Blitzer, Wash. Times' Wall ignored Warren's comparison of same-sex marriage to pedophilia, incest, polygamy
SUMMARY: The Washington Times' Tara Wall said regarding the selection of Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation: "The fact is most Americans, most Californians, oppose gay rights. This is reflective of the nation." Wolf Blitzer interjected: "Not gay rights, but same-sex marriage." Wall responded: "Excuse me, same-sex marriage. This is reflective of the nation as a whole." But simply characterizing Warren's position on same-sex marriage as mirroring that of most Americans, Wall and Blitzer ignored Warren's degrading comments about same-sex marriage and his mischaracterization of Proposition 8.
During the December 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Washington Times deputy editorial page editor Tara Wall criticized opposition from "liberals" to President-elect Barack Obama's selection of Rev. Rick Warren to deliver his inaugural invocation, saying, "The fact is most Americans, most Californians, oppose gay rights. This is reflective of the nation." Host Wolf Blitzer interjected: "Not gay rights, but same-sex marriage." Wall responded: "Excuse me, same-sex marriage. This is reflective of the nation as a whole." But simply characterizing Warren's position on same-sex marriage as mirroring that of most Americans, Wall and Blitzer ignored Warren's degrading comments about same-sex marriage and his mischaracterization of Proposition 8.
In a Beliefnet.com interview, Warren compared same-sex marriage to "having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage ... an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage [or] ... one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage." Warren has also reportedly falsely claimed that the passage of California ballot initiative Proposition 8 was necessary to ensure that members of the clergy were not restricted in what they could say in the pulpit.
From the Beliefnet.com interview:
What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?
You know, not a problem with me.
[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I favor anyone being able to make anyone else the beneficiary of their health or life insurance coverage. If I am willing to pay for it, I should be able to put a friend, partner, relative, or stranger on my coverage. No one should be turned away from seeing a friend in the hospital. But visiting rights are a non-issue in California! Since 1999, California has had a domestic partnership law that grants gay couples visiting rights and all the other rights. Prop 8 had no -- zero -- effect on those rights.]
The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
From the December 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: President-elect Obama confronting the inaugural firestorm ignited by his decision to invite well-known evangelical pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration.
Let's talk about that and more with our CNN senior congressional correspondent, Dana Bash; our CNN political contributor Dana Milbank of The Washington Post; and Tara Wall, the deputy editorial page editor of The Washington Times. They're all part of the best political team on television.
Do you think they really expected sort of an uproar, the way it's developed over the past 24, 48 hours?
BASH: I think it would be hard not to expect it, particularly from the gay-rights community. There's no question about it.
But here's a reality that was -- I was just reminded of in talking to a Democratic source on Capitol Hill right before coming on this show -- that Barack Obama is president, in part, because he won conservative Democrats who subscribe to some of the things that Rick Warren subscribes to -- conservative Democrats in Virginia and in North Carolina.
And it is because he had connections with the people like Rick Warren during the campaign that he was able to reach out to those conservative Democrats. And even those on Capitol Hill say we have to continue to keep our tent wide and try to pull in those people.
BLITZER: And let's not forget that Rick Warren took some grief from his own members when he invited Barack Obama out to his Saddleback Church in California.
MILBANK: He certainly did. And, yes, he's got that position on gay rights. But he's also on Obama's side on global warming, on AIDS, on poverty. I think it's extraordinary that gay-rights groups are picking a fight with Obama on this, which amounts to nothing, and then drawing this antagonism for when they're gonna actually have, you know, legislative battles ahead.
He's sort of taking the place, if you will, of Billy Graham. Well, guess what? Billy Graham is opposed to gay marriage as well. I mean it's -- it's just an extraordinary thing to pick a fight over.
BLITZER: I guess they're upset because he did get involved in trying to support Proposition 8 in California, which banned same-sex marriage.
WALL: Well, he certainly wasn't gonna pick Reverend Wright to do his -- his prayer. We know that. So, I mean, you know, they're -- they're picking apart -- mincing -- it's something, like you said, I mean there's gonna be bigger fights to pick here. The fact is most Americans, most Californians, oppose gay rights. This is reflective of the nation --
BLITZER: Not gay rights, but same-sex marriage.
WALL: Excuse me, same-sex marriage. This is reflective of the nation as a whole. And, quite frankly, it's laughable that liberals would -- are you know, derided -- they derided Bush for reaching across the aisle. It's the same thing Obama is saying -- look, we can all find issues in which we're gonna agree on, disagree on. He's not -- Rick Warren is not gonna be making any policy or on, you know, going to be on his Cabinet.
The man is saying a prayer. The Bible says, you know, pray for our leaders. It didn't say which leaders. It didn't say just pray for Republicans or Democrats, but pray for our leaders. And that's what he's doing.
BASH: And I think it's also important to point out that there already are some sore feelings there with the gay community and the Obama campaign because of Proposition 8 in California. Because there was an onslaught of money against -- or, excuse me -- for the proposition, and the Obama campaign intentionally, basically, stayed out of that, because they had so many other things to worry about. And for the reason we were just talking about, because they didn't want to antagonize some conservative Democrats who agreed with it.
Where the hell is Rick Santorum?
No one has been able to explain the right's position on same sex marriage quite as well as he did.
The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
The typical emotional conservative argument, the argument that gay marriage will send us barreling down the slippery slope of anyone being able to marry anything.
Is there a widespread movement demanding the right to incestuous marriage?
Is there a widespread movement demanding the right to pedophilic marriage?
Is there a widespread movement demanding the right to polygamous marriage?
I’m willing to bet that percentage wise, just as many homosexuals are opposed to these concepts as heterosexuals.
No, see, what you don't realize is, these people are just staying quiet, waiting for the gays to get their foot in the door, and then they're all going to come storming in, and we won't be able to stop them!
Personally, I think this is one of the most insulting arguments for gay people. I hear so many people say "i like gay people, I have no problem with them, but it's a slippery slope to a lot of things I don't like" (Not that I've heard Rick Warren say this, I think he has a problem with gay people too.) They basically say that being gay is a stone's throw from a guy doing it with a donkey. How you could possibly say that you respect gay people and then compare a loving relationship between two consenting adults to any sort of unwilling sexual act, especially bestiality, is beyond me. I would feel a lot better about the whole thing if they just said that they thought homosexuality was abominable, because at least then it would be clear where they stand...
Pete, of course, at the moment, you are entirely correct. But then again, it wasn't that many years ago that same sex marriage was not a "hot button" issue. Who is to say that somewhere in the future, a small minority of activists doesn't take one or more of those three issues and bring them to the forefront. What will be the reaction? Will we have "evolved" enough as a society to accept those demands?
It wasn't that long ago that inter racial marriage was a hot button issue, and we heard the same arguments back then about the dissolution of marriage and American life in general if it were allowed to happen. Of course, that was nonsense, and so is the nonsense about gay people getting married. Somehow, someone else getting married will affect someone else's marriage is pure hogwash. And that somehow that this would tear down the fabric of America is also pure hogwash. Also, there is not a big movement at all for incestuous marriage, and never will be. There will never be a big movement for pedophilia marriage either, and never will be.
Relating gay marriage to either one of those things, is disingenuous at best. I've also heard people I know relate gay marriage to people wanting to marry their pets, and beastiality in general, which is also stupid and insane.
I think you did a very good job of proving oscar's point; 'it wasn't long ago .... was an issue, now it's considered normal'. So, you say it wasn't long ago that inter-racial marriage wasn't allowed but now it is because of protests? It isn't long ago gay marriage was allowed, now it is because of protests. It isn't long ago incestual marriage wasn't allowed ...., it wasn't long ago polygamy wasn't allowed .... Perhaps we've been going down that "slippery slope" for quite a while. It is certainly un-expected that so many liberals don't understand what slippery slope means. After all, they use that phrase all the time when discussing parental notification on abortions to minors. They figure if they allow that, then the next thing you know NO abortions will be allowed at all. So, of course the hypocritical liberal will not even consider 'slippery slope' as a valid concern in the gay marriage -> pedophile marriage -> incestual marriage -> polygamy marriage issues. It's obviously only a concern when it benefits them, which is also stupid and insane.
Besides, it's more important that people are upset that Rick Warren is opposed to gay marriage, but the same people are NOT upset that O'bama is opposed to gay marriage. I wonder how you rationalize that one? Can anyone tell me WHY so many are upset with Warren, but not with O'bama?
Perhaps we've been going down that "slippery slope" for quite a while. - philib
The only way what you said applies is if you consider allowing interracial marriage to be the start of that "slippery slope." Magnolialover is correct. The issue of interracial marriage is one of human rights and has absolutely ZERO affect on anyone else's marriage or on the institution of marriage. The situation is the same with same-sex marriage.
Or maybe you really do believe that interracial marriage was a step on a slippery slope degrading the institution of marriage. That would make you a garden-variety bigot.
Inter-species marriage and pedophilic marriage have never been anything other than a smokescreen for the intellectually weak. Non-human animals and minors can not grant informed consent to enter into a contract of marriage.
Human rights and civil rights are 2 different things. Try to keep on track with your complaints of racism. If you want gays to have the human rights of marriage then ask for it. But, if you're going to whine about gay marriage being a civil rights issue then you have NO foot to stand on.
But, if you're going to whine about gay marriage being a civil rights issue
Until you can grasp the concept that gay rights is a civil rights issue, then all your homophobic argumentswill be immediately disregarded by anyone with a brain.
I guess none of my arguements will be desregarded by anyone here.
They would if "desregarded" had any meaning at all, which it doesn't.
Neither does "arguement."
You know, when you imply that everyone around you is stupid, you shouldn't leave evidence of your own stupidity lying about in plain sight.
How about you grasping the concept that people have a fundamental right to their opinions in this country and can vote to those beliefs? The fact is that Prop 8 passed in California due to an overwhelming majority of BLACK voters favoring it in a record turnout to support the Obamessiah. But then, it's politically incorrect to bash african americans as the cause of anything like this- far be it for one favored group among liberals to dump on another, so you need a scapegoat.
Grow up and realize that not everyone shares you beliefs and that they, too, are entitled to their opinions. This is just another case of Liberal Hypocrisy in action, and the diatribe here is just another example of disingenuity in the extreme.
There are no civil or human rights "violations" to prop 8. Civil unions and legislations giving the same spousal benefits to gay partners is in effect in California and other states. You all just want another reason to knock religion and bsic morality that's been in place for 4000 years. Again I say, get over yourselves..
How about a bunch of fundamentalists forwarding a proposition that ensured women couldn't earn more than 50% of a man for doing equal work? I'm sure that wouldn't offend you in the slightest. Just free speech, right?
Why do you wingnuts have such a difficulty distinguishing between the people who voted and the people who funded here? Black people need to get over their homophobia. I personally do criticize those voters for that. The point still remains that religious fundamentalists put it up for a vote in the first place, and funded the campaign for it.
As has been explained many times, marriage is not exclusively religious by any means. No church is forced to comply in any way, shape or form. Get over your paranoia.
I guess people like MissDee are longing for a return to mob rule. Very unconstitutional and un-American if you ask me.
Hey, Blowhard..er Foghorn.. it WAS VOTED ON AND APPROVED by the people of California- no matter who initiated it.. If majority rule is the same as mob rule,, then you better redefine how your candidate won the presidency.
The Constitution of California allows gay marriage. The people have no say in the matter. People have rights no matter how many others vote against them.
The people have no say in what the constitution says? Wow, are you living in Cuba? Here in America we have a 'representative democracy'. Do you know what that means?
uh, the majority can't take away rights from a minority?
Yes, it means we elect representatives to speak for us and pass laws. The Constitution can't be amended by a simple majority vote of the people, though.
It did. Has a supreme court said otherwise? Pot smoking was legalized with a simple majority which amended the constitution (in California). Is that a different case since a majority feel it's ok to smoke pot? Oh, but a majority can't change the constitution when it's something you don't believe should be changed. That certainly makes sense.
How did legalizing pot amend the Constitution in California? What was there in that Constitution which applied to that?
You're right. It was the health and safety code that it changed. There are no rights in the constitution for good health or safety.
miss dee, is that one of those "state's rights", like they used to say in the south?
then you better redefine how your candidate won the presidency.
Apples and oranges my dear. Obama's election doesn't take away anyone's rights. That's why we have courts - to protect the minority from people who think like you.
No, that's why you have activist judges who instill their individual beliefs onto the majority in this representitive democracy. Courts make judgements on law, not create law. Except in liberal mentalities, then it works the other way.
You need to bone up on your knowledge of the consitution and how this country works.
And you have to somehow, someway erase the "activist judges" talking point from your brain. It's clouding your common sense. Please provide an example where judges instilled their individual beliefs onto the majority that did not follow consitutional or case law. (And don't bring up Roe v. Wade)
I'm sure you would think a whole lot differently if you were a minority having your rights voted away by the majority. Why I'm sure you'd go running to the courts. But since you are probably a white anglo-saxon heterosexual male (if you're not, then this doesn't apply), you simply DON'T CARE because the majority votes the way you think.
The distincion is that if the people didn't want it, it wouldn't be approved, no matter who intiiated it. Moonbats that you support and their political action groups, enviro0cranks, and so on, all put forth stupid initiatives all the times with a one sided view supporting their agenda. THe fact that few get to see the light of day by public approval proves and disproves the viability of the referendum. Get over it. You and your kind are all for democracy as long it approves of what YOU want. We listened to your kind whine for 8 years in a state of "Bush-derangement". Obviously it's not a temporary dysfucntion.
that "bush derangement" stuff is a real laugher. conservatives picked that up from "clinton derangement" syndrome. the difference is clinton was an effective president and bush was a disaster. nothing deranged about pointing out bush's complete failure.
It still doesn't matter how many people want it or not. If they passed some racist referendum in Alabama, it would be outrageous. Nobody should care how many racists approve of it, because it's not viable just by the fact that it conflicts with higher laws.
So you're saying that bassically I have to beg people like you to marry my same-sex partner?
I'd rather stick a fork in a toaster.
Guess what, doll. You don't get to make decisions which impact my personal life. Just like I don't get to make decisions which impact your personal life.
[begin snark] I'm abhorred by your marriage to a man. It makes me sick to my stomach. Even though you're probably hundreds if not thousands of miles away, and your personal life really has no bearing on mine, you make me sick. Let's vote on it.
All in favor of dissolving MissDee's marriage because she makes us sick, raise your hand. Oh, it passes overwhelmingly because the latino population is made more sick by your marriage than anyone else. No more marriage rights for MissDee.[end snark]
See, I know I'm being assinine above. So are religious righties who fund a discriminatory ballot measure in a state they don't even live in (but I'm sure they don't understand that they are being assinine).
The above, in case you didn't catch it, MissDee, is an example of 'tyranny of the majority', from which you are protected - BY LAW. A judge - and more than likely a judge which you would normally call an 'activist judge', would strike down (that vote) in a heartbeat as - you guessed it - unconstitutional.
That completes today's lesson. Tune in tomorrow for Part II.
quote from csl: "I'm being assinine "
Not just above- most of the time. and Rick Warren lives in CA. So knock that comment out of the block. THe fact is that you are insisting on marriage as a right, when it's really always been a SACEREMENT (get it? SACRED ?) from the church or prevailing religion for thousands of years. Marriage as a secular function has been overtaken by most states, but in it's history it has always been a matter of religious perview. You're the one that doesn't get it, especially when the civil unions grant all the same legal status and rights that a "marriage" does. It owudl be like me saying I have a "right" to join the NAACP when I'm not black, even though I'm half Cherokee- you see, that phrase is a misnomer in terms of the CP part, since every latino, native american, asian, etc- meaning ayone who isn't 100 percent caucasion, SHOULD be able to be represented by them since they are "people of color". I don't see any of you yelling about "inequality" in that- but it's the name the organization chose to use when it was founded when the word "colored" invariably meant black. So- see the silliness of your argument? You lost no rights, but you're hell bent on demolishing a word used for centruies in a religious, and sacred context for your own feel good needs, which is totally contrary to the belief system of said religion.
You rightwing gasbags don't own the word marriage.
Shove your sacrament where the sun doesn't shine. I don't want a religious-approved marriage. I want a state sanctioned MARRIAGE. I never asked for your approval - and I don't need it. My life is good, whether you like it or not. It would be nice to be able to get married, and in about six months, it will be legal again, despite what hateful people like you think, do or say. Some Christian you are. I have more Christian in my little finger than you have in your entire body. If you weren't so selfish, you would realize that same-sex marriage benefits everyone. It strengthens the fabric of society. But no, you want it your way, to hell with the gays, right?
I've said
It's gonna happen sweetheart. Like it or lump it.
You rightwing gasbags don't own the word marriage.
Shove your sacrament where the sun doesn't shine. I don't want a religious-approved marriage. I want a state sanctioned MARRIAGE. I never asked for your approval - and I don't need it. My life is good, whether you like it or not. It would be nice to be able to get married, and in about six months, it will be legal again, despite what hateful people like you think, do or say. Some Christian you are. I have more Christian in my little finger than you have in your entire body. If you weren't so selfish, you would realize that same-sex marriage benefits everyone. It strengthens the fabric of society. But no, you want it your way, to hell with the gays, right?
I've
It's gonna happen sweetheart. Like it or lump it.
You rightwing gasbags don't own the word marriage.
Shove your sacrament where the sun doesn't shine. I don't want a religious-approved marriage. I want a state sanctioned MARRIAGE. I never asked for your approval - and I don't need it. My life is good, whether you like it or not. It would be nice to be able to get married, and in about six months, it will be legal again, despite what hateful people like you think, do or say. Some Christian you are. I have more Christian in my little finger than you have in your entire body. If you weren't so selfish, you would realize that same-sex marriage benefits everyone. It strengthens the fabric of society. But no, you want it your way, to hell with the gays, right?
I've said it
It's gonna happen sweetheart. Like it or lump it.
"Marriage as a secular function has been overtaken by most states, but in it's history it has always been a matter of religious perview."
You shot yourself in the foot right there. You make the distinction yourself, it has a secular function. So you can't argue that it's about anything religious at all. The history makes no difference as far as what's happening right now.
How about you grasping the concept that people have a fundamental right to their opinions in this country and can vote to those beliefs?
How about grasping the concept that people do not have a fundamental right to use their opinions to infringe upon or deny other citizens' rights. From your username I gather that you are a woman. What if a massive movement to overturn the 19th Amendment fomented in this country? Afterall, the same pathetic arguments about morality and religion have been used for millenia to keep women oppressed. So what would be your response then?
You may have heard that there are some political pundits and right wing radio hosts who would like to repeal the 19th amendment. They don't want women to vote because women vote, get this, overwhelmingly Democratic.
I'm willing to bet MissDee doesn't know about them, though - or she choose to ignore her own stink.
That was all a smoke screen brought on by the media. Although you are correct that 70% of Black voters, voted Yes on Prop 8. BUT Black voters only make up 10% or so of CA voters. So NO, it's not the black voters fault.
The media left the last part out of that story. It's called Devide and Conquer. Turn one minority group on the other, while they are hashing it out with each other we can slip away unscathed. It's a lil Rovian style tactic.
There is one thing I cannot figure out, it really bothers me. And it should bother A LOT of others too. When did become OK for Christians to lie? Publicly LIE, not lil white lies. BIG lies.
Furthermore, If the Courts, upholds the decision. In a court of law that is called setting a pescident. From that decesion, ANY minority group in American is at risk at the whim of the voter. I will bet dollars to donuts if you happen to be apart of the next group, If these people decide they want to dictate whatever it is about your group they dont agree with.
But the thing is, they wont take into consideration if you helped them this time to get this one passed. They allready have what they need out of you.
It became ok for 'christians' to lie when it serves their self-interests.
Otherwise, it's a sin and contrary to the Ten Commandments - a sin so powerful that it will send you to an eternity in H-E-double hockey sticks.
That looks like a dodge for my points. Do you really consider the acceptance of interracial marriage to be a step down that slippery slope as your prior post suggests?
Civil rights are generally considered to be a subcategory of human rights. As I understand the definitions, the right to marriage qualifies better as a civil right than it does a human right. Same sex marriage definitely qualifies as a civil right.
People who support gay marriage aren't going to support any of these things. There's no equal rights argument to be made, and they're considered harmful in nature on top of it.
Oh, I'm sure they wouldn't, just as, currently in the US, it appears that the majority does not support gay "marriage". And perhaps, in time, the majority can be swayed to accept gay "marriage" and then there will be another "hot button" issue that a group of dedicated activists will take up. I understand from talking to some people in CA, the whole Prop 8 issue comes down to the word (and the definition thereof of) marriage as domestic partners basically have the other rights accorded to Male/Female marriages. If that is not correct, please point me to information stating otherwise. To me, even the institution of the traditional marriage has been cheapened by the proponderences of divorces that take place. Marriage is not easy and there are sometimes reasons that certain marriages should be dissolved, but to change partners every 5 to 10 to 15 years "just because", I think cheapens the institution of marriage.
You're pushing a slippery slope without any basis.
The word "marriage" is indeed the problem, for some reason. I'm really not sure what this has to do with your argument, outside of hurting it. If we have a problem getting past a single word, then how on earth do you expect people to get past the serious concerns with the issues you're talking about? I agree that the sanctity of marriage is damaged more by Elizabeth Taylor than by any number of gay couples out there.
Since people increasingly recognize homosexuality as both harmless and as a natural orientation, it has taken hold as a civil right and surely will gain ground in that manner over time. Perhaps some group of dedicated activists will take up one of these other causes, but nobody has any motivation to give them the time of day. It wouldn't even get to the forefront without some moderate level of support.
I think it's clear I'm pretty liberal, and I don't see any reason to accept any of these proposals:
Incest:doesn't even really bear analysis. It's abusive in many cases and clearly raises concerns about genetic development of children.
Pedophilia:doesn't fit the framework of "two consenting adults". It's clearly abusive for that reason, and the "right" of the elder can't trump the rights of the younger in this scenario.
Bestiality:not mentioned here, but a common slippery slope argument. Same as pedophilia in that it doesn't match "two consenting adults" and is abusive to animals. Also, animals can't enter legal contracts, and obviously shouldn't need to.
Polygamy:often abusive, and it would be a legal nightmare that creates lower-class citizens. It's also unnecessary to legalize, because it's legal to live with several partners at once. All that one needs to do is to be married to one partner, while keeping the others as second-in-line, third-in-line, etc., and that works just as well. As a practical matter, nothing is denied to them in our current system.
You don't seem to 'get it' at all. Every one of your complaints about incest, pedophilia, beastiality and polygamy can be made about homosexuality. WHY are you saying that ONE should be allowed, but not the others? It would be better if you said it was your 'opinion' those lifestyles are abusive, because you cannot provide any more actual proof of that than I can of homosexuality being abusive. And, for every made up article you find on abuse in those, I can find a made up article on abuse in homosexuality. But, your arguement against polygamy is just totally classic liberalism. You say they already have that right and don't need to fight for it, well, so do gays have those same rights. Why are they fighting for more?
"Since people increasingly recognize homosexuality as both harmless and as a natural orientation, it has taken hold as a civil right and surely will gain ground in that manner over time."
What people recognize homosexuality as harmless? The ones being told to by you and other liberals? And what scientific proof can you cite as proof of "natural orientation"? None? Well, there goes your entire arguement supporting gay marriage. You might want to let those who are a little more prepared to make these arguements for you. It's obvious you act strictly on your emotions and NOT on FACT or scientific PROOF.
"You don't seem to 'get it' at all. Every one of your complaints about incest, pedophilia, beastiality and polygamy can be made about homosexuality. WHY are you saying that ONE should be allowed, but not the others?"
How is homosexuality abusive, or a legal problem, or a consentual issue, or going to damage the gene pool?
"It would be better if you said it was your 'opinion' those lifestyles are abusive, because you cannot provide any more actual proof of that than I can of homosexuality being abusive. And, for every made up article you find on abuse in those, I can find a made up article on abuse in homosexuality."
The argument that those things are abusive is obvious. A parent-child sexual relationship is abusive, surely, no matter how old the child is. So is an adult-child sexual relationship, since the child can't legally consent. Polygamy creates subclasses of women (typically), since some wives need to have domain over the others. The issue is that they are abusive by nature, not that someone happens to be abusive. You could obviously claim that traditional marriage is abusive because there are battered wives, so your argument there is incredibly poor.
"But, your arguement against polygamy is just totally classic liberalism. You say they already have that right and don't need to fight for it, well, so do gays have those same rights. Why are they fighting for more?"
What legal rights would gay people have without civil unions or gay marriage? Relatives of a deceased person could challenge any inheritance to a partner not explicitly stated in a will. Does the same apply for married couples? How about insurance issues? What the hell do you think you're talking about?
"What people recognize homosexuality as harmless? The ones being told to by you and other liberals?"
Sane, tolerant people.
"And what scientific proof can you cite as proof of "natural orientation"? None? Well, there goes your entire arguement supporting gay marriage. You might want to let those who are a little more prepared to make these arguements for you. It's obvious you act strictly on your emotions and NOT on FACT or scientific PROOF."
What proof would a homophobe like you accept? The evidence suggests it's natural, so does an ounce of common sense. Your repeated failure to explain how you chose to be straight is evidence as well. Besides, it's insane to say that people's rights should be denied because people who have no interest in science are waiting for scientific proof in order for those rights to be granted.
You make NO arguement that isn't strictly emotion-driven. I can't talk with you if you continue to deny FACTS and insist on stating opinion AS fact.
As far as proof, how about providing simple scientific evidence that homosexuality is natural occuring in humans and not choice. I have no proof of my choice to be heterosexual other than me stating that I chose to be heterosexual. Is that the exent of your proof also?
What facts are you providing?
Why does homosexuality occur with animals? Why are monkeys and penguins engaging in homosexual activity if they don't have the ability to make rational, thoughtful decisions?
So, you find both men and women sexually attractive? You thought about gay sex and straight sex while making your decision? Is that what you're telling me?
Now you say men and animals CAN marry, since YOU say they have the ability to make "rational, thoughtful decisions". Whereas before you denied men and animals the right to marry. What changed your mind?
I said animals don't have the ability to make rational, thoughtful decisions. Try reading it again.
Someone told me that if we allow gay marriage then people will be able to marry printers. My response was: "How do we dicipher if the printer is indeed consenting to marriage?"
I would have told them that "Dot Matrix" isn't a woman's name. Seriously though, printers? That's just completely random.
... what scientific proof can you cite as proof of "natural orientation"? - philib
First, you show some degree of scientific ignorance in asking for "proof." You can educate yourself on what proof means in science here. As for scientific support for the biological basis of homosexuality, here are some articles citing research:
Homosexual Behavior Largely Shaped By Genetics And Random Environmental Factors An excerpt: The study shows that genetic influences are important but modest, and that non-shared environmental factors, which may include factors operating during foetal development, dominate.
Male Homosexuality Can Be Explained Through A Specific Model Of Darwinian Evolution, Study Shows
Brain May 'Hard-Wire' Sexuality Before Birth An excerpt: It’s quite possible that sexual identity and physical attraction is ‘hard-wired’ by the brain. If we accept this concept, we must dismiss the myth that homosexuality is a ‘choice’ and examine our civil legal system accordingly.
In fruit flies, homosexuality is biological but not hard-wired
Study in Royal Society journals presents evidence for inherited factors in homosexuality This one is actually short descriptions of several research projects on the topic.
Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors An excerpt: This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.
This just scratches the surface. There are many rapidly accumulating bodies of evidence showing that sexuality is a complex matter of biology influenced by environment. Pretty much the only people who still claim that sexual orientation is a matter of choice is those who are ignorant of the research and those who retain an emotional stake in that denial.
Your last link and quote say that if I am born in Cuba and then move to Alaska and my skins begins to thicken to adapt to the cold that means I was born with thick skin. Is that what you believe? That humans will change to adapt to the environment and that constitutes being "born that way"? You have provided NO scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic. You have simply provided a couple scientists who think there MAY be some connections. NONE of those specifically say YES-you are BORN that way. You provide 2 sites that obviously have an agenda. Please provide some actuall independant research where the researchers aren't influenced by the donors that demand certain answers. If I give a researcher $1 million to say homosexuality is NOT a natural occuring event, would you believe them? That's why I won't believe your sources.
There's no genetic proof (I think) that people are born with a sexuality. Is it your position that we are all choosing our sexuality and we can all change it?
Your last link and quote say that if I am born in Cuba and then move to Alaska and my skins begins to thicken to adapt to the cold that means I was born with thick skin. - philib
It says nothing at all like that. If that's your normal level of reading comprehension, I can understand the rest of your post.
You have simply provided a couple scientists who think there MAY be some connections. - philib
I've provided links citing just a few samples of the large amount of research in existence showing very strong evidence that homosexuality has a biological basis. Your non-fact-based denial of the evidence simply shows YOUR biases.
You provide 2 sites that obviously have an agenda. - philib
The only agenda of those two sites is to compile research in a wide variety of scientific disciplines and publish it in a form for laymen. These are two of my favorite science news sites and there is no other agenda you can show.
You provide 2 sites that obviously have an agenda. Please provide some actuall independant research where the researchers aren't influenced by the donors that demand certain answers. - philib
That's an ugly charge. You have NO evidence that backs it up. C'mon, show the evidence. Put up or shut up.
You won't believe my sources because you don't want to. You have no other reason. That's pathetic, but true.
Marriage between children and adults will never happen unless we lower the age of consent and start treating children as adults. Polygamous marriage will never happen because they are inherently unequal between the parties involved. They usually consist of one man having unlimited power over several subjects he calls his wives. Incestuous marriage could happen if people start demanding it. Even though I'm against marriage between family members who am I and who are you to tell two consenting adults what they can or cannot do.
The age of consent is already in the mid-teens in several states. And children have been treated as adults for years. Don't you keep up with the news? At least once a month you hear of a child being treated as an adult for a crime. What difference is there to treat a child as an adult in relationships? If they're old enough to make legal decisions in bad things, are they not old enough to make legal decisions in good things?
Your arguement for incestual marriage is exactly the reason other chosen lifestyles should not be given "rights" that are demanded on the assumption (but no scientific proof) of naturality.
And your arguement against polygamy is different than gay marriage in what way? I see; usually one man has unlimited power over his partner, which creates an inherently unequal relationship. Try keeping your emotions out of the arguements and if you do use them, bring some FACTS to back up your fears.
The age of consent is already in the mid-teens in several states. And children have been treated as adults for years. Don't you keep up with the news?
You can get married at the age of sixteen in some states so we may already have marriage between adults and children (this is assuming you believe that someone is still a child at the age of sixteen).
I agree that we have to make laws in regard to "children" more uniform. If a twelve year old has sex with someone over the age of eighteen, society will scream that the twelve year old is a child and therefore couldn't consent anything. If that same twelve year old murdered the person over eighteen, society will scream he is an adult and should be treated as such.
Your arguement for incestual marriage is exactly the reason other chosen lifestyles should not be given "rights" that are demanded on the assumption (but no scientific proof) of naturality.
I don't care if someone's lifestyle is chosen or not. We have no right to tell two consenting adults what they can or cannot do unless it somehow personally interferes with us. It's tyranny of the majority to say a person can't do something because we don't like who the person is.
And your arguement against polygamy is different than gay marriage in what way? I see; usually one man has unlimited power over his partner, which creates an inherently unequal relationship. Try keeping your emotions out of the arguements and if you do use them, bring some FACTS to back up your fears.
I would say polygamy is akin to someone beating their wife or in this case, wives and the woman/women actually staying in the relationship.
You can get married at the age of sixteen in some states so we may already have marriage between adults and children (this is assuming you believe that someone is still a child at the age of sixteen).
I agree that we have to make laws in regard to "children" more uniform. If a twelve year old has sex with someone over the age of eighteen, society will scream that the twelve year old is a child and therefore couldn't consent anything. If that same twelve year old murdered the person over eighteen, society will scream he is an adult and should be treated as such.
I don't care if someone's lifestyle is chosen or not. We have no right to tell two consenting adults what they can or cannot do unless it somehow personally interferes with us. It's tyranny of the majority to say a person can't do something because we don't like who the person is.
Marriage between heterosexuals and marriage between gays are not inherently unequal between the parties involved. I would say polygamy is akin to someone beating their wife or in this case, wives and the woman/women actually staying in the relationship.
"I don't care if someone's lifestyle is chosen or not. We have no right to tell two consenting adults what they can or cannot do unless it somehow personally interferes with us."
And, in what way are we telling them they cannot be gay? Or, live the gay lifestyle? How is prefering that marriage stay as taught in the Bible considered tyrannic? Isn't the American system a 'representative democracy'? Doesn't that mean the majority rules? Are you saying the American way is tyrannic?
"I would say polygamy is akin to someone beating their wife "
I would say you're changing the arguement. You say ALL polygamist beat their wives? What if someone believed all gays beat their partners? Would it then be ok to denounce homosexuality?
You're telling them that they can't marry. You have no right to do that.
If there is a situation where rights are conflicting with each other then it has to be litigated. If you single out a group and say they can't marry because you don't believe what they believe then that is tyranny.
The point is that polygamy is abusive and the state can involve itself. If marriage between heterosexuals and marriage between gays were inherently unequal then the state could involve itself there too.
"You're telling them that they can't marry. You have no right to do that."
Why not? You are saying polygamists cannot marry. You have no right to do that, either.
I never said polygamists can't marry. I said the institution is inherently unequal and therefore the state can involve itself. Personally, I don't give a sh!t who you marry.
You said polygamists beat their wives (of course you have evidence to show this generality) and therefore shouldn't be allowed. If your opinion is that powerful then my opinion should carry the same weight. I think homosexuals denegrate themselves, and their relationships are based on one having the inherent power over the other. How is that different than polygamy? So, we start down that slippery slope with your opinions on gay marriage.
You say gays should marry and don't care if polygamist marry and don't care if pedophiles marry children. Well, I have stricter morals than you and DO care if pedophiles marry children and DO care if polygamists marry and DO care if gays marry. If they want to DEMAND equal rights then they should seek equal rights through the STATE, not through a religion. Just as you demand. The state cannot force a religion on others, so why are they seeking rights through a religion and not through the state? Why are YOU seeking the same results if you believe so stringently in seperation of state and religion??
Marriage is done through the state.
Civil unions are done through the state. Marriage is done through religion with the blessings of God. Are you saying the state is forcing a religion onto it's habitants?
No, I was married without God having anything to do with it. I got a marriage license and a marriage certificate. A church merely performs a ceremony and serves as a witness for state purposes.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem. Are you purposefully misrepresenting posts to fit your far right agenda because you've done it several times already? I said polygamy is akin/similar to beating your wife or battered wife syndrome (both are abusive to women and yet they stay in the relationships), not that polygamists beat their wives because I have no idea if they do that.
Explain.
There you go misrepresenting me again. Where did I ever say I don't care if adults marry minors?
Marriage is sanctioned by the state.
Marriage is not easy and there are sometimes reasons that certain marriages should be dissolved, but to change partners every 5 to 10 to 15 years "just because", I think cheapens the institution of marriage.
Why does what other people do concern you or is it a concern of yours?
"Why does what other people do concern you or is it a concern of yours?"
Which will be the rallying cry for those who WANT polygamous marriages and incestual marriages. Just as it was the rallying cry for those who WANT gay marriage.
Did you read my post? If people demand to marry family members, who am I or you to say they can not?
And again, marriage between multiple people is inherently unequal so in the case of polygamy the state can involve itself.
Incidentally, I don't really care what other people want to do with their lives; I'm just saying where state involvement is allowed.
Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. Get a grip.
Polygamy/Pedophilia/Beastiality have nothing to do with homosexuality.
As a homosexual, I can tell you that I've not ever wanted to marry more than one person. As a homosexual, I can tell you that I've never wanted to have a sexual relationship (or marriage) with a child. As a matter of fact, statistics show that most pedophiles are heterosexuals. As a homosexual, I can tell you that I have never wanted to have sex with an animal.
Your insinuations that I, as a homosexual, would engage in such nonsense is an insult to anyone's intellect - even yours.
It concerns me and should concern you when one partner leaves a marriage "just because" and leaves children unsupported financially or emotionally, just as it should concern us that there are children out there that don't know who Dad (or Mom, in isolated instances) is.
Fair enough.
"There's no equal rights argument to be made"
Where's the "equal rights" argument for the chosen lifestyle of homosexuality? It's not like they are born that way. But there is certainly a valid concern that if one 'chosen lifestyle' is allowed legal marriage rights, then another chosen lifestyle should be accorded the same rights.
"and they're considered harmful in nature on top of it."
Uhhh. In nature, if procreation is not achieved does that harm or help nature? (in advance of all the funny replies-- ha ha...didn't see that one coming). Will nature purposely produce a being or lifeform with the intent that it will eliminate itself because it cannot reproduce? How many species has the world gone through that has had that problem? If nature did produce a species that survived despite no reproduction, how would that make your comparison to gay marriage compatible?
Homosexuality isn't chosen. If you want to refute that, you're free to describe how you chose to be heterosexual. You're scared to do that, for some reason.
It sort of depends on what degree of non-procreation you're talking about. Since homosexuality is not new by any means, the increase of the world's population since Biblical times would quite clearly destroy your argument.
And how would homosexuals reproduce? Are you saying that rape is acceptable in your "free choice" world?
They wouldn't. They haven't. And yet, the world's population has steadily increased.
How did rape come into this? I have no idea where you got that from.
How do the homosexuals continue to reproduce if it is a natural occuring event if they aren't raping those of the opposite sex? Do you even consider that the worlds population has increased because of heterosexuals, not homosexuals? Why are you bringing that into the discussion?
Homosexuality has nothing to do with reproduction. There's no rape. The whole point I'm making is that heterosexuals reproduce enough to make up for that lack of reproduction on the part of homosexuals, therefore that lack of reproduction is not "harmful". So yes, I do realize the increase is because of heterosexuals.
You are a very confused person. Re-read through this if it's not clear by now.
A lot of gays who want to have children either adopt, get a sperm donor or use a surrogate.
That's true, I was trying to talk in simple terms in order to communicate with a simple person.
When a gay adopts, do they adopt a gay child or is that child allowed to choose what sexuality they prefer?
They adopt a child, period.
That's what I thought. When confronted with reality you back away from it. Answer the question! Is the child born gay and is adopted by gay parents or does the child choose a sexual preference later on?
I believe a person doesn't choose their sexuality. You're either born heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual.
Will the gay parents be proud of their straight child or ashamed of it, like so many straight parents are ashamed of their gay child? Or will the gay parents try to change the child to be 'like them'? Of course if that happens then it proves you aren't born that way, huh? You seem to be quite an expert on gay parenting, I hope you can answer these questions.
Your questions are quite retarded. Gay parents want their children to grow up in loving environment and be successful in life; the child being gay or straight is not part of the equation. Gays and most straight people are not hung up on sexuality as the far right is.
Just as I thought. You avoid the question. Will gay parents be disappointed that their child is not gay? If the "far right" is so hung up on sexuality and the rest of the nation is NOT, why does gay marriage fail every time it is voted on? Do ONLY far right people vote? How about our soon to be president, why aren't you calling him a retard? You do know he opposes gay marriage, don't you?
Maybe you should have the name loonz.
No.
They're voting against it based on their religious intrepretion of marriage. Only the far right is finding ways to make it about sexuality.
I'm calling you a retard. Your arguments and questions are not one of a sane person. If Obama presented himself as you have, I would definitely call him a retard.
"They're voting against it based on their religious intrepretion of marriage."
Duhhh. But you twist all meanings around to say anyone who opposes your prized gay-marriage is a homophobe. So, O'bama is a homophobe, but you think that's ok. I oppose gay marriage and you call me a retard. You're a liberal, so I expect that kind of reasoning.
I would actually call them slighted bigoted (I would call you a raging bigot) but that's a result of their religious beliefs. There are a lot of things I wouldn't do personally but I would never impose my beliefs on someone else. You do what makes you content and I'll do what makes me content. And as long as we don't interfere with each other then there's no problem.
The insane far right arguments you're making are in no way comparable to anything Obama has said. Your insane arguments include polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality and dog humping, rape, inferiority of gays, gays producing gay children, gays being disappointed with straight children, sexuality is a choice, the human race ending, gays being anti religious, Separation of Church and State magically disappearing, Jesus being homophobic, god equals religion, the state not performing marriages, nonreligious equals immorality and on and on.
Right, O'bama says he is against gay marriage because it goes against his religion. Gee, what have I said? When did I say "inferiority of gays"? Typical liberal making things up and excusing their leaders for exactly the same beliefs as the far right have.
Check out my previous post as to what you said. If you would have said "I opposed gay marriage because of my interpretation of religion" then I and other posters would have had no problem with that but you took it much further than that to the point of insanity. Some of things you posted go way beyond what the far right is saying. You're insane. Go see a psychiatrist.
When did I say "inferiority of gays"?
You said gays have to fight for equal rights. Why would someone that's equal to you have to fight for equal rights?
Is the pedophile equal to you? What do you expect me to say about sexual deviants? Do you expect me to say all sexual deviants are equal to me? Sorry, I won't do that. If you consider sexual deviants equal to you, then so be it. And, why do you have such a problem with me having MY OWN opinion?!?
You're entitled to your opinion. You're even entitled to your ignorant opinion. But you're not entitled to legislate your ignorant opinion - especially when you cannot show that there has or will be any damage to your marriage (as if anyone would ever have you anyway).
The answer to your question is a resounding NO.
My boss is a lesbian, MARRIED to her wife, together for 18 years (they had a WEDDING this last July). They had a child through sperm donation 12 years ago.
While the child is still a child and probably not totally aware of his sexuality, my boss and her wife will love him no matter which path in life he follows. He may be gay. He may be straight. Nobody is hung up on his sexuality, except for people like YOU.
It's called unconditional love. It's what a parent has for a child, no matter what the child does - or who the child does.
Evidently unconditional love is lacking in your family.
What the hell are you talking about and how did the discussion end up here?
brabs said homosexuality has been around since Biblical days and I asked him how homosexuals reproduce if not from rape. Try to follow along. He couldn't answer, though.
I never said homosexuals reproduce. That's why nobody understands what you're talking about.
How have they been around since Biblical days then? You DID say that. If it's a natural occuring event then you must have some kind of explanation and scientific proof for it's occurance.
Because a certain percentage of the population has always been born gay. Is that supposed to be less understandable than gay men raping women they aren't attracted to in order to procreate?
I've concluded he's gone wacko. He thinks only gays can produce gay children.
Which is particularly funny, because supposedly homosexuality is a choice.
I've noticed that too. If you'd like, I'll be happy to reproduce as many gay kids as possible, all in an effort to drive philib even more insane than he already is.
[/silliness]
"Because a certain percentage of the population has always been born gay"
Unfortunately, you can provide NO proof of that other than to whine about me being heterosexual by CHOICE!
I'm not whining about you choosing to be straight. I'm saying that if you want to argue that people make that choice, then you have to explain how you made your choice. If you weren't attracted to men, then there was no decision involved.
What proof do you have that people are born heterosexual?
What's the logic behind that?
Those issues are just red-herrings anyway. They are used by the wingnuts in their "slippery slope" nonsense.
Such arguments ignore, however, the other aspects of those issues that make them FAR more complicated and undesirable than homosexual marriage.
Incestuous marriage has biological and property concerns.
Pedophilia has issues of consent, among others.
Polygamy also has significant property issues associated with it, not to mention economic.
IMO, these things are so unrelated to homosexual marriage they don't even warrant discussion for fear that we will legitimize the comparison.
A lot of traditional marriages have significant and economic issues associated with them, and those issues are worked through in the marriage or the dissolution of same.
But if we allow gay marriage then pretty soon Mormons and Branch Davidians will be marrying 10 year olds!
And if we demand parental notification for minors getting abortions, then pretty soon no abortions will be allowed at all!
I have faith in Obama to change his choice of invocator on inauguration day.
Why would O'bama change invocators? Do you have faith that O'bama will change his stance that gay marriage should NOT be allowed, also? Or, do you just have faith that he will change invocator to one that opposses his own opinion on the matter?
You have escaped the earth's gravitational field. God's speed homophobe.
God speed to you, too, heterophobe. I guess logic escapes you, just like it does barby and loonyz
You really want to talk about logic, with your posts on this thread?
More-so than you do with your emotion driven statements. Read any of the Bible yet? I've heard a rumor that if you read the entire book of Revelation you'll have a financial enhancement.
Do you have any evidence that "homos" are trying to weaken religion through marriage? Or was that "emotion driven"?
Yes, my evidence is that fact that homosexuals are demanding marriage rights that are already accorded them through civil unions. They are trying to force the state to sponsor a religion. Sorry barby, you lose again.
Marriage simply does not rely on religion.
Do people in civil unions get all of the inherent rights afforded to heterosexual couples?
"Do people in civil unions get all of the inherent rights afforded to heterosexual couples?"
Not all. And that is exactly what I've been saying all along! If they want equal rights they should fight for them. Instead they fight for 'marriage' rights. How will a state sponsored religous effort give them rights they don't have now? How can you be so blind as to not see that? Why are they NOT fighting for equal rights afforded to heterosexual couples? Why are they seeking rights to marriage when they (and YOU) know that won't solve their concerns?
You think you fellow citizens should fight to be your equal? You've got to be kidding me.
Well, if they don't get all the rights that straight people do, then obviously there's a valid reason for fighting for them. Marriage would give them all the same rights. It has nothing to do with damaging the concept of religion.
Churches can refuse to marry anyone they want to. It can't possibly affect them, unless they want it to.
If a state tells the Church (that doesn't want to conform to state sponsored sin) to perform marriages and doesn't, what will be the result to the Church? Perhaps they will lose tax exempt status? There is a penalty for a Church to refuse your desires of gay marriage when the state forces a religious entity to follow state desires as opposed to the Church following what it's God teaches them. Keep your seperation of state and Church in mind when you demand the Church be governed by the state. Which way do you want it? Seperate or linked?
People get married outside of churches. There's no reason, and no way, to force a church to conform to anything. The wall of separation works both ways.
Why would the state tell a church to do something the church believes is against their religion? The state would not and never has done has done anything like that. Separation of Church and State goes both ways. The church shouldn't interfere with government and the government shouldn't interfere with churches.
Again, as expected, you avoid the question. What will happen to the Churches tax exempt status if they don't follow the edicts of the state? What you're saying is the government can interfere with Churches but Churches can't interfere with government. Very liberal of you.
Nobody's said government can interfere with churches. It wouldn't hold up to court action, and shouldn't.
Let's say for some reason (all the legislators collectively bump their heads and go philib) the government does to churches what it has done to gays (impose their will on them) then you go to court or start paying taxes.
Personally, I think churches should pay taxes. They are too involved in politics not to be taxed. But that's just me...
If a state tells the Church (that doesn't want to conform to state sponsored sin) to perform marriages and doesn't, what will be the result to the Church? Perhaps they will lose tax exempt status? - philib
You really are incredibly ignorant in addition to being an outright nutjob. No church has to perform any marriage with which they disagree. It is still legal for a church to refuse to perform interracial marriages. A church could refuse to marry someone because of a physical disability. They could refuse to marry a couple because the guy has a beard. A church can choose any reason they want to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony and no government body will say squat about it.
It is government that can not refuse to recognize a marriage for any of those reasons and that's the way it should also be for same sex marriages.
I especially loathe that phony "what about increasing the population?" argument. Until these idiot homophobes are willing to endorse forbidding marriage to couples who can't have children, or force divorces on couples who decide not to have children, they really need to shut their fat gobs about population increase.
Earth to Homophobes: Allowing Homosexuals the right to marry will not end Heterosexual marriage. Allowing Homosexuals the right to marry will not prevent Heterosexuals from producing children.
Oh, and until one of you comes forward and explains to me how you "decided" to be a Heterosexual (I sure as hell dont remember the day I made that decision,) shut up about Homosexuality being a "choice," too.
"Earth to Homophobes: Allowing Homosexuals the right to marry will not end Heterosexual marriage. Allowing Homosexuals the right to marry will not prevent Heterosexuals from producing children."
Earth to heterophobes: I don't think anyone cares whether they can produce children or not is the crux of this arguement. There is an arguement that homos simply want to 'use' a religious ceremony in an effort to weaken the power and desirability of religion. Since homos are obviously anti-religion why would they demand rights within the religious community? Homosexuality is described to be wrong, evil and an abomination in the Christian Bible. Yet homos consider themselves to be righteous Christians living within the constraints of the laws of Christianity. That would be similar to murderers saying they are Christian because murder is allowed in the Bible. Sorry, but some choices have consequences. I realize liberals don't approve or believe in personal accountability, but Christians DO.
If they simply want legal rights provided to anyone else they should ask for it (civil unions). If they want to demand an organization that doesn't accept their way of life to be forced to accept their way of life then we'll fight them. Please tell me WHY aren't they seeking simple legal rights accorded others? Why are they seeking to force approvement in a religion that doesn't approve of their lifestyle?
"I sure as hell dont remember the day I made that decision"
Ha ha, so you admit you made that decision? Just because you don't remember it, doesn't make it less of a choice. I don't remember the first day I chose what beer to drink, but it was a choice just the same. Sorry, I won't shut up about choice until you shut up about homophobia. I thought liberals wanted to FORCE choice on us, now you say I'm not allowed to discuss or make a choice? You're a mean liberal. Which is very typical and a choice.
"Earth to heterophobes: I don't think anyone cares whether they can produce children or not is the crux of this arguement."
There is no such thing as a "heterophobe". Your argument was that since they can't produce children, they create "harm".
"There is an arguement that homos simply want to 'use' a religious ceremony in an effort to weaken the power and desirability of religion. Since homos are obviously anti-religion why would they demand rights within the religious community? Homosexuality is described to be wrong, evil and an abomination in the Christian Bible. Yet homos consider themselves to be righteous Christians living within the constraints of the laws of Christianity. That would be similar to murderers saying they are Christian because murder is allowed in the Bible. Sorry, but some choices have consequences. I realize liberals don't approve or believe in personal accountability, but Christians DO."
There's an argument that you are a child molester. That doesn't mean a whole lot in itself, it needs to be backed up. For someone who likes to talk about facts vs. emotion, you have some nerve talking about gay people being "anti-religion". Your view of Christianity is not the only one. People can be Christian withotu agreeing with you. Where does Jesus say that homosexuality is wrong? If he doesn't, then why is it not Christian to be gay or accept homosexuality? You know that the "Christ" in "Christianity" refers to Jesus, right?
"If they simply want legal rights provided to anyone else they should ask for it (civil unions). If they want to demand an organization that doesn't accept their way of life to be forced to accept their way of life then we'll fight them. Please tell me WHY aren't they seeking simple legal rights accorded others? Why are they seeking to force approvement in a religion that doesn't approve of their lifestyle?"
Marriage doesn't have to be religious. It's a legal institution whether churches perform ceremonies or not. This has been explained to you.
"Ha ha, so you admit you made that decision? Just because you don't remember it, doesn't make it less of a choice."
Saying he doesn't remember it means he didn't make the choice, ever.
"I don't remember the first day I chose what beer to drink, but it was a choice just the same."
The first day you whose what beer to drink? First, it's not the same as remembering a specific day. Second, it's a much bigger matter than a choice of beverage, and therefore much more important and more memorable.
"Sorry, I won't shut up about choice until you shut up about homophobia. I thought liberals wanted to FORCE choice on us, now you say I'm not allowed to discuss or make a choice? You're a mean liberal. Which is very typical and a choice."
You're allowed to be a racist if you like too, but you don't get to avoid criticism for it just because it's your choice.
There's no arguement that I'm a child molester. There IS simply a statement you make without evidence to back it up. Similar to your statement that 'you are born gay'. If you haven't read the Bible, how can you tell me that what it does of does not say? The Bible says murder is wrong, it doesn't say just because you approve of murder then it is ok, but for everyone else it is wrong. I realize you get stuck when talking facts, but you should really try to read the Bible before you stick your foot in your mouth. If you need one, I'll send you one. Or you can go to any local Church and I'm sure they will give you a free one if you ask.
No marriage doesn't have to be religous. Which is why I'm asking 'why aren't they seeking civil union rights'. "Marriage" is a religious ceremony. Civil unions are state sponsored ceremonies. That's how it worked for my wife and I. We were joined in a civil union at the court house, then got married in Church 6 months later.
"Second, it's a much bigger matter than a choice of beverage, and therefore much more important and more memorable."
Oh, you're now saying that the degree of memorability determins whether you are born that way or not? What if a gay doesn't remember being 'born that way' and chooses to be straight? Is he gay or straight?
"There's no arguement that I'm a child molester. There IS simply a statement you make without evidence to back it up."
Good job, you got the point. Just like "There is an arguement that homos simply want to 'use' a religious ceremony in an effort to weaken the power and desirability of religion". That's a statement you make without evidence to back it up.
'Similar to your statement that 'you are born gay'."
Well, that's a common sense argument if nothing else. Why are animals gay? Why would anyone choose to do something that results in discrimination, ostracization, murder, etc? You make an argument based on "common sense" that gay people are "anti-religion", so you don't have much room to criticize here. My argument makes sense, yours does not.
"If you haven't read the Bible, how can you tell me that what it does of does not say? The Bible says murder is wrong, it doesn't say just because you approve of murder then it is ok, but for everyone else it is wrong. I realize you get stuck when talking facts, but you should really try to read the Bible before you stick your foot in your mouth. If you need one, I'll send you one. Or you can go to any local Church and I'm sure they will give you a free one if you ask."
I was raised Mormon. I've read the Bible. Nice job making baseless assumptions. Murder is in the ten commandments. It's also consistent with Jesus's philosophy. You tell me how homophobia is consistent with Jesus's philosophy or statements in the Bible, please.
"No marriage doesn't have to be religous. Which is why I'm asking 'why aren't they seeking civil union rights'. "Marriage" is a religious ceremony. Civil unions are state sponsored ceremonies. That's how it worked for my wife and I. We were joined in a civil union at the court house, then got married in Church 6 months later."
Marriage doesn't have to be religious, but marriage is a religious ceremony? I was married on a beach. No religion involved. You get a marriage license through the state.
"Second, it's a much bigger matter than a choice of beverage, and therefore much more important and more memorable."
"Oh, you're now saying that the degree of memorability determins whether you are born that way or not? What if a gay doesn't remember being 'born that way' and chooses to be straight? Is he gay or straight?"
The degree of importance makes a difference in how well you remember it. You would never remember being "born that way", because you don't have memories of birth. If someone has a sexual attraction to both sexes and chooses the opposite sex, they're still bisexual. Are you bisexual?
"Why are animals gay?"
We are not talking about animals. Unless you want to include animals in the rights to be married. Of course, you being a liberal I could fully understand that one.
"You tell me how homophobia is consistent with Jesus's philosophy or statements in the Bible, please"
Romans 1:18-27 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Leviticus 18:22 1 Kings 14:24 Now, you tell me which one are you going to deny is the philosophy of Jesus?
"Are you bisexual?"
Are you hitting on me? Sorry my bat doesn't go into people like you. But, now I understand why you defend gay rights so much and why you say Jesus approves of homosexuality. You must be one of those who 'pick and choose' what rules you want to follow in your religion. Does that make you a good Christian or a bad Christian. Or will you deny it makes a difference in your chances of getting into Heaven? Well, either way, I now fully understand all your arguements. Good luck to you and Merry Christmas
Do you think animals choose sexual orientation? How?
Are any of these the words of Jesus? Leviticus and Kings are Old Testament.
I'm straight, thanks. Everyone picks and chooses what rules they follow. Do you avoid wearing clothes of mixed fabric? If not, are you a bad Christian? People can be religious without agreeing with you, again. You don't get to set your views as the bar for what qualifies as "religious" or "Christian", sorry.
Are you saying that Jesus is not God? Is that what they teach you in Mormon school? What did they teach you the words in the Bible are? Perhaps they teach you it is just the ramblings of a collection of wayward souls. Unfortunately, that's not what I'm taught the Bible is. I'm taught the Bible is the Word of God. I'm taught that Jesus is God. I'm very far from perfect, but I don't deny who God is, like you seem to be doing.
What you are taught is irrelevant. Welcome to the conversation. Other people may view the teachings of Christ as separate from the actions of God. They are still religious. Your personal views do not define the entire concept.
"What you are taught is irrelevant."
What you are taught is absolutely relevant. Try to follow along. If you claim God approves of deviant sexual behavior then deny God says anything about it you are denying what you are taught.
No, what you are taught is irrelevant to what others believe. Try to follow along. You can be as offended as you like, but such things are not an affront to the very concept of religion.
So, are you taught Jesus is God or not? Which part of the Bible DO you believe?
I don't believe any of it. I think he was a philosopher. It doesn't make a difference, because religion is ultimately a personal matter. If gay people find a church that's willing to marry them, even if they go through a church at all, it doesn't affect your religion at all. So what's the problem?
It is Jesus's philosophy that homosexuality is an abomination. But, since you choose not to believe that, then that means you don't believe any of his philosophies.... like murder or stealing or lieing. You simply choose to like what you want and force your will upon all others. Just like you whine about me doing. That makes us equal whiners. But, apparently you feel your whining is better for the nation than my whining even though every election has resulted in the same ending---NO to gay marriage. Only individual judges make it legal in isolated instances. The will of the people in this representative democracy are being denied because of a few whiners like YOU.
Jesus never said that. Just because someone wrote that God said so doesn't mean Jesus agreed.
What an unbelievably idiotic argument you're making. So because I don't believe God and Jesus are the same, I think stealing, lying and murder are acceptable? That's insane even by your standards.
Let me get this straight. If people get married, having absolutely no affect on your life whatsoever, that's the same as you making it so that they can't get married?
A Constitution trumps the will of the voters.
We're not dealing with a sane person here. The arguments from him have been moronic throughout.
"Jesus never said that"
Of course you met Him and He told you what He thinks? How can you say what Jesus believes if you don't believe His book?
It's not in the Bible, is it?
As for "God is Jesus", let's see:
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
-----
15Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
------
1And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them.
2Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
3Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.
-------
23And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
-------
Interesting. So God decrees that the Sabbath is holy, that no work shall be done, not even lighting a fire, upon penalty of death. But Jesus says "whatever, you do what you need to do", essentially.
So, are you (as a non-believer) argueing what God is or what God isn't? What, pray tell, gives you the authority to advise me who Jesus is and what Jesus said? You don't even believe the Book He wrote, yet use quotes from it (probably out of context) to prove to (yourself?) that Jesus isn't Jesus. You must be a brilliant person to be able to quote Jesus while denying He exists. Oh, that's right. Earlier you have said you personally spoke to Jesus and He told you his entire philosophical belief structure. Which of course you choose NOT to believe. Except for the parts that you need to for arguements sake. Typical liberal
He quoted directed from the Bible and you countered with gibberish. Go see a psychiatrist. You are insane.
"So, are you (as a non-believer) argueing what God is or what God isn't? What, pray tell, gives you the authority to advise me who Jesus is and what Jesus said?"
What difference does it make whether I believe in it or not? I'm quoting directly from it, so I don't need any "authority" to do that. You believe in the Bible, so the quotes that I'm providing must be something you believe.
"You don't even believe the Book He wrote, yet use quotes from it (probably out of context) to prove to (yourself?) that Jesus isn't Jesus. You must be a brilliant person to be able to quote Jesus while denying He exists."
You seem to hold yourself up as the expert on the Good Book, so if I took something out of context I would expect you can point it out without even cracking it open. I'm not saying "Jesus isn't Jesus". I'm saying Jesus isn't God. I also didn't deny that he existed. I said he was a philosopher. That would mean he actually existed.
"Oh, that's right. Earlier you have said you personally spoke to Jesus and He told you his entire philosophical belief structure. Which of course you choose NOT to believe. Except for the parts that you need to for arguements sake. Typical liberal"
Please provide the quote where I said I spoke to Jesus. I said that he didn't say anything about homosexuality in the Bible. You can't refute that. All you could do was make the argument that if God said something, then Jesus must share the same view. Obviously that isn't the case, as I demonstrated. It should also be obvious that I don't need to believe in any particular thing I quoted, since the point was merely to highlight the inconsistency.
Also, just to make your hardwired, binary-thinking brain smolder a little bit more, I appreciate Jesus's philosophy quite a bit. I just don't feel the need to declare it holy, absolute, undeniable truth that you must believe in or you'll burn for all eternity.
Let me expand on this, just to try to help you understand. As far as that is possible, at least.
What I'm showing is that Jesus is disagreeing with God. You can come to a couple of different conclusions:
1)God isn't Jesus. They do not share the same views. (This is my personal belief, as I indicated, even granting God's existence for argument's sake)
2)God is Jesus, but he changes his mind.
Either way your argument goes up in flames. If God and Jesus have different views, then you can't attribute quotes from the Old Testament or people besides Jesus and say that's Jesus's philosophy. Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality, and he was very tolerant in nature, so there's no way to argue he condemned gay people.
And if God changes his mind, then you can't use the Bible to condemn homosexuality, because how do you know God hasn't changed his mind in this instance? You simply have no way of knowing, and so you can't use such an assumption as a means of discriminating against any of God's beloved children.
"What I'm showing is that Jesus is disagreeing with God"
YOU have not a clue to what you are talking about. You obviously failed your Mormon classes and continue to live in denial about what Jesus teaches. The nation is full of twisted liberals like you who insist that Jesus was 'just a nice guy' and God is the root of all evil, yet use them both to justify your sexual deviance whenever you need to go out on any given Saturday night with your 'freinds'. I am not the twisted one, you and loonz are. Good luck to you and good bye. I don't need your kind of sexual deviance being taught to anyone I know. I sure hope you hold NO position of authority over children in THIS nation. It's people like you who have ruined this nation and changed it into a nation of sexual deviants who feel the need to control all aspects of our lives.
That's a cute little rant, but can you provide something that actually refutes what I'm saying?
Again, I'm straight. Remember what you said about people who were reducing to calling you names.
Umm, what name did I call you? "Twisted one" is considered a name?
You want me to refute what, again? That Jesus did not say homosexuality is a sin? Did you read any of the verses I provided? No? I didn't think you would.
Let's start with Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives bacame full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents.
Let's move on to 1 Corinthians 6:9 Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kindom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers--none of these will have a share in the Kindom of God.
Lastly, let's visit Titus 3:9 Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights about obedience to Jewish laws. These kind of things are useless and a waste of time. If anyone is causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with that person. For people like that have turned away from the truth. They are sinning, and they condemn themselves.
So, according to that last one, I need to stop having discussions with you and the rest of you liberals. Simply say; you have been put on notice of your evil ways and let God make His judgement on you as He feels necassary. Good bye, Merry Christmas
"The nation is full of twisted liberals like you who insist that Jesus was 'just a nice guy' and God is the root of all evil, yet use them both to justify your sexual deviance whenever you need to go out on any given Saturday night with your 'freinds'."
So that's not name-calling? You have no point, so you say I'm gay.
"You want me to refute what, again? That Jesus did not say homosexuality is a sin? Did you read any of the verses I provided? No? I didn't think you would."
I did read them. Jesus didn't say any of them. Jesus contradicts God, as well. This is what you need to refute, and can't.
Thanks for the notice. You can believe whatever you want. What you can't do is discriminate based on it.
Not name calling. Where did I say you were 'gay'? Are you admitting your friends are gay or are you admitting your sexual deviance is of the gay type? If so, then how is it name calling? If not, then point out where I said you were gay. Can't? Go figure!
You quoted God. I quoted God. I believe Jesus IS God, you don't. Either way, God was quoted (by me) using the SAME reference book that you used. If you admit you quoted God, then you must admit I quoted God. Too bad you can't figure that out.
"The nation is full of twisted liberals like you who insist that Jesus was 'just a nice guy' and God is the root of all evil, yet use them both to justify your sexual deviance whenever you need to go out on any given Saturday night with your 'freinds'."
Twisted liberals like me justifying my sexual deviance? 'Freinds [sic]' in quotation marks? What exactly were you trying to say, if not questioning my sexuality as you already did earlier in the thread? What "sexual deviance" would you be referring to, exactly? More importantly, what's the difference? Any deviance is name calling in lieu of an actual argument on your part. If you meant some other unnamed and unreferenced deviation, then I take back that you called me gay. The point would still remain, though, so that wouldn't be any major victory for you.
"You quoted God. I quoted God. I believe Jesus IS God, you don't. Either way, God was quoted (by me) using the SAME reference book that you used. If you admit you quoted God, then you must admit I quoted God. Too bad you can't figure that out."
I never said you didn't quote God. I'm saying you didn't quote Jesus. Your belief that they are one and the same does not mean anything here.
"What "sexual deviance" would you be referring to, exactly?"
What sexual deviance are you involved in? None? Then how is it name calling?
My belief that Jesus and God are the same thing is of utmost importance to ME. However, you used quotes by God to justify your position that He didn't condemn homosexuality. I used quotes by God to say He does condemn it. Whether I believe Jesus is God in this situation is irrelevant. The fact you don't brings into play the ability by me to quote God, just as you have. Obviosly, every Christian (not you) believes Jesus is God, so perhaps my arguement goes over your head because you don't. But, since I do believe that (as every other Christian) then my statement remains true. You simply pick and choose what not to believe God said when it fits your agenda. And your agenda is that homosexuality and pedophilia and incest aren't sexual deviant lifestyles. My opinion is they are.
You still called me a sexual deviant. Just because it's false doesn't mean you didn't do it. Take a logic class.
I know your belief is important to you. It just doesn't make Jesus equal God. It doesn't make any part of the Bible "Jesus's philosophy". You also don't get to speak for all Christians.
Your statement remains true as far as your perception of Christianity goes. For public policy purposes, it falls about a light year away from the mark.
I never said any of those things aren't sexually deviant. Pedophilia and incest are unacceptable, and clearly deviant. I don't really care whether homosexuality is classified as deviant or not, since it's natural behavior and isn't harmful to society or consenting adults who engage in it.
Also note that I'm not using God or Jesus to justify anything I've said. Anything you say God said, I won't dispute it as long as you cite it. It just doesn't prove your point.
I cited my source. You dispute whether God said it or not. What did you say you "won't" do? Go to your Bible source and see if God said what I quoted Him saying. Use your own links to get there, it shouldn't be hard.
I did not dispute whether God said it or not. I dispute that it applies to what Jesus believed. This shouldn't be hard to comprehend.
In your case, what Jesus says is irrelavent. In my case Jesus is God so it has importance on my stance. However, God still says homosexuality is an abomination. Since I believe Jesus is God I am correct on my assertion that Jesus says homosexuality is an abomination. And, I backed it up with quotes from the same source you used. Now, if you don't believe in God's Word, then we have no further discussion to make.
but that is the old testament. as i said before, it also says stone unruly children to death. according to you, all the old testament guidelines changed.
Oh? Where does it say "stone unruly children to death"? Try not to change your exact quote around too much while looking for that one. Feel free to invoke your own opinion on specific meanings of words in there, too.
I know this one:
18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
As suspected. There was no mention of "unruly" nor does it say the son is a child. They did mention; profligate and drunkard. Doesn't God say being a drunkard is another sin that he despises? Isn't that part of one of the quotes I provided (1 Corinthians 6:9)?
Maybe you know of another quote, because the one you provided simply proves me correct and correlates old and new testements with similar stances by God. You better let mefirst do the searching from now on. He isn't any good at it either. Makes silly claims and then can't back it up with any substance.
Come on. Stubborn and rebellious isn't "unruly"?
How about this? No mention of "drunkard", just two "youths" killed for being rude:
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
While we're on this one, how is this consistent with Jesus's "turn the other cheek" philosophy? How does that work? "Love thy enemies, unless they call you 'baldie', in which case you may curse them so that they may be killed by bears"?
Pardon me, forty-two. Even better.
You're going to blame God for 2 bears killing those youths? I guess you blamed God after that tiger attacked and killed a youth last Christmas at the SF zoo. Wow! You are really reaching for anything, aren't you? Like I said, let mefirst do the searching for you. He thinks son=child. I'm the son of my father---I'm 50 years old, but in the mind of mefirst I am a child. I guess mefirst never listens to what his father/mother tell him to do, either. Since he obviously feels sons/daughters do NOT have to obey their parents.
is it ok to have your rebellious son stoned to death? yes? no?
Yes, I am going to blame God for that. Why's it in His book if it's not relevant? Elisha cursed the children and then coincidentally they were all suddenly mauled? Why would that be mentioned if it didn't have any meaning?
I'm going to add on to that. It's really amazing how much stupidity you can cram into one post. If some holy man put a curse on the child killed by a tiger right before it happened, then that would seem to be God's fault, yes. Is that what happened? And is it really a choice between "stone your unruly children" and "children don't have to obey their parents"? There would seem to be quite a bit of middle ground there.
unruly means a child who will not obey and is being "rebellious". and you are denying that a son is a child of the parent. obviously, except in your world, if the parents have control over him and can "discipline him", he is a child. are you saying that quote is fine with you? it's ok to stone your "rebellious" son to death?
and we are right back to the issue you refuse to address. you quote the old testament when it's convenient, then you say that the new testament is "different time frames, different conditions, different needs". pick and choose.
Yeah, there's no difference between me being a 50 year old son of my father. Now that I'm 50 I no longer have to obey my father. Give it up, you have NO knowledge of religion and cannot possibly begin to teach anyone about what is righteous and what isn't. I think you'd be lucky to determin morality standards, considering you want rights given to chosen sexual deviant lifestyles.
answer the question. is it ok to have your rebellious son stoned to death?
You still don't speak for all Christians, much less all religions. What you believe doesn't have any bearing on what others do, and certainly has no merit as a basis for public policy.
phil sort of brings to mind that scene in "chinatown". "she's my daughter...she's my sister.." "the old testament says...but the new testament over rules the old testament...but the old testament says..."
but phil, earlier you said that the old testament was "different conditions". you're doing what i said, picking and choosing, because the quotes you're citing are from the old testament. they're valid or not.
Ha ha... I see how you quote from the old testement (stone unruly children to death). You have never read the Bible, have you? I guess it doesn't matter, you can make things up to have it sound like you're an expert and all the other lemmings... I mean liberals will obey whatever you tell them.
then take the quote brab provided. it's ok to stone your son to death because he's "rebellious" and a "prolifigate and a drunkard". that's all right with you?
Right, it doesn't really matter what the reason is, as long as it's not punishment for a major crime. Killing anyone for a character flaw is not exactly what we would consider "civilized" in this day and age.
That's it, you two non-believers keep teaching us believers what the Bible teaches. This ought to be really good. What's the Bible mean by thou shall not kill? How about thou shall not lie? What's that mean? Oh, man! Following your line of thought it must mean that all should lie and kill because God said not to do it and obviously God contradicts Himself throughout the Bible.
You've had your opportunity to explain things in the Bible, and you won't do it. That's not my fault.
No, your logic fails again. There are secular reasons for not lying and killing, so I oppose that even though the Bible is inconsistent.
How in the world can I explain an incorrect statement? You tell me to explain why God says to stone to death an unruly child. Then tell me that a drunkard and unruly is the same thing and the child and son is the same thing. For all you know the son was 30 years old. You know families stuck together a little bit longer back then, perhaps he hadn't left home, yet. How can I account for your (expected) incorrect questioning?
still doesn't answer the question. you have not disputed the quote that brab provided. so you are conceding it as a quote from the old testament. so it is ok with you that the son is stoned to death because he's rebellious and a drunkard?
Correct or not, it's pretty difficult to explain. Is a 30 year old subject to discipline? I was also referring to your refusal to explain the contradiction I mentioned. You made no effort there whatsoever, just gave me "you wouldn't understand". Either your views make sense or they don't. If they do, then you can explain them to anyone. If you don't, then you can't even try to use them as some basis for public policy.
phil i guess we wait til hell freezes over, because you refuse to say why it's ok to stone a rebellious drunkard son to death.
Damn - I never knew Jesus was an author!
He wrote the Bible? Wow...what a novel!
"Please provide the quote where I said I spoke to Jesus. I said that he didn't say anything about homosexuality in the Bible."
You provide quote after quote from the Bible. WHO said those things you quoted? Jesus or God? I provided demonstrative connections where Jesus (who I believe IS God) said homosexuality is a sin/abomination, yet you refuse to accept Jesus said these things while providing quotes from a book you don't believe. You went so far as to insist Jesus NEVER said those things, did you know Him personally and can attest to the fact He didn't say them? According to you, you KNOW He did not say them. It is written in the book you used as evidence of what Jesus did say, but you deny He said anything against homosexuality. How is it you deny statements made from the same book you use to authenticate your insistance that Jesus NEVER said these things? How is it you can use the Bible to prove me wrong, yet won't accept the Bible that proves you wrong?
"WHO said those things you quoted? Jesus or God?"
According to you, God dictated the "Sabbath is holy" part, because that's God's word and God's law, right? Then Jesus said you could do whatever you needed to.
"I provided demonstrative connections where Jesus (who I believe IS God) said homosexuality is a sin/abomination, yet you refuse to accept Jesus said these things while providing quotes from a book you don't believe."
You're completely unhinged here. Your belief that Jesus is God is not proof of anything. The fact is that Jesus did not say the things you quoted. Why am I supposed to accept that the Bible proves me wrong when your entire argument relies entirely on your personal belief?
"You went so far as to insist Jesus NEVER said those things, did you know Him personally and can attest to the fact He didn't say them? According to you, you KNOW He did not say them."
Let's try to understand just exactly how stupid you are, shall we? Even if I were to claim that I know Jesus personally, I wouldn't know every single thing he ever said. I previously said that Jesus didn't say anything about it in the Bible, so obviously I'm referring to what's written in the Bible when I say "he never said that". A child should be able to grasp this.
"It is written in the book you used as evidence of what Jesus did say, but you deny He said anything against homosexuality. How is it you deny statements made from the same book you use to authenticate your insistance that Jesus NEVER said these things? How is it you can use the Bible to prove me wrong, yet won't accept the Bible that proves you wrong?"
Because Jesus never said anything against homosexuality, again. I'm denying that the statements you provided reflect Jesus's philosophy, because they didn't come from his mouth. If you could provide something Jesus himself said, then that would be a valid argument, as opposed to what you're vomiting up here.
Besides all this, I already addressed this scenario. If everything in the Bible can be attributed to Jesus, then he changes his mind. If that's the case, then he could change his mind on homosexuality. The Bible would no longer be eternal truth, since you have no idea what beliefs God/Jesus hold right now.
phil seems to be saying that jesus is god, so everything in the bible, old and new, is the word of jesus. if that is true, then it's an inherent contradiction. because many of the things jesus is quoted as saying in the new testament are changes to the rules of the old testament. it's the constant argument where people quote the old testament and then you ask them about something else and they say that's the old testament and jesus changed that. then why quote the old testament to begin with?
Well, if you know anything of the Bible and Jesus you would realize that the old and new testements are covering different time frames, different conditions, different needs. Why would I need to kill a lamb as a sacrifice for my sins when during the new testement Jesus died on the Cross for my sins. Do you not understand the teachings of the Bible?
Inerent contridiction? You cannot provide proof of ANY contridiction. Unless you missquote any given part of the Bible. But, that's how the devil did it during the temptations of Christ, that would be the only way YOU could do it, too.
the devil made me do it? pretty funny. and thanks for making my point. and my point was that people quote from the old testament as proof of something, "the lord said in...", and then someone will turn around and say it also says stone unruly children to death, then the answer is "well, that's the old testament and it doesn't apply". the old testament is valid or not. you don't get to pick what you like and dismiss anything else.
Exactly, Philib talks about picking and choosing, then selects what parts of the OT are still applicable and which ones aren't? It's a contradiction? Oh, well Jesus nullified it then. It doesn't count.
There's another distinction that should be made here. As far as Christian belief goes, die-hard literalists can probably spin their way around just about anything. For their purposes, they might be able to make it work. But it needs to actually make sense if we're supposed to use it as a basis for public policy. They have a vested interest in believing it, society as a whole does not.
Spin?? What are you doing? I don't pick and choose, I understand what the Bible says and why. Do you? Besides, how could you know anything of Christian beliefs if you are a trained Mormon?
So why can't you explain the contradiction I cited earlier?
Mormons believe in Christ. They read the Bible.
Because you didn't cite any contradictions. You spin God's Word to make it appear that way. And, I certainly can't do any Bible teaching to you, since you don't believe the Bible is the inherent Word of God.
Show me the "spin". I copied and pasted directly from an online Bible. The links were included.
You can still explain how it could make sense, whether I believe it's holy or not.
Where is the contradiction that you claim to have cited? How is it contradictory?
Seriously? God says you can't do anything on the Sabbath, not even light a fire, or you'll be punished with death. Jesus says otherwise. Tell me how that's consistent.
I'll ask again:show me the "spin" that I used.
Tell me. What day is the Sabbath? Why does God say that? Now, tell me why Jesus (the philosopher) says otherwise. I know Jesus (God) does not say anything contradictory to what was taught in the old testement.
You tell me, you're the Bible expert. If you have a point, make it, don't tell me "you know" there's nothing contradictory and that ends that.
I thought you would avoid answering that. You usually do avoid answering to giving explanations for claims you make. You expect others to make the explanation for you...like the good liberal you are. My point is: you have NO clue to any Biblical teachings. Therefore are useless to explain Biblical theory to even the simplest of humans (me included). Go back to argueing whether O'bama supports gay marriage or not. Hint: he does NOT. But he's your hero. I, on the other hand, do not support gay marriage and you loathe me. Typical liberal
You claim it's not a contradiction, so you explain your argument. That's not my job. If you want my answer, I'll just say that there's no valid reason for people to avoid any activity on the Sabbath, and a very valid reason to light fires or gather food on the Sabbath. It's still contradictory.
I disagree with Obama on that. He, however, does not make the insane arguments that you do. There's a big difference.
Just in case you come back, let's point out your blatant hypocrisy here:
You to mefirst:"But, YOU made the claim. So, I'm afraid it IS up to you to prove your claims."
You:"I know Jesus (God) does not say anything contradictory to what was taught in the old testement."
Me:"You tell me, you're the Bible expert. If you have a point, make it, don't tell me "you know" there's nothing contradictory and that ends that."
You:"You usually do avoid answering to giving explanations for claims you make. You expect others to make the explanation for you"
You made the claim that it's consistent, so you have to show how it's consistent. When mefirst claims something (which he didn't actually claim), then you expect him to back it up. When you say something, it's up to me to answer your meaningless questions, or to make the explanation for you.
Do you have a sensible argument to make, or will you question my sexual orientation again? Or will you just figure out that it's long past time for you to stop embarrassing yourself?
phil, the bible says water covered the earth over the highest mountaintop. do you believe that? or is a "metaphor"? and if so, then who decides the metaphors and what is literally true?
God does. If you have a concern over what God says, ask Him!
i'm asking you. did water cover the highest mountain?
I'm not God, do your own historical research. IMHO, if God says it, I believe it. Of course, your HO may differ.
i don't have to do any research. there is no evidence that water ever covered the entire earth to the highest mountain. if you have some, produce it. that's not my "humble opinion", but scientific consensus. it also makes no sense. where did that water drain off to? you say "if god says it", then you believe it. but if god said it, and therefore it's true, then science would support that. it doesn't, in any way, shape, or form. what you "believe" is unsupportable.
Hey mister scientist. What would happen if all the ice/snow in the world suddenly melted?? What is the end result of global warming according to you fearmongers?
it would not come anywhere near covering the highest mountaintop. i believe the figure is twenty or so feet? last time i checked mt. everest is about 35,000 feet? maybe it's a different figure in the bible.
Maybe, you should check that.
i would think you would know, bible expert that you are. but that flip remark doesn't change the fact that the biblical story of the flood is unsupported by any scientific evidence whatsoever. if you insist on ignoring what both science and common sense support, then that's your decision. i can't put myself in that state of denial.
Well, I guess I can't answer that one. I'm just a simple laborer, I'm not a geo-thermal scientist like you are. You seem to have all knowledge on all things, you should explain to me how water topped the highest mountain 15,000 (or so) years ago. Perhaps you can give all of us a quick lesson on planetary history.
i'll buy the simple part. i did not make the claim that it did top the highest mountain. you did. you said you believed it because god said so. here's how things work. i am not required to prove things that i believe are false. that would be up to you.
"phil, the bible says water covered the earth over the highest mountaintop." Posted Monday December 22, 2008 11:43:17 AM EST
Ha ha, you're funny. You most certainly DID claim that water covered the highest mountain top. You even used a reference to support your claim. Albeit, not a very specific reference (book or verse). But, YOU made the claim. So, I'm afraid it IS up to you to prove your claims. If you believe it is false, why did you claim it to be true? Never mind, you're a liberal....that explains it all.
You're ridiculous. Pointing out that the Bible says something is not the same thing as claiming it to be a fact for most people. That only applies to people like you. Obviously his point was that it's not true, despite the fact that it says so in the Bible.
By the way, in case you weren't familiar with chapter and verse (you really need to be told it's the book of Genesis?):
18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [a] , [b] 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
Do you think animals choose sexual orientation?"
I think they just act on present desires. Do animals think and rationalize like humans do? Why are you comparing animals to humans in an arguement about marriage if you don't think animals should have the same marriage rights?
We're talking about whether it's chosen behavior or not, obviously. Animals do not think and rationalize like we do, that's the whole point. It's natural behavior.
All male dogs try to 'hump' your leg at one time or another. Is it performing beastiality? Does that give you that same right? Does that signify it is gay/bi or whatever other word you wish to tag it with? It's natural behavior to kill another when provoked, does that make it legal? Animals do it, does that make it legal for humans to do it?
If the circumstances are right, you certainly do have the legal right to kill someone. It's natural to kill something that threatens you, and so self-defense is a valid reason for killing someone. So yes, something that is natural is considered legal, unless some objective reason can be shown why it shouldn't be. Can you do that?
If the dog is penetrating your leg, maybe.
Yes but why would anyone want to hump a dog's leg?
The dog is humano-sexual.
No because you would be violating the rights of another person. I told you earlier when rights are conflicting it has to be litigated and remedied.
"Yes but why would anyone want to hump a dog's leg?"
Probably the same reason a man wants to hump another man. But, it's good to be clarified that you believe beastiality is OK in your world.
Yeah and probably the same reason why a man wants to hump a woman or vice versa.
The only people having sex with animals (usually barnyard) are conservatives.
"'Marriage' is a religious ceremony"- um, no it is NOT. MARRIAGES are LEGAL CEREMONIES that may be conducted by a Justice of the Peace, with NO RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION AT ALL. They aren't called "Civil Unions," they are called MARRIAGES and are recognized as such under the law. The religious ceremony, if in fact there is one, is strictly optional. Pumpkinheads like you can't quite seem to wrap your minds around this very simple fact.
And since a religious ceremony is NOT required to conduct a legal marriage, there is NO reason to include ANY religious argument when you say you are against Gay Marriage. No church is required to marry anybody, or even give a reason for refusing to conduct the service. That won't change when gays are finally granted the human right to marry (and it's going to happen, and I hope you live to see it, and all your ranting and bible-thumping isn't going to stop it) and your grandchildren will someday wonder what in the world all the fuss was about.
"We were joined in a civil union at the court house, and got married in Church 6 months later..."
Hmmm... sounds to me like some Good Christians wanted to have sex out of WEDlock, so they went through what they laughingly called a 'Civil Union' for some reason, then had a religious ceremony. Somehow, these Good Christians managed to simultaneously block up their ears and pretend that they never heard the word "Marriage" during the court house ceremony, yet feel entitled to have sex between the "Civil Union" and the religious ceremony-- or did you and your (wife?) stay celibate in those six months?
You posers make me laugh.
There's no arguement that I'm a child molester. - Philib
You might not want to make statements like that on public boards...
I'm just sayin'...
See, I can cut, paste and twist sentences just like you can! It's great fun, isn't it?
You are just an idiot. If religion will be "weakened" by homosexual marriage (it won't) how the hell is that a reason to ban gays from marrying? The last time I checked, the government was supposed to uphold the Constitution, not defend religion.
"Haha, so you admit you made that decision?" Um, no, retard. That was sarcasm, and your argument is SO weak you are reduced to pretending that you don't realize it wasn't. But just in case you really ARE that clueless: I don't remember making the decision to be heterosexual because I never did- Heterosexuality is not a choice, any more than Homosexuality or Race is. Know what IS a choice? Religious preference. And if your religion stands in the way of my Civil Rights, its YOUR RELIGION that must step aside. If you don't like that, there are plenty of Middle Eastern Countries that would be glad to take you in. Or build a time machine and get yourself back to Medieval Europe, where I'm sure you'd be much more comfortable anyway.
"Know what IS a choice? Religious preference. And if your religion stands in the way of my Civil Rights, its YOUR RELIGION that must step aside."
That was very well said.
Reduced to name calling?? I guess you realize you lost your arguement, too, so you resort to calling me names. Typical
"Are you hitting on me? Sorry my bat doesn't go into people like you."
Why don't you explain to us how you and your girlfriend were "joined" in a civil ceremony and then "married" in a church six months later? What did you Good Christians do during that six months? Hold hands? What was the point of the civil ceremony if it didn't "marry" you?
You are so busy stumbling over your own hypocritical arguments, I don't think you can bear to read them when you get done typing. But please continue, they are awfully amusing.
My civil union at the Oakland courthouse included the words "with the powers invested to me, by God, you are now man and wife". How is that NOT a religious ceremony? So, what was your question again?
You're conflating two things. You can believe in a God and not accept any dogma. A lot of the founders practiced deism.
BTW, my ceremony did not include the words "by god".
Oh brother, do you even read your own posts? If the "civil union" (I bet those words were not mentioned during the ceremony, or on any of the legal documents) was religious, why did you bother with a church ceremony six months later? Didn't you consider yourself "Married" after the Civil Service? When you filed your tax returns that year, on what date did you consider yourself "married"- after the Civil Service, or the church service?
Do you consider the Pledge of Alliegence a "religious ceremony?" How about the exchange of money? Do you understand that the Civil Servant who MARRIED you at that court house did not actually get his powers vested (not "invested") in him by God, but by the State? Do you understand that Civil Servants are not given legal powers by God? Probably not.
The Justice of the Peace who married you did, indeed, make you man and wife. That was his power, given to him by the state. That he mentioned "God" did not make it a religious ceremony, sorry- I know you guys were horny and you wanted to pretend for that sake that it was so you could have guilt-free sex, but you can't have it both ways. A civil marriage ceremony is not religious, which is WHY most people have a simultaneous religious ceremony. But it DOES make you legally man and wife, as you admit. I bet your church did not consider you married until the church ceremony, whether the justice mentioned God, Allah, or the Cookie Monster.
All your bombast and hypocricy doesn't cover up the fact that marriage is a legal contract attended to by the state, with no religious affiliation or sponsorship required. Clearly you'll never get this- and never mind that you admitted it through your own actions.
"That he mentioned "God" did not make it a religious ceremony"
But the fact that you acknowledge that God is part of the ceremony does make it religious. Albeit a small portion.
Mentioning "God" was not a necessary part of the ceremony. You would have been joined if God had not been mentioned. I don't know how I could possibly make it more clear. Do you deny this fact?
Mentioning "God" did not make it a religious ceremony, as you admitted when you had the church ceremony six months later. Or do you just get remarried every six months?
You can take the god reference anyway you want to. You can even ignore it.
"But the fact that you acknowledge that God is part of the ceremony does make it religious."
Gee, I had no idea I had so much power.
I acknowledge that you are a clueless moron. I guess that makes it so.
Let's cut to the chase:
I frankly don't give a damn what Jesus said about Homosexuality. The last time I checked, the United States was not a Theocracy. There are millions of Americans who are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, people who were born Christian but don't practice, and people who are practicing Christians who get that we live under a secular government.
Also- I am sick to death of being told by idiots like you that somehow homosexuals are "demanding special rights." If Homosexuals are demanding "special rights," so where American slaves before the Civil War. What homosexuals are demanding is the same rights Heterosexuals enjoy as a matter of course. That's the "agenda" "they" are trying to push on to "us." You ignorant bigots who try to hide behind the Bible to deny HUMAN RIGHTS to certain American citizens make me sick. Fortunately, your desperate attempt to live in the past is clearly doomed to failure.
Finally- yes, God will judge us. So He doesn't need your help in doing so, does he?
You see here is the thing everyone seems to be forgetting or either choosing to omit. poligammy, incest, pedophilia and/or beastiality. unfortunately those things allready exist. However, those things are against the law.
You can be arrested for all of those things. Another thing all of those, other than bestiality. stuff like this can cause psycological and/or physical harm. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults as opposed to victimizing defenseless children. And everyone knows a minor cannot conscent until after a certian age.
But the thing is many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children. Of course it would be easy to judge others on stereotypes depending on the groups they belong to, that's simply not the way the world works.
When we are born in this country, we are rased to beleive anything is possible if you apply yourslef. We are taught that all Americans, have freedom in this country. freedom to do as we choose within the bounds of the law, not freedom to do as other say we should.
For some reason there are those that still insist that being gay is a choice. How is that even possible? Really would anyone get up one day and say gee I want to be a homo. I want to get called names, listen to sick jokes, get fired from jobs, be rejected by family, laughed at, terrorized, threatened, or killed. If your gay you have 2 choices, be yourself, and live your life as a gay, so you can be happy. or pretend to be straight so others can be comfortable.
"For some reason there are those that still insist that being gay is a choice. How is that even possible? Really would anyone get up one day and say gee I want to be a homo. I want to get called names, listen to sick jokes, get fired from jobs, be rejected by family, laughed at, terrorized, threatened, or killed. If your gay you have 2 choices, be yourself, and live your life as a gay, so you can be happy. or pretend to be straight so others can be comfortable."
Hear, hear. That brings up another point:why are there repressed gay people, those "in the closet"? If it's really a choice, then such a person would just choose to be entirely heterosexual and not have any such issues. If it's a matter of personal will, then there's no reason anyone should be conflicted.