion. So maybe, I am a little pragmatic.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 16, 2009 at 7:33 PM · Report this
285
You're kind and good hearted but based on your responses I wouldn't consider you a pragmatist. Well intentioned, yes. There doesn't seem to be any desire of malice in you. But in these matters that can prove disastrous for the future of the country, one cannot let the heart overrule reason because it can end destroying the fabric of society.
Posted by Loveschild on February 16, 2009 at 8:53 PM · Report this
286
If you saw the video, then surely you cannot think what goes on in Folsom is something that needs to be encouraged. There's nothing sacred about it.
Posted by Loveschild on February 16, 2009 at 9:00 PM · Report this
287

Love and equal rights for all citizens will not destroy the fabric of society. This country will remain, it will continue to grow and evolve. My heart does not overrule reason. My conscience is before God, for it is he who I will have to give account to. All believers are called to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8).

Good talking to you, Loveschild.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 16, 2009 at 9:13 PM · Report this
288

Which video are you refering to?
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 16, 2009 at 9:15 PM · Report this
289
The video from silencingchristians, the scenes from Folsom street. If there ever was one Sodom and Gomorrah in modern times then that's it.

I respect your conscience being before God. But Jesus also said that give to Cesar what's Cesar's. While I hope that you end in the good graces of God, I know that a Lindsay Lohan and a Samantha Ronson are destructive for what our God intended for his creation. I'm not that religious but I know that society will not be able to stand all the ills recognizing those unions equally with that of heterosexual couples like yours and mine will bring to our children and to an already fragile society at large.
Posted by Loveschild on February 16, 2009 at 9:37 PM · Report this
290
I thought it was the Silencing the Christians, so I began rewatching it. Yeah, I find the Folsom street fair distasteful, and over the top. But, they don't represent the entire homosexual population. Just like Jerry Falwall doesn't represent every Christian either.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 16, 2009 at 9:51 PM · Report this
291
We're going to have to agree to disagree as we have before. Thanks for hoping I end up in the good graces of God, you don't sound so sure.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 16, 2009 at 10:10 PM · Report this
292
Best wishes and good night, Loveschild.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 16, 2009 at 10:28 PM · Report this
293
I did the stupid poll. I used a made-up name and an email address I rarely used. But then I went to this email provider and blocked all of the groups that were sending me anti-gay propaganda.
I believe Coretta Scott King supported gay rights. Her husband had openly-gay men working for him.
Posted by billydee4 on February 18, 2009 at 1:30 AM · Report this
294
@19 ftw. Lions. grrr.
Posted by haha on February 18, 2009 at 3:16 PM · Report this
295
I appreciate the level of conversation between Kim in Portland and Loveschild, but Loveschild I have to take real exception to your comment in 286 about there being "nothing sacred" in the video of the Folsom Street Fair and comparing the event to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Kim's been taking the high road; I may go a tad lower.

Full disclosure: I've been to the Folsom Street Fair several times, including 2007 and 2008, along with about 300,000 other folks of all sexualities and persuasions. I didn't watch the video so I don't know what it shows but I'm sure it's all real.

Now, here's the caveat: as Dan points out in another SLOG entry about movies, the Religious Right lies, they distort, or they disinform. Without wasting my time watching the video, I as an attendee/participant at Folsom can assert that:

Yes, the Fair happens on a public street. But it's a street that has been closed to all traffic, including pedestrians. And the closures extend at least half a block up the sidestreets.

No one can enter the sequestered area without passing through gates (where a donation is solicited) but free access is allowed. The donation gives you a sticker that entitles you to a discount on any booze, should you choose to indulge in alcohol.

I don't know if there's a minimum age limit to enter, but I've never seen any children there.

My point is that there is essentially no way for someone of whatever age or disposition to "accidentally" encounter the Folsom Street Fair. You're either there because you want to be there, whether to enjoy or to go undercover to "expose the depravity".

So take whatever is in that video with a very large dose of salt: no "innocents" are being exposed to this "depravity" on a "public street". everybody who is there wants to be there.

Which leads to my bigger point and my descent into a lower level of discourse:

You seem to be obsessed with "spirituality" and "sacredness".

My blunt response is: I don't fucking care, and go blow.

Wake-up call: There are a lot of us who don't give two dimes about spirituality, sacredness, and all the other values you hold dear.

Folsom Street upsets you? Don't go. But don't you fucking dare try to shut it down because us kinksters trigger your ick-meter.

This is what "live and let live" is all about. This is why a lot of us get sick & tired of squeamish religious folks - however well-intentioned - telling us that we can't do what we enjoy just because it grosses you out.

I can accept that you're a good person, a good liberal who means well. But like too many good liberals who mean well, you're still willing to insert yourself into other peoples' lives - and their pursuit of happiness - just because you get the ickies.

Get the fuck over yourself.

And I mean that in a kind and caring way.

Really -- I do.

More...
Posted by Jared Bascomb on February 18, 2009 at 8:19 PM · Report this
296
I don't know, I think it is fascinating to see their daily surveys. It helps me see their perspective, even when I don't agree with them.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 18, 2009 at 8:20 PM · Report this
297
Jared @ 295

Thanks for your perspective. I just wanted to clarify my comment about the Follsom Street Fair being distasteful and over the top @ 290. It isn't because it is kinky, or even what appeared to be a parody of the last supper, but the whipping scene. I have a fear of being hit, let's just say I have been hit too many times in my life to think it pleasurable. And, I know that's my issue and many people don't share my perspective. Hope you don't think I was judging you or the people on the video, because I wasn't.

Thanks again for commenting.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 18, 2009 at 8:57 PM · Report this
298
Kim in Portland @ 297

I understand your concerns and thanks for your comments. I'm sorry for whatever abuse you experienced and in that context I understand why aspects of the Folsom Street Fair disturb you.

And I'm assuming that you understand the purpose of the event, and that nobody is there involuntarily. The people who shot the footage went there *knowing* what they would find, which IMHO puts them on a level of hypocrisy that borders on violation of the commandment about bearing false witness (again, see Dan's posting about movie grosses). And this in not a new phenomenon - they've used the same distortions/misrepresenations/exaggerations/semantic tricks/lies for decades.

Amd people like Loveschild haven't caught on.

The primary recipient of my posting was intended to be Loveschild, who doesn't seem to be aware that the Folsom Street Fair is a celebration of leather/BDSM/kink, and that the attendees are there voluntarily, despite what the video implies (and again, I haven't watched it). S/he seems to be so hung up on the spiritual/sacred that real life (especially when it is about sex) is distasteful. You seem - to my ex-/anti-religious eyes - to be much more grounded in reality.

Plus, s/he doesn't seem to realize that "pragmatic" doesn't mean what s/he thinks it does.

If you're not already tuned into it, you may want to check out slacktivist - your level of discourse would be welcomed there.

Posted by Jared Bascomb on February 18, 2009 at 9:52 PM · Report this
299
Hey Jared @ 298,

Thanks for writing back. I knew that your comments were directed towards Loveschild.

You assume right about my basic understanding of the Folsom Street Fair, I didn't buy the narrators comments that it was a homosexual only event intended to intimidate Christians and make fun of them. I never thought any person was there involuntarily either, in fact I am betting their were even Christians participating. So, I do appreciate your educating me about it.

Thanks, too, for the support about my past. I was a child, so it was a long time ago. My husband has some interest in "light" BDSM, and I'm willing to explore that (obviously with ground rules stated well in advance). Hence, my appreciation for your explanation.

I've never heard of slacktivist. What exactly is it? How does one check it out?
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 18, 2009 at 10:23 PM · Report this
300
I don't understand the idea that gays are being denied thir rights, they have the same rights as anyone else, they can marry anyone they want just like anyone else as long as that person is of the opposite gender.
Posted by Anon7937485 on June 21, 2009 at 11:33 PM · Report this
301
I don't understand the idea that gays are being denied thir rights, they have the same rights as anyone else, they can marry anyone they want just like anyone else as long as that person is of the opposite gender.
Posted by Anon7937485 on June 21, 2009 at 11:33 PM · Report this
302
I don't understand the idea that gays are being denied thir rights, they have the same rights as anyone else, they can marry anyone they want just like anyone else as long as that person is of the opposite gender.
Posted by Anon7937485 on June 21, 2009 at 11:33 PM · Report this
303
I don't understand the idea that gays are being denied thir rights, they have the same rights as anyone else, they can marry anyone they want just like anyone else as long as that person is of the opposite gender.
Posted by Anon7937485 on June 21, 2009 at 11:33 PM · Report this
304
I don't understand the idea that gays are being denied thir rights, they have the same rights as anyone else, they can marry anyone they want just like anyone else as long as that person is of the opposite gender.
Posted by Anon7937485 on June 21, 2009 at 11:33 PM · Report this
305
Watch out... The gays are going to take over the world and they're starting with equality! What crap. Next time I hear a Christian say "agenda," I'm going to punch myself in the face.
Posted by sawheat on June 23, 2009 at 3:17 PM · Report this
306
1. The first and most important consideration is that God said that it is an abomination for men to lay with men and that those who do so would have blood on their hands and their life would be forfeit. Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

2. The scientists have discovered that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed exactly in the manner that the Bible said it was. If you look at a satellite photo of Sodom and Gomorrah, you will see that a while dots shows up around these two cities, evidence of the intense amount of ash covering them. Also, perfectly round balls of 98% pure Sulphur (brimstone) are embedded in the remaining structures. First of all, there is nowhere on earth that Sulphur is found in such high concentrations, the most is 40% and that only when there is geo-thermal activity, of which there is none in that area. Also, Sulphur is NEVER found as a round ball. It was compared to every single piece of Sulphur at the Smithsonian Institute and none of them match this kind of Sulphur, either in Shape or color. The evidence is clear that something out of the ordinary happened over there and the few remaining structures show signs of intense heat and melting. In other words, Sodom and Gomorrah was “DESTROYED” and then PRESERVED as a reminder to the people as to what can happened when you live outside the will of God. This lie the gay community is telling is that it was destroyed because of a lack of hospitality is bunk. The words clearly says that ALL the men were homosexual and wanted to have sex with the two angels that God had sent.

3 Back in 1973, gay activists led a hate campaign against the psychiatrists because up until then, doctor with years of clinical experience and who made observations and assessments, classified homosexuality as a deviant,(Psychosexual Disorder). Because of the hate campaign, they were able to intimidate the medical community into deleting the diagnosis. Not based on new clinical observations or new information but base on VIOLENT activism against the psychiatric community.

The fact is, gay marriage is wrong and against the will of God and the people of God need to speak up or they will be teaching it to our children.

I guess when little boys come home and want to have gay weddings with their little male friends; maybe then parents will see the dangers here,

WHERE ARE THE PASTORS, MINISTERS AND PEOPLE OF GOD TO SPEAK OUT AGAINT THIS?


Homosexuals need help, they need God...just as we all do. I thank God that he saved my wretched sinful soul many years ago. He wants to save you too. There's a good website that I recommend for homosexuals wanting help at www.hopeforhomosexuals.com
More...
Posted by tigger65 on September 30, 2009 at 3:34 AM · Report this
307
1. The first and most important consideration is that God said that it is an abomination for men to lay with men and that those who do so would have blood on their hands and their life would be forfeit. Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

2. The scientists have discovered that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed exactly in the manner that the Bible said it was. If you look at a satellite photo of Sodom and Gomorrah, you will see that a while dots shows up around these two cities, evidence of the intense amount of ash covering them. Also, perfectly round balls of 98% pure Sulphur (brimstone) are embedded in the remaining structures. First of all, there is nowhere on earth that Sulphur is found in such high concentrations, the most is 40% and that only when there is geo-thermal activity, of which there is none in that area. Also, Sulphur is NEVER found as a round ball. It was compared to every single piece of Sulphur at the Smithsonian Institute and none of them match this kind of Sulphur, either in Shape or color. The evidence is clear that something out of the ordinary happened over there and the few remaining structures show signs of intense heat and melting. In other words, Sodom and Gomorrah was “DESTROYED” and then PRESERVED as a reminder to the people as to what can happened when you live outside the will of God. This lie the gay community is telling is that it was destroyed because of a lack of hospitality is bunk. The words clearly says that ALL the men were homosexual and wanted to have sex with the two angels that God had sent.

3 Back in 1973, gay activists led a hate campaign against the psychiatrists because up until then, doctor with years of clinical experience and who made observations and assessments, classified homosexuality as a deviant,(Psychosexual Disorder). Because of the hate campaign, they were able to intimidate the medical community into deleting the diagnosis. Not based on new clinical observations or new information but base on VIOLENT activism against the psychiatric community.

The fact is, gay marriage is wrong and against the will of God and the people of God need to speak up or they will be teaching it to our children.

I guess when little boys come home and want to have gay weddings with their little male friends; maybe then parents will see the dangers here,

WHERE ARE THE PASTORS, MINISTERS AND PEOPLE OF GOD TO SPEAK OUT AGAINT THIS?


Homosexuals need help, they need God...just as we all do. I thank God that he saved my wretched sinful soul many years ago. He wants to save you too. There's a good website that I recommend for homosexuals wanting help at www.hopeforhomosexuals.com
More...
Posted by tigger65 on September 30, 2009 at 3:47 AM · Report this
Lola, Missing Iowa City 308
Uh, just to clarify, this 'lola' is not me. Sheesh.
Posted by Lola, Missing Iowa City on January 2, 2010 at 8:35 AM · Report this
Lola, Missing Iowa City 309
Oh, and dumbass at 306/307, do you take all of what the Bible says literally? No, you don't. So STFU.
Posted by Lola, Missing Iowa City on January 2, 2010 at 10:02 AM · Report this
310
ok...you are making yourself sound like a ten year old trying to put down the women with her hair cut...very unprofessional

Posted by Kennya on April 22, 2010 at 3:53 PM · Report this
311
So that you all know who I am, my name is Anthony Johnson and I am a Christian. I believe in the bible. Now that we have gotten that out of the way let me say this to all of you that support the homosexual agenda; "YOU ARE WRONG". End of that one there. For one as a Christian I an not allowed to hate the person, just the sin that the person commits. I love my fellow human beings. Your life style is a choice or a generational curse. Now if you do not understand then ask what is the meaning of what is being said about your life style. Are you trying to get inline with what God wants or are you doing what you want? Any Christian that sits and condemns or judges is in the wrong. We do not have the right to judge that is Gods territory. I am suppose to pray for you and if you do not turn from your sinful ways then I am to separate myself from you. Even as I separate myself from you I am still suppose to help you if you need help. Jesus did it and still does then I am suppose to help you to. A lot of you are cosigning for a sin and deep down you know it. Sin is sin . There is no little sin or big sin. It is all the same and God is against it. And for those of you that think that the bible is outdated do me one favor actually read it and see what it says about the world today. If you have questions here is my email: anthonyjohnson_08@live.com. I will answer any questions that you have. And by the way read the bible from God's point of view. He only is looking to having you all join Him in heaven. I am with Him, choose life. Peace and blessings people.
Posted by Coheir123 on September 10, 2013 at 5:51 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy