God Sets the Limits, Not Us

So, does that mean that a person who doesn't want to be a pastor should not be prevented from having more than one wife?

vudd8oltkd http://www.382045.com/186779.html > 1rttmegwxzd [URL=http://www.810131.com/640087.html] 1bio2h3cgty1gat [/URL] 9dblbwx7qyjal

"But love does not translate into tolerance for those practices God has said are out of bounds."

One can't really tolerate a "practice", one can only tolerate the practitioner. So I think Cal phrased his sentence very carefully to avoid the implication of being against certain people (i.e gays). But really this is BS. Let's face it Cal, you are against gays. When will you understand that the beliefs you accept by faith can't be forced on people who don't share that faith. Why do we Christians keep trying to force unbelievers to act like believers when it comes to personal views of morality? And why are American Evangelicals so completely obsessed with homosexuality (versus say gluttony)?

People in this thread simply reiterate everything Cal mentioned about those who rationalize their own reasons for what is clearly stated in scripture.

And its not just the Bible. Look at every world religion and their books of scripture. From Muslims to (true) Christians...homosexual behavior has NEVER been acceptable.

Man and Woman. Period!

Just because the world wants to live as Sodom(ites) did, doesn't mean we should abandon thousands of years of what has been understood as sexual morality.

Koran. Bible. Torah. Talmud. Etc.....

Same-gender attraction is not righteous in God's eyes. Simple.

Phaedrus wrote:
---I wonder, if deities were being conceived today, would they be in the form of a "Divine CEO," or maybe even "Heaven's Board of Directors?"---

Dieties are being created continually, from flying saucers to various prophets. Von Daniken had people believing aliens visited the earth long ago bringing technology to man. Many "prophets" lead people, some to their deaths such as the Heaven's Gate cult. Wicca is growing in popularity. There is no shortage of dieties when man's imagination is considered. Man's unique ability to predict the future, to forsee future events that makes man able to plant seeds, prepare for winter, etc, also makes him able to imagine a god and to imagine that feeding that god will bring reward. The question I have is: When will man outgrow this adolescent phase of his evolution and stop creating imaginary friends.

Fate:

Enjoyed your post. I wonder, if deities were being conceived today, would they be in the form of a "Divine CEO," or maybe even "Heaven's Board of Directors?"

Proxy Fight!!

Is it a serious problem that Cal does not live according to the Laws given to Moses by G-D as outlined in the Hebrew Bible? Very possibly, but don't take my word for it, take Matthew and Luke:

Matthew 5:18-19 Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break ONE of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

and

Luke 16:17 It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Of course, Godly Cal could come back at me and says he doesn't have to eat Kosher or maintain the purity laws in Leviticus because of

Romans 7:4, 6 Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ .... We are delivered from the law, that being dead.

as well as other passages in Romans, Gallatians, Ephesians, and Collosians (it kind of depends on whether you want to take Jesus' word for it or Paul's word).

The point here being that using these old texts to make blanket absolute statements about "God's will" is a losing proposition because "Holy Scripture" sends very mixed messages on many many things.

So maybe we should rely on the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution instead.

Wagina wrote:
---Amen Cal. I agree that Gay unions are not truly unions as understood in the bible.---

And what are the unions the bible "understands"? The bible does not understand ATM machines so are you allowed to use them? The bible would not understand fighting to free the slaves so was Lincoln wrong to make that an object of the civil war? The bible would not understand women making the same amount of money as men or even owning property. Does that justify preventing women from doing both? Humanity has made so many strides, it just sickens me when people pick up a 2000 year old document and tell me that it has all the morality they need. If you lived according to the bible you'd be living in 18th-century-like America with slaves, a subordinate wife that you could beat, and make war on a whim with God on YOUR side. Too bad we Americans ruined that wonderful time by freeing slaves, making equal pay for equal work the law, overcame discrimination in our laws, barred cruel and inhumane punishment for criminals and took decisions on guilt from the government and put it in the hands of the people in the form of a jury. God was created in the image of a king, an all powerful no-holds-barred being that had no restrictions. Today kings are rare and our governmental officials have much less power and instead answer to the people, something even Jesus did not imagine.

BTW, the first dog I owned was a gay male. I didn't know it since most dogs people own are female and he acted just like the other dogs. He ignored the neighbor's female dog when she went into heat unlike the other males that came from miles around. I didn't understand just how gay he was until he died and we got another dog of the same breed (Sheltie). Now this guy is a straight male! But I love him as much as I loved my first dog. Why should people be treated any differently?

Cal Thomas wrote:
---None of this, however, is about us; it's about Him.---

No, its all about Cal.

Considering the fact that the bible tolerates slavery, denegrates women, and murder, you'd think people like Cal would not look at the bible in such a deterministic way, but they do when it agrees with their prejudices and they ignore the bible when it disagrees with their prejudices. The bible becomes nothing more than something to call on for support, then set aside if it goes against their beliefs. Most of humanity has moved beyond slavery, beyond denegrating women and even dared try to eliminate poverty (Jesus said: "there will always be poor"), all of which the bible allows and even supports. But for Cal, this moving beyond the bible's message toward even more good is not to happen when it comes to and civil unions even though it is not a religious issue.

I don't hear anyone talking about denying gays other rights, such as the right to sit at a lunch counter or ride in the front of a bus. In fact, homosexuals have made great strides in the last few decades because America is not offended by them in our regular public life. Only this consideration of "marriage" brings out the religious guns that thump the verses of the bible, cherry picking to support their positions. And it has nothing to do with the marriage they think they are protecting, the one that and religion can deny to anyone they wish with no reason needed because a religious marriage is outside the rhelm of government. I would just say to Cal to give to government what is government's and give to God what is God's. Civil unions are not God's domain so stop trying to deny people rights based on something God would want.

Gaby,

"Your so-called well documented homosexual animal behavior is nothing else but animals responding to the call of the wild, if you so will."

What is interesting is that homosexual behavior in animals is not indescriminant. In one of many examples, gay rams occur in about 4-8% of sheep. They show no interest in ewes, only other rams. This corresponded with differences in brain structure that are similar to that found in gay male humans and other animals. There is some indication the cause of these differences is the result of pre and post natal developmental changes induced by alterations in hormone level (specifically testosterone metabolism). Whether there is a specific environmental component (e.g. maternal fetal environment), or even a possible genetic component has not been established.

Back to gay marriage. Do you support civil unions for gay couples that provide the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples?

Hope you had a good night's sleep.

Gaby,

Certainly. Shake hands.

Maurie Beck,

I didn't define unnatural or inhuman, the Thesaurus did.

As far as homosexuality in different animal species it concerned, take it with a grain of salt. I have six dogs and two cats. All of my male dogs and two of my females have been neutered, yet they still exibit certain sexual urges when the non-neutered ones come into heat. They will hump anything in sight to get their urges off. Your so-called well documented homosexual animal behavior is nothing else but animals responding to the call of the wild, if you so will.

Far cry from humans I would think so! (Then again????).

No, that was not a remark toward gays, just certain males and females who can't keep their hormones in check and will do whatever to get their ..........

In a way I am sorr I responded like this, in a way I am not. I just can't explain it any better.

To me love is not synonymous with sex. Maybe therein my problem lies. I can understand the homosexual love, but I can't understand the sexual behavior.

OK, I am rambling. I better go to bed and cure my cold.

John,

Shake hands!

Phaedrus,

Points well taken. I shall think it over.

Gaby,

You wrote, "Most, if not all parts of our bodies have certain functions that are natural" and then you defined "unnatural: not natural, abnormal, aberrant, perverted, going against nature, twisted, deviant, unusual, atypical, strange, odd, irregular, uncommon"

So gays are perverted, twisted, deviant, etc. I don't know what is better, unnatural or inhuman?

As far as homosexuality being unnatural, many others in this thread have pointed out that homosexuality has been well documented in many different animal species, and that behaviors we now consider natural were previously defined as unnatural (i.e. interacial marriage).

You obviously have a very visceral reaction to homosexuality, as do many other people, including people who are not overtly homophobic and would never consider descrimating against gays (as you have said). From a strictly scientific point of view, without judgment, homophobic behavior is an interesting response. Some people claim it is due to cultural transmission, whereas there are others who think an explanation might be partly genetic, along with interactions involving the social environmental (i.e. culture). Science, at this point, has not really addressed the heterosexual response to homosexuals rigorously.

For myself, I think gays should have all the same rights as other Americans, regardless of my response. For example, I don't like watching two men kissing, but that is my problem, not theirs. Interestingly, I have gay friends who say watching a man and a woman kiss is disgusting. In terms of rights, it's really none of our business what people do with their lives, unless it harms others. A gay marriage overtly harms no one (including children), just as there is no presumption of harm in a "normal" marriage either.

Dr. Pangloss: "Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles; and so we have spectacles. Legs were visibly instituted to be breeched, and we have breeches....." (from Candide by Voltaire).

The "remind me" business was a common form of sarcasm, not to be taken literally. Also, it was a cheap shot. Let's let it die a deserved death, please.

Gaby writes:

"I neither hate, nor fear, nor disapprove of gays, I just don't think the should be allowed to marry."

Let's substitute a couple of words to expose this for what it is:

I neither hate, nor fear, nor disapprove of blacks, I just don't think they should be allowed to attend white schools."

John Connolley,

You: "Nobody said I was invited to your bed. I'll thank you to keep it that way, you homophobe."

Me: --Then you shouldn't have asked me to remind you to stay out of my bed. And don't call me names, you nincompoop. I neither hate, nor fear, nor disapprove of gays, I just don't think the should be allowed to marry. This is a discussion board and I have a right to my opinion just as you.

Gaby:

I did not make the claim that you referred to gays as "inhuman," I said that referring to them as "unnatural" forms a basis and justification for discriminating against them. My use of "inhuman" serves to clarify this point with an intensification of the "otherness" present in your referring to homosexuality in the terms you do.

It is quite clear that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and to posit otherwise is to be obstinately ignorant. Such is your choice.

As for your argument against gay marriage, here is what you wrote:

"Marriage is mostly a religious rite and people of faith believe strongly in the "man and woman" thing." ...Therefore, I believe that this whole marriage issue is nothing but an in-your-face attitute by a fringe group of society to force the majority to condone and embrace their lifestyle."

My response: Marriage is more than a religious rite. It conveys numerous legal distinctions, too many to mention here. The fact that "people of faith" believe strongly in the "man and woman" thing should in no way form a basis to deny a right to those who do not believe this. The hyper-religious do not believe in pre-marital sex either, do you wish to make this illegal also?

As for the comment about this "fringe group" attempting to force the majority to "condone" and "embrace" their lifestyle; you sound like the racial bigots who argued for laws banning inter-racial marriage. (Come to think of it, they referred to such relationships as "unnatural" also). It is simply idiotic for me, or any other hetero, to say that two gays being married has any effect whatsoever on my hetero marriage, pro or con. These arguments, like the "unnatural" canard, are simply the semi-transparent shroud that fails to cloak the bigotry lying beneath.

Chris says:

"In short, we are saved by Christ alone through faith alone, not by our works. If the law could save us, we would not have needed Chris's atoning death on the cross."

Wow. That must be the granddaddy of Freudian slips.

Gaby:

Nobody said I was invited to your bed. I'll thank you to keep it that way, you homophobe.

MARCO POLO:

GGGGGRRRRRR, WOOF, WOFF, GGGGGRRRRRR, CHOMP!

Phaedrus:

You: Referring to something as "unnatural" is a gateway to ultimate discrimination based on that judgment. If you substitute "inhuman" for "unnatural" you may more clearly see the effect.

--Here are the synonyms from my Thesaurus

inhuman: cruel, brutal, ruthless, heartless, merciless, cold-blooded, otherworldly, weird, strange, unearthly, eerie

unnatural: not natural, abnormal, aberrant, perverted, going against nature, twisted, deviant, unusual, atypical, strange, odd, irregular, uncommon

I really can not see how you can equate the two. I absolutely DO NOT classify gays as inhuman. However, I hold to my belief that their sexual actions are unnatural.

By the way, I am not a biblical bigot since I do not believe in the bible. Acutally I am not a bigot at all.

The original question was whether gays should be allowed to marry and/or ordained as clerics. I could care less if they want to be a cleric since I don't attend church. However, I do have a problem with the marriage thing based on my posts above.

That does not mean that I would condone if anyone would deny them their human rights as stated previously: "I believe that when it comes to your basic human needs like work, housing, health care, estate planning, etc., gays should not be treated any differently than heterosexuals. Most companies that offer health insurance these days include significant others as beneficiaries. In order to get any of these basic human and financial needs covered you do not need to be married."

Sick him Gaby, sick him!!!!!!!!

John Connolley,

"You don't use your brain when you have sex? Remind me to stay out of your bed.

Physically, my dear, physically. Read it in context with the rest of the post. Also, who said, you are invited into my bed?

I have to thank the Washington Post to keep publishing these contributions by mr. Thomas. I presume he gets paid for them, which is somewhat sorry, but then again, I would not want to miss his views.

I live in Belgium, so I'm not exposed to the deluge of the outporings of religious zealots you have to endure continuously in the States. I'm still utterly amazed by the dogmatism, the stupidity, the idiocy, the bigotry, and the total lack of insight of these extreme right-wing talking heads. They remind me of texts I've seen in newspapers from Belgium in the nineteenfifties, when the catholic church was still extremely powerful over here. It makes me appreciate all the more the liberal society I have the privilege to live in. It also makes me wonder why you in the states have missed this coming of age that we europeans have experienced since the sixties. I guess staying out of the churches on sundays, avoiding indoctrination, has been an important factor here, which I understand is 'not done' in your country, but that doesn't answer the deeper question of why europeans have been able to quietly leave the churches without having to pay the price for it (in the form of ostracisation) whereas you haven't. I have to admit I have no clue.

As for this contribution from mr. Thomas, it has been succesfully parsed by other contributors. Thank god (sic) not all of you are morons: I am convinced there still is hope for your country.

erik de koster
brussels

"I don't think with my genitals (although I know quite a few who do) and have sex with my brain."

You don't use your brain when you have sex? Remind me to stay out of your bed.

Oncerned - that link doesn't work

The biology connection to homosexuality cannot be overlooked with respect to how religion judges homosexuality.

See Medline for an update. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/gw/Cmd

Gaby writes: "The rational basis is that certain parts of our bodies are there for certain functions..."

And who gets to decide what parts are for which functions? If these acts are "unnatural," from what unnatural source do they result?

MArco writes to GABY: "Seeing homosexuality as unnatural is your way of looking at it, even though it is all around. It may be natural to others, yet totally unnatural to you. Maybe you and Ashley should stop sparring over little things like this."

With due respect Marco, I do not see this distinction as insignificant. Referring to something as "unnatural" is a gateway to ultimate discrimination based on that judgment. If you substitute "inhuman" for "unnatural" you may more clearly see the effect.

GABY et al, Pam (see above) has clearly articulated the hormonal process in utero that is associated with eventual homosexuality. There is no part of this that is not a naturally occurring event. Volition plays no role. There is no rational basis for blame or condemnation (like your "unnatural" label). Ultimately, Biblically-based bigotry is still bigotry.

Marco Polo,

I fully understand what you are saying. I got my information about infertility from a medical website where it stated that the primary causes of infertility for both men and women are medical conditions and drug use. Not illegal drugs, but things like alcohol, perscription drugs, nicotine, etal. I am also aware that infertility can be a birth defect (for lack of a better work) or abuse. I feel for women and men who would like to procreate and can not. Just as I respect the right of couples who can and do not want to. What I can't do is equating them with homosexuals

Ashley and I aren't really sparring (bad choice of words on my part) we are exchanging differing opinions. She asked me my definition of natural and I tried to explain it to her.

Most, if not all parts of our bodies have certain functions that are natural. I don't eat with my anus and defecate out of my mouth. I don't hear with my nose and don't smell with my ears. I don't think with my genitals (although I know quite a few who do) and have sex with my brain. I don't walk on my hands and work with my feet. I really don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

Oh, well, you know opinions and what one says about them. Maybe I am uptight and just think I'm not. Who knows! ;)

Don't worry about Brutus Gaby.

I see some of your points and you are more than entitled to your opinion. Seeing homosexuality as unnatural is your way of looking at it, even though it is all around. It may be natural to others, yet totally unnatural to you. Maybe you and Ashley should stop sparring over little things like this.

I do have a problem with you saying infertility is a result of a medical condition or drug abuse. That seems a little sheltered. Perhaps if you were born with the inability to have children you would know, but I can't fault you for what you don't know. And as for the drug use.........have you seen the amount of crack babies out there?
Infertility is a result of either birth, accident, or(this is the bad part) self abuse or spousal abuse resulting in the damaging of the woman's area.

Maybe you're not uptight, maybe you are. I am sure we all are in some way. Maybe you'll read this and understand, maybe you won't. Oh well. guess I'll just have to wait and see.

Well then, Brutus, what do you base your opinion on?

NOpe, my bad. Gaby is the uptight one. Sorry Ashley, nothin but love for you girl.

Since I have been sparring with Ashley, I'm sure it must be me. However, since that is just your opinion, I'll let it go.

Sorry Gaby, maybe it was ment for Ashley. One of you is uptight.

Or maybe both of you. Seems you both are saying the same thing but in slightly different ways.

Pheadrus, you wrote:

"You claim that homosexuality is not natural, whereas infertility, due to substance abuse or medical condition, is. I see no rational basis for this position. Care to offer one?"

--The rational basis is that certain parts of our bodies are there for certain functions (see, I didn't say were created ;) ). That alone should be rationale enough.

Butus, you wrote:

"I have come across some uptight and conservative women, but you take the cake."

How did you come to that conclusion? Care to elaborate?

Gaby:

I have come across some uptight and conservative women, but you take the cake.

Gaby:

You claim that homosexuality is not natural, whereas infertility, due to substance abuse or medical condition, is. I see no rational basis for this position. Care to offer one? You appear to be citing Brambleton's reasoning that sexual behavior incapable of resulting in reproduction is "unnatural." I say that anything occurring in the natural world, despite its relative frequency or infrequency, is entirely natural, that is to say, resulting from natural causes.

Extreme height, or intelligence, or the presence of certain birth defects are also on one or another end of the normal curve, but they can in no way be considered unnatural.

Ashley,

I looked at that website you promoted. Sorry, it just doesn't cut it. I don't have enough time to go through each and every link on the site, but the few I visited confirmed what I wrote about the elephant behavior and my dogs a few posts up.

By the way, when I say hump, I mean that literally. No penetration of any sort is involved.

Phadreus wrote:

"By this definition those who are, for whatever reason(s), unable to conceive, are also "unnatural."

So, how about we start considering infertility a sin against God?"

Sorry, Phadreus, that argument is old and lame and just doesn't cut it. Most infertility is caused by medical conditions and/or substance (ab)use. I can't believe you wrote that.

Franco stated: “The focus on this blog appears to be the inerrancy of the Holy Bible. You either believe it is the word of God or you don't.”

----Regarding the literal interpretation of the Bible, I see no basis upon which anyone, can support this claim. Even if one were to grant (and there is no reason to do so) that the Bible (of any era and/or translation) were inerrant, it would be of little help, as there is no way any person living in modernity can ever hear and/or understand the scriptures as people of two-thousand years ago (or ten-thousand) would have heard them. Saying the bible is the literal word of God says a great deal about the person making the claim and nothing of importance about the Bible or God.

“God created me and thus He makes the rules in my life. Homosexuality is a sin; He said so in his word. I have no interest of what man/woman believes.”

---As pointed out by many others on this blog, cherry picking the Bible to support ones claims about anything is rather easy. You may not have any interest in what man/woman believes, but your personal interpretation of scripture is not infallible. You may believe that you and/or your church have a lock on the correct reading of scripture, but there are likely millions of other faithful Christians who would argue otherwise.

“Opinions are like, you know what, everybody has one!”

---I’ve heard this remark from many people over the years, but a moment of reflection will reveal that virtually no person would accept its implications. While most of us have opinions, all opinions are clearly not created equal. I’d doubt very much that my medical advice would be taken seriously by anyone except a fool, as I have no expertise in medicine. Likewise, years of scholarship lend weight to the opinions of those who have taken the time to do the work. The opinions of scholars and/or experts in a particular field of study are not to be taken without criticism; however they should be given the weight and consideration they deserve.

Ashley,

You said: "You say you consider homosexual sex to be unnatural? What exactly is your definition of 'natural'? Are homosexual elephants (they are one of the hundreds of species to have been observed engaging in homosexual relations) unnatural?"

I think Brambleton already gave you that answer. However, let me take it a step further. Yes, even animals who "engage in homosexual behavior" are unnatural. However, let me point out that I doubt very much that they are "engaging in homosexual behavior". More like, the females come into heat and the males who smell that wonderful aroma and who lack a female partner hump the next best thing. No different than my dogs. I would be hard pressed to call that homosexual.

You said: "Your opinion that the battle over gay marriage is simply an attempt by a fringe group to 'force the majority to condone' their lifestyle is incredibly naive. Heterosexual spouses enjoy hundreds if not thousands of rights just by being married - rights involving medical decisions, isurance benefits, inheritance, property and assets, taxes, and many other things we heteros mostly take for granted."

Well, Ashley I have been married for 30 years and I can honestly say that I am not aware of hundreds, much less thousands, of rights bestowed on me by merely saying a vow. My daughter and her boyfriend of 9 years elected not to get married. They have basically the same rights my husband and I enjoy. They own property together, their cars are in both their names, they have powers of attorney for each other in case of medical of other emergencies, they even share insurance benefits. So I really don't see your point.

Yea, you would've had a better affect if you had spelled that correctly there Brutus........

sorry, that is the fiction section

Wagina needs to throw her Bible away. Or at the very least, put it in the fictino section of her home library.

I have seen pictures of Cal Thomas wearing clothes made of DIFFERENT KINDS OF CLOTH!!!!!!!

The penalty for this unholy infraction of the rules of Leviticus is obviously death.

"In his first letter to Timothy, Paul says ..."

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul says squat, because (as I point out in another thread) Paul didn't write the letters to Timothy and Titus. They are forgeries that didn't appear until the end of the second century. They were probably cooked up by Irenaeus around 190. As late as early 4th century, the very highly orthodox Eusebius still doesn't include them in his Bible. In other words, they're the work of a false prophet and nobody believed them in their day.

Amen Cal. I agree that Gay unions are not truly unions as understood in the bible.

Pam,

Thanks for providing some of the science behind homosexuality. As you are aware, there are a lot of studies demonstrating a biological basis for homosexuality and exploring ultimate and proximate hypotheses. Unfortunately, in this thread we are dealing with a prescientific worldview. If the people with this worldview would just ignore modern science and technology because it is not mentioned in the bible, their chances of survival would be low, they would leave few offspring, and the world would be left to us sinners.

I don't want to get involved in the main debate but would just like to point out something to those on this thread and others who keep bringing up Leviticus: Christians believe that we are no longer under the law but under grace, hence the many writings of Paul on this subject, the vision of Peter re: eating non-kosher food etc. In short, we are saved by Christ alone through faith alone, not by our works. If the law could save us, we would not have needed Chris's atoning death on the cross.

Dear Cal,

As Randall Balmer said in his own thread,"The issue here is what I have come to call the ruse of selective literalism."

In that vein of selective literalism, you've missed some of the best parts of the bible. Here is one of my favorites.

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . . ." (Deuteronomy 13:7–11)

Cal, you say god sets the rules. Based on the above passage, you'd better kill me.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-16).

(The following should be said with a Gay lisp)
Cal, I'm Bruce, God of fruits. Are you the destroyer?

Cal Thomas might want to comment on this passage before he writes another column blasting efforts to raise the minimum wage:

Ezekiel 16:49
This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness ... neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

wheres the proof
in a book
its fiction you idiots
but i guess you love being in control

There is no inherent variation in any living thing that can rationally be considered "unnatural." There is only the less commonly occurring. Ashley's point regarding the commonality of homosexual behavior across species is btoh accurate and salient.

Nicely put, Phaedrus.

Brambleton, you also need to square your claim with the observed instances of homosexuality in over 1000 animal species. Do you claim non-human animals display 'unnatural' behaviors?

Wikipedia has a page on homosexuality in animals at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Human_Animal_Sexuality#Homosexual_behavior
For more information, Bagemihl's book is pretty interesting.

Some of you have posted some incredibly stupid things in this thread. "lifestyle"??? "choice"???

Did you *choose* to be heterosexual? You had to think about for a long time, and consider what God wanted you to be before you decided that it was the *opposite* sex that would turn you on? SURE you did! And if it's a choice, why would anyone choose to be something that's widely reviled? Why would Ted Haggard have *chosen* that?

The best science on the subject to date leads us to believe that sexual orientation is determined before birth. It's not genetic - there's a point in embryological development when the brain is masculinized or feminized by a rush of hormones from the embryo itself. If this doesn't take place at the correct time (developmental anomaly) then the brain may not match the gender.

This, people, is the very definition of natural. And if you want to believe that God is the author of nature, then this has to be his doing. So how can he despise what he created? More to the point, why should *you*?

Brambleton writes:

"Webster's defines the word unnatural as "contrary to the laws or course of nature." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a same sex relationship be contrary to the course of nature, given that the "course of nature" probably includes procreation (which is not possible in a same sex relationship)?"

By this definition those who are, for whatever reason(s), unable to conceive, are also "unnatural."

So, how about we start considering infertility a sin against God?

Cal Thomas probably deserves death for violating practices ruled out of bounds in Leviticus and elsewhere. Jesus, on the other hand, was silent on the issue as far as can be ascertained in the Gospels.

OK, I'll ask:

WHO ON EARTH KNOWS WHAT GOD WANTS?

duh.......the AUDACITY of the retro-metro-males is staggering.

Hey, Cal, why did you shave your mustache?

Ashley,

Webster's defines the word unnatural as "contrary to the laws or course of nature." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a same sex relationship be contrary to the course of nature, given that the "course of nature" probably includes procreation (which is not possible in a same sex relationship)?

Gaby,

You say you consider homosexual sex to be unnatural? What exactly is your definition of 'natural'? Are homosexual elephants (they are one of the hundreds of species to have been observed engaging in homosexual relations) unnatural?

Your opinion that the battle over gay marriage is simply an attempt by a fringe group to 'force the majority to condone' their lifestyle is incredibly naive. Heterosexual spouses enjoy hundreds if not thousands of rights just by being married - rights involving medical decisions, isurance benefits, inheritance, property and assets, taxes, and many other things we heteros mostly take for granted.

Theocrats can set whatever limits they want on their own lives. They have no power over you that you do not give them of your own free will.

The idea that a bunch of writings banded together from different authors deemed to be the word of God just seems a little too far fetched. Seems if God really wanted the Bible to be read, he would have left out all the parts about incest and rape, and the fact that its practically impossible to populate this planet based on the fact that the first two humans only had sons.......... But, I guess fiction is fact to some people.

The Bible is God's word filtered through numerous apostles and then edited and interpreted by translators from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, to English etc.

Anyone who has tried translating texts knows how meaning changes and is lost in translation. The Bible is a text that has been translated over thousands of years across radically different languages, therefore, there are bound to be errors in translation.

Example Paul's letter to the Corinthians

For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. 1 Corinthians 7:1-8

Also translated as:
It is better to marry than to burn.

Not exactly the same meaning.

What a fool. So Cal takes the bible literaly, does he believe that the earth is only 6000 yrs old?? Noah really built an ark?? The red sea was parted?? It's to bad people like him base there lifestyles on a book written by MEN for there own purpose, and use this to judge others.
shame shame

The focus on this blog appears to be the inerrancy of the Holy Bible. You either believe it is the word of God or you don't. Reading it from Genesis to Revelations, penned by many authors (kings, fishermen, military leaders, preachers, tent makers) and with a with a common theme (Jesus Christ), written across many centuries and marvelling on its accuracy, I believe it in my heart to be the Word of God. Having said that, God created me and thus He makes the rules in my life. Homosexuality is a sin, He said so in his word. I have no interest of what man/woman believes. Opinions are like, you know what, everybody has one!

It's always handy to have written proof that your bigotry is legal.

So Mr. Thomas, you are a homophobe..Nice. Ted Haggard is also, it's bad when you are ashamed of how you are created. I never figured my Gods made mistakes...they pretty much love diversity, after all there is so much of it...

I would make a suggestion to you sir...change your picture, you look smug and arrogant. Not a nice look, it's bad enough when you write smugly and arrogantly.

I bet God has a heck of a phone bill calling Mr. Thomas on exactly what He thinks, or does Mr. Thomas hear voices?

Scott, leaving the teachings of various religious aside for the momoent, why should anyone regard homosexuality as wrong? It poses no intrinsic harm to anyone. It might be wrong if you believe that each individual has an obligation to reproduce, but I dispute that idea.

this love the person hate the sin stuff is getting under my skin. I am beginning to dislike the people that keep saying it because they tend to be the most hateful people on this board.

It is sad that people think a sin is no longer a sin. If society decides murder is okay and I disagree, will you call me all that Mr. Thomas has been called here? There is clear right and wrong on some issues, homosexuality is one of them. We're all tempted to do wrong, however, acting on those temptations is when the sin is committed. Love the person, hate the sin.

Since I don't believe in any organized religion I can not speak about my "faith" in addressing gay unions or gay clergy. In my personal opinion, homosexual relationships are unnatural.

However since the phenomenon exists, one has to consider how to address it.

I believe that when it comes to your basic human needs like work, housing, health, estate planning, etc., gays should not be treated any differently than heterosexuals. Most companies that offer health insurance these days include significant others as beneficiaries. In order to get any of these basic human and financial needs covered you do not need to be married.

Marriage is mostly a religious rite and people of faith believe strongly in the "man and woman" thing. Many heterosexual couples these day no longer get married. They live together, buy homes together, etc., but eschew the ceremony for various reasons. Does that make their relationship less real. I don't think so.

Therefore, I believe that this whole marriage issue is nothing but an in-your-face attitute by a fringe group of society to force the majority to condone and embrace their lifestyle. That, in my view, is just as wrong as the bible-thumpers who condemn them and would like for them to crawl back into the closet.

What Mr. Thomas seems to not understand is what he may or may not think God says is of no relevance to anyone but himself. The First Amendment protects his right to have religious beliefs. At the same time, the First Amendment protects everyone from the imposition of Mr. Thomas' beliefs via law. We do not (yet) live in a theocracy. We live in a constitutional democracy that simultaneously protects religious belief and prohibits the codification of religious beliefs into the civil law.

Cal the Drivel Meister strikes again!

First, you are interpreting the words of men who claim they are writing the word of God. In any event, since you quote Genesis, it is highly unlikely that if the Bible were the word of God, it would have been written in that tense. Might not God have said "I" did thus and such. Or, using the third person "we" said "In the beginning, we ..."???

Second, you are reading a translation of an ancient text into English.

The reference to Timothy does not lead to the inexorable conclusion that marriage means only one husband and one wife.

The passage, in fact, has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of marriage, but rather with the qualifications for being a bishop or pastor. In fact, in an indirect way, it suggests that there may well be other kinds of unions or marriages.

There are other conditions too -- some descriptions from various sources include:

i. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
ii. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach

etc., etc.

This language does not tell us that marriage means one man and one woman. In fact, it tells us, just as arguably, that there will be many who do NOT meet this qualification. Otherwise, why bother spelling out how to determine who is qualified.

For example, "the husband of one wife" means someone who is not a polygamist, someone who is not divorced, and someone who is not the "husband" of a man.

In the same way, someone who is not hospitable or has no teaching skills doesn't qualify.

Now let's go to the section from Genesis. Snake-oil Cal does not quote the entire text. Here it is:

The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [j] '
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

---

One can read this to say that since Adam and Eve were the first human beings and everything came after, then ALL FLESH comes from the man's flesh or the woman's flesh so there is nothing wrong in uniting flesh.

The problem with Cal's approach is that it takes a non-sequitur and tries to make it the "WORD OF GOD" about a subject that is not even being addressed.

By the way, Cal, did you notice that the text above reads:
The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [j] '
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Now, since the Bible EXPRESSLY says it is the MAN speaking, we know at least that much is NOT the word of God. Right?

Okay, the quotation ends with what the MAN said and then there is a conclusion. Is that GOD speaking again, or is that the conclusion of the scribe or is that the MAN (ADAM) still speaking?

I'm no Bible scholar, but even in a few minutes, I can point out that Cal is speaking nonsense.

The bottom line is that the Bible says nothing about PROHIBITING a same sex union, or about prohibing polygamy -- at least in the texts referenced by Cal.

What a waste.

BTW, Cal, did you read Prof. Balmer's article in this same series? You ought to ... it's got more common sense than you've ever shown.

I applaud Ego Nemo. Let me buy you a beer

To Thomas and others, I say cast thee out, O violator of The Laws.

Do you eat pork?
Then you have violated The Law:
Leviticus 11:7-8 -- "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you."

Do you eat shellfish?
If you have, you have violated the law that God set against your behavior:
Leviticus 11:9-11 -- "9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination."

Have you not made offering to cleanse the sin of menstruation?
Then you are in violation of The Law:
Leviticus, again: "8And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean."

Do you wear cotton-poly or wool-blend clothes?
Then you have broken the unalterable Law:

Leviticus 19:19: "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."

Are you clean shaven? Do you regularly go to the barber?
Then you are violating The Law:
Leviticus 19:27: "27Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."

Have you been allowed to live after cursing your parents?
You violate the Law:
Leviticus 20:9 -- "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

As the man above said, the Bible is inerrant and everything is perfect. Right?

Brambleton, the death penalty laws spelled out in Leviticus have been criticized many times on this site. I won't belabor those criticisms here. Instead, I ask this - if a believer adheres to a 100 percent literal reading of scripture, whether the believer is Jewish or Christian, what stops the believer from acting in God's name and carrying out those death sentences? If such a believer really believes that God wants certain people put to death, why wouldn't the believer change his or her opinion of those people to match God's opinion? In my view, believing that someone deserves to die is the distillation of hate.

Who knew that I would be writing the dissenting opinion? While I haven't agreed entirely with Cal's comments in the past, I think he hit this out of the ballpark.

The Bible is very clear on this issue. Homosexuality is a sin. Period. That, however, does not give any Christian the right to persecute someone who chooses that lifestyle. We are to love them as we do anyone else, but also hold them accountable for their sins, just like everyone else, including myself.

I am just wondering when these supposed "educated" people are gonan actually open their eyes and realize that the Bible is not the Word of God? It is a book, plain and simple and should be treated as such. And as a matter of fact, it a book with some serious lacks in judgement and lapses in its own morality. Don't even get me started on the story of Lot.

Why harbor a book put together from stories written by many authors that have almost no bearing on what we do today? That book was put together then to bring Rome together, not to tell the people of today how to live. I am sure that the religion that Jesus wanted to start is a far cry from the one that is running rampant today.

Cal: “Does one believe that the Bible is God's Word and that He gets to set the rules for those He wishes to speak for Him; or does culture, political correctness and "the times" allow us to make up, or change, or obliterate the rules whenever it suits us?

I choose the former, believing that the God who created us gets to set boundaries inside of which we are to live for our benefit and for His glory. Imagine a sports contest without boundaries and rules? Life lived without boundaries is chaotic, full of disappointment and despair.”

--Regarding Cal’s literal interpretation of the Bible, I see no basis upon which he, or anyone else, can support this claim. Even if one were to grant (and there is no reason to do so) that the Bible (of any era and/or translation) were inerrant, it would be of little help to Cal, as there is no way that he or any other person living in modernity can ever hear and/or understand the scriptures as people of two-thousand years ago (or ten-thousand) would have heard them. Saying the bible is the literal word of God says a great deal about the person making the claim and nothing of importance about the Bible or God.

--As for ‘political correctness’, I’ve not much use for the whole idea. If there were no presumed ‘politically correct status quo’, there would be no mention of ‘PC’ at all. Only those defending their own version of political correctness make an issue out it, which is at best hypocritical.

--As to whom gets to speak for ‘Him’ (and/or Her), this is as political an issue as one can imagine. The Catholic Church, for example, has prohibitions against both women and married men (though not celibate homosexual men), neither of which is ‘Biblical’, so who is ‘making up the rules to suit whom?

--As for God setting the boundaries, as in some sports contest; I’d suggest that the rules of all games and of all aspects of life, including those of religion are more than a bit arbitrary. They can and do change over time and Christianity is no exception.

As is almost always the case with Cal Thomas, I as a Christian have to say emphatically: Cal does not speak for me.

Even the intolerant must have their say, even if they are wrong. We just have to remember that they don't know any better and even though they preach that we will be judged and burned, they will be more so for their actions and words than we ever will.

All the comments posted above which are critical of Cal are right and right on!

We can take comfort that all the polls and studies of young people indicate that in another generation (or even half a generation) all of this anti-gay hatred will be a dead letter, except in the mouths of a few dead-end Christians.

Thomas bases his entire argument on the assumption that the Bible should be read literally. The "Because God says so" argument can be, and has been, used by members of almost all religions throughout history to justify almost anything.

It's important to realize that a religious bigot is still simply a bigot. If this were 1850, Cal Thomas would be writing to justify slavery with selected biblical verses. If he'd been born to Muslim fundamentalists, he'd be cheering the 'honor' killings of rape victims. The targets of bigotry change and the language used to express it change; the mindset does not.

Those who decry gay marriage should realize this: the campaign to stop it failed before it even started. You can never stop two people from committing to one another in whatever way they choose.

Gays are being married every day in every state in this country. People can pass all the laws and amendments "defining" marriage that they want. All they accomplish is to give heterosexual married couples special rights under the law by enshrining anti-gay prejudice.

The time will come when the law is changed to reflect reality: that gays can marry and are married. We will look back on this period with shame, and Cal Thomas will be remembered only as the mouthpiece of bigots.

thank you, this was refreshingly to the point.

Cal Thomas is certainly a committed theocrat.

I've enjoyed all of Cal Thomas' posts, his closed-mindedness and literal interpretations of the bible show what type of person he is; backwards at best.