Sinners Will be Sinners

RNH: "Tell me one thing- is this something that has been observed? If it can't , you can't call it fact."

The idea that we cannot know things unless we observe them is silly, and wrong. In fact, most of science proceeds not by watching processes directly, but by seeing the outcome of those processes and by testing assumptions and predictions of theory about first principles. In chemistry we don't "see" molecules interact to form different molecules, but based on first principles and mechanisms we can test, we can look at the products and test different hypotheses about the process. In geology we didn't "see" the continental plates shifting, but based on first principles and basic mechanisms that we can test, we can test different hypotheses about how Gondwanaland broke apart to form the present configuration of continents, in the process wiping out 95% of marine families of animals.

You are ignorant about science, but you are not alone. The state of science education in this country is abyssmal, leading us to quickly lose ground against Asian and European countries in our abilities to compete in a market where advance is driven by science. Our unwillingness to fund science education at the levels necessary is driven largely by a fundamentalist-based policy that thinks a god is going to take care of everything in the end anyway.

Unfortunately, I can't educate one ignorant person at a time (although I do try whole classrooms full). But you would do yourself a favor by understanding how science actually works. Only then might you be able to appreciate the evidence that suppports evolution as our best explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

Dear RNH -

While you're keeping an open mind on the subject of evolution, might I suggest that you spend a few minutes a week reading the science sections in the major newspapers? There are many discoveries being made that may surprise you, especially on the evolutionary front.

Let's face it, you could probably spare the time to do so simply by cutting back on your visits to the creationist sites (I assume you visit the ID sites as your anti-evolutionary posts smack of the usual BS talking points those sites recommend for deflecting questions: macro-evolution, something-from-nothing, can't-prove-what-you-can't-observed, science is a religion, etc.) Those of us versed in the distraction tactics of the creationists have dealt with all of these tactics many times.

Besides, as Xianity has had nothing new to offer in over 2000 years, you can't be spending any time there keeping up on current events, can you? ;)

Dear RNH -

Who says that science must be observable to be a fact? If so, how did man land on the moon? How does man send deep probes into space and have them end up where he expected them to end up?

As far as evolution being "only a theory": look up the word theory in any dictionary. You will LEARN (as you apparently don't know at this time) that the word theory when used in a scientific context denotes a body of "fact."

Antithia -

I don't know it all, but I know what I hope would be the least that any educated person would know about science, what constitutes facts and what constitutes fantasy.

This forum is meant as a place to debate. I've been here a couple of years. I've seen the posts floated by Tom and others which start out with the old, "I have an open mind on these things...but here's a news story that pretty much proves god works miracles...I found it interesting..." gambit. Within a few days of back-n-forth it becomes clear that they're a religionist trying (unsuccessfully) to act as if they're able to see outside of their fantasies. Most of the time, they show their colors early on. I may well be faulted for cutting to the chase and making assumptions...but I didn't notices a reply from Tom on whether he was an atheist.

So, forgive me if I make those kind of assumptions. I've seen the above gambit way too often, especially in our national politics from the Republican side of the aisle, where there seems to be a group of "moderate" Republicans (Orin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter, John Warner...news guys like Pat Buchanan) who take the "I have grave questions about what the Republicans/bush/whatever RWer is doing" position, but then ALWAYS seem to end up at the position of "I've looked at it closely, and I must side with the Republicans/bush/whatever RWer." It's like a scripted play from the Rovian strategy book.

Well, some of us aren't so easily duped.

Haven't seen you here before, Antithia. Welcome to the debate.

A zookeeper came across an ape carefully thumbing through two books.

One was the Bible: the other was Darwin’s Origin of Species.

“Why are you reading such opposing books?” the zookeeper asked.

And the ape replied: “I’m still trying to figure it out. Am I my brother’s keeper or my keeper’s brother?”

Steven, let's see if I can remember this one:

The nun respectfully approached her Mother Superior and said, 'Bless me, Mother, for I took the Lord's name in vain.'

'How did you do that, my child?', the Mother replied in a stern voice.

'I was playing golf with an atheist I was trying to convert. On the first tee, he got on the green, and I was in the woods.'

'And that is where you swore?', said the Mother.

'No, I managed to make up the score, but on the 5th hole, I got in a sand trap."

'So then you took the Lord's name in vain?'

'No, I managed to stay calm, and even the score. But on the 12th hole, I got near the water and an alligator ate my golf ball.'

'And it was then...' said the Mother.

'No, Mother. We were even on the 18th hole, and I got the ball three feet from the hole. And then...'

The Mother Superior got an outraged expression, and said in a steely voice, 'You f***ed up the putt, didn't you?'

Okay.
So a priest("Father") and a nun ("Sister") go out to play a round of golf.

The priest hits the first green regulation, has a chance at a birdie, and misses the putt by a half an inch. "Dammit I missed!" he yells, as the nun cowers and exorts him not to use the Lord's name in vain or swear.

He makes up the birdie the next couple of holes, and comes into the 9th hole even. Again, he misses his birdie chance by a short distance: "Dammit I MISSED!" The nun is livid. She declares that she'll not accompany him for the back nine unless he refrains from his blasphemy. "Okay, sister, I'm sorry and it won't happen again."

The round goes well, and he has a chance to actually improve on his best score ever. Last green, on in regulation, has a 2 foot, almost "gimmie" distance, but the ball lips out of the cup. He clenches his jaw, his face reddens, and out comes "DAMMIT I MISSED!" The nun, obviously out of sorts, looks at the sky brewing horrendous storm clouds.

The wind blows, the sky darkens when, out of the crack of an instant a lightning bolt singes her into nothingness. All that is left are smoldering remains of her hat. The priest, horror-struck, hears a booming voice come from the clouds; "DAMMIT I MISSED!"

Sorry, it was the best I could do tonight.

Rafael and Mr Mark-

Sorry, but macro evolution(that mankind came to be from the primordial soup up through the evolutionary process and wha-la ! Man came to be.

Tell me one thing- is this something that has been observed? If it can't , you can't call it fact.

It is a hypothesis that can't be proven , even to the degree that God can't be proven.

It's your own dogma- your " formally stated and authoritatively settled doctrine; a definite, established, and authoritative tenet"

You can't prove that mankind came from one celled life anymore than I can prove that God exists.

Theory = Theory, not fact, and your ilk has metamorphisized this hypothesis into fact when you can't prove it, as MACRO evolution can 't be observed.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't preclude it like you do A supreme being. I am more open minded than that. I just don't accept it as something that is fact. Funny how people who critique faith have their own kind of faith but can't recognize it in their selves.

Raphael says:

"Mr. Mark doesn't appear to be a know-it-all"

Yet he posts this to a man who made a few noncommittal posts:

"Tim, it appears that you're the type of believer who will accept anecdotal and fantasy based "evidence" as being truthful, while discounting settled scientific fact (like evolution) as being conjecture. You've got it backwards, friend."

and predicted an entire outcome for a story in the news:

"Now, the doctors will eventually issue a statement. Most likely, that statement will point out that the patient was never dead, that the talks of organ harvesting were just that, talk, and that they held out slight hope for a turnaround, but they were being honest with the family. Eventually, they'll issue a laundry list of medical procedures they followed to keep the lady alive (which she was), and the heroic efforts they made on her behalf."

Mr. Mark has the tendency to wander away from reality and into "make believe".

Now Raphael- what were you saying?

RNH:
"What I see in many evolutionists, is their insistence that macro evolution resulting in humans - that this is fact. Frankly I don't care unless, of course,we start talking about humans in the same breath as animals. We are created beings, either through evolution or some other process. We are special, because God created us to commune with Him.

Just because we are created with most of the same design makes us like the apes, but there is something that is undeniable that we are different than the apes.But don't claim this is fact, as it is not. It's a hypothesis with not enough evidence to call it fact."

RNH, your concerns are misplaced. Scientists don't work by "insisting" things--that's the job of religionists and others who assert things regardless of the evidence. Scientists work by evaluating alternative hypotheses using evidence. A massive body of research provides overwhelming evidence that contradicts all the evidence-free assertions you seem to have internalized--that the same evolutionary process that has produced all living things also produced about 14 species of homininds, only one of which survived, and we were extraordinarily lucky at that.

By saying "it is a hypothesis with not enough evidence to call it a fact," you seem to suggest you know a fair amount about the field. So let me ask, what pieces of evidence exactly do you feel are missing? That is, what would convince you that humans are in fact descended from a common ancestor with the great apes? Or, what conflicting evidence keeps you from believing this idea?

Antithia said:
"Let me shake your fixed world: The study of genetics is so complex and new that we only know a fraction of a fraction of the wealth of knowledge yet to be understood. In fact: the answer to a question only brings a dozen more unanswered questions."

Good science, it is true, raises new questions, but it also answers questions, and the field of genetics has been doing so for more than a century. To say the field of genetics is so new that we don't know anything--for example, that biological life forms all share common elements to how DNA is structured and how it works--only shows your ignorance about the field of genetics. I'm not sure why people feel they can make a strong argument through a display of ignorance.

Mr. Mark doesn't appear to be a know-it-all, but when arguing from a position of evidence with a group of people who base their arguments only on assertion with not a scrap of evidence, it just seems like he knows a lot.

Mr. Mark:

You are a Fun-Atheist: an atheist convinced he has the answer to ALL questions. Anything you may not know, you make something up and convince yourself its "settled science" (ie: the Gospel).

Remember this post?

"Tim, it appears that you're the type of believer who will accept anecdotal and fantasy based "evidence" as being truthful, while discounting settled scientific fact (like evolution) as being conjecture. You've got it backwards, friend."

Wow, Mr. Mark. I hate to be the one to point this out to you- but your gears are slipping. I never said I was a believer or mentioned a particular belief system. I found the story interesting and made a few posts.

First- you create an entire back story for the WV lady out of your own fantastic "wishin' and hopin' it turns out this way" and now you have me "discounting settled scientific fact" because I am a devout Bible-thumpin believer who you have assigned a project to straighten out ..

Dude- you've crossed the line and are projecting your personal hang-ups and prejudices onto me when you know nothing about me. Take posession of your own beliefs and doubts and leave me out of it."

In a new post you offer:

"We are animals. In fact, we are biological life forms that have much in common with plants. Our DNA proves this to be a fact."

All this proves is: you have a very limited knowledge of the of genetics.

Let me shake your fixed world:

The study of genetics is so complex and new that we only know a fraction of a fraction of the wealth of knowledge yet to be understood. In fact: the answer to a question only brings a dozen more unanswered questions.

Your "know-it-all" arguments are caricature..

I wanted also to say, but Mr. Mark has already said it, that there is no such thing as evolutionism and there are no evolutionists. And any argument that rejects evolutionists and evolutionism is, right off the bat, based on faulty and flawed informaiton, so the crediblity of the argument is suspect.

Evolution is settled science, the consensus of scientific opinion among scientists, on matters of science. Some people may agree with this consensus of science on evolution, but that does not make them evolutionists; that just means that they trust the consensus of scientists enough to agree with them, and have researched the arguments in support of this scientific consensus so that they believe it is true.

Other people reject this consensus of science, and they are entited to do this, but it should be clear that this is what they are doing, rejecting science. Anyone is entitle to reject science if they choose to do so, but again, I think that such an attitude, in general, weakens their credibility on other things.

We are animals, aren't we? I didn't know anyone thought we weren't.

REASONABLE NOT HATEFUL writes:

"What I see in many evolutionists, is their insistence that macro evolution resulting in humans - that this is fact."

Evolution is settled science. It is a FACT. It is just as strong of a fact as the science behind cracking carbons to produce products from crude oil. It is just as strong a fact as the scientific facts behind the latest successful landing on Mars. Your denying that macro evolution isn't a fact is 1) risible, and 2) doesn't make it not a fact.

"Frankly I don't care unless, of course,we start talking about humans in the same breath as animals. "

We are animals. In fact, we are biological life forms that have much in common with plants. Our DNA proves this to be a fact.

"We are created beings, either through evolution or some other process. We are special, because God created us to commune with Him."

Pure unadulterated conjecture without a single provable fact to support it. Nothing but opinion that flies in the face of scientific facts. We are special to the extent that we realize we are different from all other life forms in that we can reason, but recent in-depth studies have shown that we are not the only animals who feel emotions, who can learn, who can formulate and employ tools, who understand living in family units, who can use our intellect to problem solve. (see the article in Sunday's NYT: ...http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/magazine/25wwln-essay-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ..)

"Just because we are created with most of the same design makes us like the apes, but there is something that is undeniable that we are different than the apes."

The difference between human beings and the apes are all well documented. What's your problem? Saying "there is something" implies that the differences aren't known. They are. So are the many similarities. Again, see the article in the NYTs.

"But don't claim this is fact, as it is not. It's a hypothesis with not enough evidence to call it fact."

I must say, Reasonable, that you have a lot of gall to demand facts from science when you are a religionist who cannot provide even a SINGLE "fact" to back up your supernatural claims. Unbelievable hubris, I'd say.

As far as the theory of evolution, it long ago moved from the realm of hypothesis to the settled science of scientific theory. Evolution has been proven over and over again on a daily basis. It is observable, predictable and factual. Your denying the facts doesn't change them.

You may as well argue that the sun doesn't rise in the morning and set in the evening.

One more time: evolution is settled science.

BTW - there is no such thing as an "evolutionist." Evolution IS. It doesn't need apologists to champion its cause because its cause is factual, not fantastic. Scientists know that evolution is factual. They don't need to make a leap of faith, nor do they need to adopt a philosophy to believe it's a fact. it's a fact because it's proven in the lab, proven in the real world, proven in the fossil record, proven in the geological record...need I go on?

Rafael-

What I see in many evolutionists, is their insistence that macro evolution resulting in humans - that this is fact. Frankly I don't care unless, of course,we start talking about humans in the same breath as animals. We are created beings, either through evolution or some other process. We are special, because God created us to commune with Him.

Just because we are created with most of the same design makes us like the apes, but there is something that is undeniable that we are different than the apes.But don't claim this is fact, as it is not. It's a hypothesis with not enough evidence to call it fact.

BTW,this is a major reason a lot of 'sodomy laws' were repealed in recent history, it was illegal and prosecutable to give your husband, ah, h*** in a lot of states.

Cause that's how 'sodomy' was defined, even in 'traditional marriage.'

Look it up.

Interesting, here, 'Resonable not hateful'

""do you believe sodomy (oral and anal sex) between straight married couples is sinful?""

"Oral- no. anal - Not sure."

You do realize that Christian authorities have *not* historically made this distinction, even for married couples, throughout Christian history?

Strictly speaking, the only thing not 'sodomy,' even for married couples, has been 'Missionary position' (how do you think it got that name)

""do you engage in sodomy with your wife? Are you married?""

"No., and Yes."

Who's a 'sodomite' now, eh?

Clearly you're incapable of love or marriage, and should be denied your legal protections in civil law forthwith.

RNH:
"I personally believe that evolution does occur, but I am not sure that macro evolution resulting in mankind or humans as we know them now was the mechanism by which we came to be. If anything, it was guided by a creator."

We are all "not sure" about many things. But being "not sure" can come from many positions of knowledge. It can result from competing lines of strong evidence in need of a definitive experiment or observation to distinguish them. It can also result from ignorance about the facts. Or, it can result from bias and displeasure with an idea that goes against something one wants to defend at all costs. Based on your "if anything" (based on nothing), I suspect in this case it is a combination of the latter two.

The evidence that humans are related to the great apes, and derived from an ancestor they shared, is undeniable. But we also have evidence that as many as 14 hominid species have existed, that the other 13 lineages went extinct, and that Homo sapiens went through a severe bottleneck in population size that it just barely survived. Is this the kind of process that you really believe was "guided by a creator"? Just chalk it up to one of those mysterious ways your god works?

Well, keep the answers clean I guess.

My questions were not controversial, so I don't understand their angst.

Dear RNH -

I've attempted to respond to your posts, but I'm being embargoed - again! - by the OnFaith thought police.

Mr Mark

No problem

do you believe sodomy (oral and anal sex) between straight married couples is sinful?

Oral- no. anal - Not sure.

do you engage in sodomy with your wife? Are you married?

No., and Yes.

Dear RNH -

Before I read any articles you recommend or answer any more of your questions, please answer the question I posted earlier:

do you believe sodomy (oral and anal sex) between straight married couples is sinful?

BTW - do you engage in sodomy with your wife? Are you married? If not, do you have a girlfriend with whom you're having sinful sex?

I'll respond to your questions after you respond to mine.

Thanks,

Another quote from a smart man....

Kenneth R. Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University and the author of Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution and of Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul.

"In the end you have no answer to why science works, why the physical logic of natural law makes life possible, or why the human mind is able to explore and understand nature. And I agree that there is no scientific answer to such questions. That is precisely the point of faith–to order and rationalize our encounters with the world around us. Faith is human, and therefore imperfect. But faith expresses, however poorly, a reality that includes the scientific experience in every sense, and therefore has become more relevant than ever in our scientific age."

I personally believe that evolution does occur, but I am not sure that macro evolution resulting in mankind or humans as we know them now was the mechanism by which we came to be. If anything, it was guided by a creator. I also don't proscribe to the young earth theory. I am sure that it was created or came to be a long long time ago.

What I observe about you is that you are just so sure about yourself. You are sure God is fictional.

I am sure about myself too- but not at your level going the other way. I have some doubt but my faith sustains throughout the doubt.

Faith, hope, and love - all three sustain me. Science can't really do that for mankind.

A article you should read Mr Mark.

It may help you out of your prejudice about "religionists" and evangelicals.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/05/22/evangelicals.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText?iref=werecommend

What? sez:

"Reallllly think about each of the 10 commandments."

I've been thinking about Commandment #10:

"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk."

I think I'm good on that one.

Working backwards, it looks like I'm also good on #9:

"Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning."

It looks like I'm also OK on #5:

"All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty."

I'll have to get back to you the commandments that say one shouldn't go a-whoring after the gods of Canada.

;)

What? writes:

"Humble people recognize their shortcomings."

Indeed. Personally, I feel quite humble when considering the achievements of many of my fellow human beings, or the cosmos, or the idea of the Big Bang.

But for the religious, being humble begins and ends with thinking that there is a god (whatever god that happens to be. Pick the geography in which you were born and you'll most likely find the god you worship), and that mankind must be less than it, and therefore, must be humble before it. In fact, for many religious people I know (like Spidey), humble goes no further than feeling humble before god.

A more-enlightened vision (ie: that of the atheist or humanist) wastes no time humbling oneself before mythical concepts and non-existent entities and finds true humility through self-evaluation. Ergo, the atheist/humanist often finds themselves humbled when considering their fellow humans, the cosmos or even physics. These are REAL entities, and only the biggest egoists on the planet don't feel humbled when contemplating such things.

I pity those who feel humbled by the fairy tales of our ancient, childish minds. Imagine, adults who find "humility" in contemplating a grown-up version of The 3 Little Pigs, the tale of Santa Claus or a first-century incarnation of the typical sun god. Yet, most Americans subscribe to such idiocy. They bow in humility before the altar of myth and legend.

Perhaps an archeologist should feel humbled by the discoveries and adventures of Indiana Jones? Perhaps our policemen should feel humbled that they do not possess the invincibility of Robocop? Perhaps our astronauts should feel humbled that they can't explore space with the same ease as James T. Kirk?

Or - perhaps - it's a waste of time to compare oneself to fictional beings and situations. Perhaps any humility one feels through comparisons to fictional beings is a chimera. Perhaps it's not much more than a non-accountable, falsely humble ego trip.

At least that's what I think, IMHO.

>>1 a: an offense against religious or moral law

Correct! Yet, some of us disregard religous, moral law (Some of which, thankfully, are still part of our laws of the land). Some of us even disregard, despise and disdain the laws of the land, which are morally ethical for us all (we all conform to a standard of right and wrong in society...if we don't...in the slammer ya go!)

>>b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible

Sodomy (pssst... don't teach it to your children...they will say YUK (as some other wise person commented earlier on this post)

>>c: an often serious shortcoming

Humble people recognize their shortcomings. Thats the spirit in man, led by the spirit of God. No ameoba could have come up with that one on their own.

>>: fault2 (?)

>>a: transgression of the law of God

Thou shalt not steal..God
Thou shalt not steal..secular police

(Sad thing is, most of the commandments are 'done away' by mans reckoning....each would apply to the abundance of good life, if only kept)**

>>b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

That defective state of human nature is prevalent in this society today.

**
Reallllly think about each of the 10 commandments.

If you come back with a response that some/all are not applicable...then you're not thinking.

Dear What? -

More to the point when discussing definitions for "sin":

1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible c: an often serious shortcoming : fault2 a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

>>Ignorance leads to people believing in crazy concepts like sin.

(Preface: Websters: Transgression is the same as violation)

Scripture: Sin is the transgression (violation) of God's law.

Neighborhood: Running a stop sign is a transgression (violation) of the laws of the roads, streets and highways.

Stealing, either under God's law or Man's law.. (amazing isn't - it how both God and mankind have laws against stealing...what a concept).. both present it as a violation of law.

>>Ignorance leads to people believing in crazy concepts like sin.

With respect to man's law alone, not to mention God's law, those who don't understand the concept are possible instigators of anarchy. Not a pretty sight.

Sorry...the ones who accept and recognize the concept of transgressing/violating the law are not the ones who are in ignorance.

Now, let's see....who does that leave?

RNH writes:

"Visit a evolution site that predisposes that God does not exist in the first place?"

Had you visited the link I provided, you'd have found that it isn't an "evolution" site in any sense of the word. Had you read the article, you may have been surprised at its depth, the number of standard references of Biblical scholarship it cites, the pages and pages of comparative review it presents between the OT and the NT.

But you couldn't be bothered, could you?

BTW - visit ANY science site and you will generally find that the issue of god's existence is not a consideration in any study or article posted. It doesn't necessarily mean that a presumption has been made that god doesn't exist, it just means that god isn't necessary as a factor to prove any natural hypothesis.

Using your standard, I would assume you will never visit any scientifically oriented site because there is no predisposition to assuming god does exist.

Your loss.

And, yes, I am rationalizing (as in the definition, "to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation") while you are fantasizing.

Schmoozie writes:

"My suggestion to you....dont believe you can tell who and what someone is thru black and white texting."

That's a great suggestion. One could easily apply it to religious texts as well.

"It is becoming quite clear, along with several others who respond to you lately today, that you seem to think you know people you have never met."

You're probably right. I wonder if you believe that's a situation that's unique to me, especially on this blog?

"That, my friend, is the mind of a simpleton."

I may be a simpleton in practice, but - to be upfront about it - in testing, my IQ score sits at the upper end of "highly gifted." I'm no genius, but I think branding me a simpleton is overstating your case. Using such pejorative language to label a debating opponent may mean that (if I may quote a noted scholar), "people will consider you.....well, actually, they won't consider you."

"My education has included wonderful studies in Botany, Physical science and, my all-around favorite, Historical Geology."

As did mine, in a general sense. I wish I had paid more attention in those science classes, but they weren't in my major, just courses taken to round out the requirements.

So, Schmoozie, how about a poem from you?

Still rationalizing, heh Mr mark?

Even CCNl who rejects Christianity knows Jesus existed.

Visit a evolution site that predisposes that God does not exist in the first place?

It's amazing- people of like education /intelligence comes to different conclusions regarding Jesus , the Bible, sin, etc.

I am convinced, that you see yourself as your own "god" but can't even see that.

I guess for you- spiritual ignorance is bliss, as long as you are alive on this earth.

Daniel-

You think I'm mean and bitter because gay sexual behavior makes me physically ill?

Now who is the judgmental bigot?

And for your information- most of the AIDS patients I know and have known have been abandoned by their friends and lovers and were thankful for my care.

Think about it.

"Think about it"

You are bitter and mean person. That is not my fault, so get off my case. You sound pretty hateful to me, and I am glad that I don't know you. And I feel very, very sorry for anyone who would depend on you for nursing care. I think suicide would be preferable.

Daniel-

You are an immature self-centered gay-loving man to think that because you are repulsed by a behavior- you hate the person.

I'm thankful the men I've worked with were not so shallow. Why don't you volunteer to help someone with late-term AIDS. It might help you grow up..

Think about it

You worked in a nursing home, taking care of people that you hated?

You make me want to puke.

"You are imagining sex-posiitons between men. Get your mind out of the gutter."

No. I was thinking on the many gay men I have befriended over the years who were dying in the nursing home where I work. Do you think these young men never thought of what destroyed their flesh? Do you think they never spoke to me of their experience?

"If you cannot stop thinking about gay sex, then maybe you are gay."

I am female and the first time I saw two people of the same sex kissing- I went outside and threw up. So educate yourself- gay behavior makes some people want to puke.

Well Mr Mark..I must hand it to you. Your last prose is something the whole family could read and not blush.. or even barf. Kudos to you.

But, one issue with your latest prose. It is becoming quite clear, along with several others who respond to you lately today, that you seem to think you know people you have never met. That, my friend, is the mind of a simpleton.

Far be it from all of us to think you would even half believe what we say, but Ill take a stab at it. My education has included wonderful studies in Botany, Physical science and, my all-around favorite, Historical Geology. It was thoroughly amazing to find not only trilobites in central Texas, but also other sea creatures as well. Fascinating.

Science? Oh, yes it is real. I think you and I just have a wee difference of opinion in origins.

My suggestion to you....dont believe you can tell who and what someone is thru black and white texting. People will consider you.....well, actually, they won't consider you.

Schmoozie

Well Mr Mark..I must hand it to you. Your last prose is something the whole family could read and not blush.. or even barf. Kudos to you.

But, one issue with your latest prose. It is becoming quite clear, along with several others who respond to you lately today, that you seem to think you know people you have never met. That, my friend, is the mind of a simpleton.

Far be it from all of us to think you would even half believe what we say, but Ill take a stab at it. My education has included wonderful studies in Botany, Physical science and, my all-around favorite, Historical Geology. It was thoroughly amazing to find not only trilobites in central Texas, but also other sea creatures as well. Fascinating.

Science? Oh, yes it is real. I think you and I just have a wee difference of opinion in origins.

My suggestion to you....dont believe you can tell who and what someone is thru black and white texting. People will consider you.....well, actually, they won't consider you.

Schmoozie

Some of you may think I'm a big dummy,
Yea, accuse me of being a rummy,
When I say that a maid,
Who returned from the dead,
Should now go by the name of, "Mummy."

Think about it

I think Mary was talking about "love." You are imagining sex-posiitons between men. Get your mind out of the gutter.

If you cannot stop thinking about gay sex, then maybe you are gay.

"Intolerance is sinful. Love is sacred. Not supporting love in it's multitude of forms is sinful."

Mary-

Love is sacred? But if you find you have embraced your "love" and in the end it has killed you- you are a mistaken, unrestrained fool.

Mary- some things that pass for "love" are high-risk behaviors that often lead to an early painful death.

Some woman came back from the dead,
At least that's what some reports said,
Though I'm loathe to admit it.
It looks like "goddidit,"
Is the reason that garners most cred.

So, I did some research by the way,
To discern what some others might say,
And I found out instead,
That in India, it's said,
That the dead are arisen each day.

So, that sent me back to West Virginia,
And I wondered, "What spirit was in her?
"Was it Yahweh or Shiva?
"Should we even believe 'er,
"Or is this just a whole cloth opinion?"

So, the moral 'bout raising the dead?,
Is simple: it's all in your head.
You may choose to believe so,
While others will say, "No,
" "Tis reason that from you has fled!"

Intolerance is sinful. Love is sacred. Not supporting love in it's multitude of forms is sinful.

Dear Timothy -

Sorry if I have wrongly accused you of being a Xian. That's an accusation I don't make lightly. From the way you framed your posts, I made an assumption. Perhaps I was wrong. Nobody bats a thousand.

So, sorry for the foul. But glad to hear that there's the possibility that you're not one of the fantasy believing crowd.

BTW - unlike you, I didn't find the stories interesting.

"Tim, it appears that you're the type of believer who will accept anecdotal and fantasy based "evidence" as being truthful, while discounting settled scientific fact (like evolution) as being conjecture. You've got it backwards, friend."

Wow, Mr. Mark. I hate to be the one to point this out to you- but your gears are slipping. I never said I was a believer or mentioned a particular belief system. I found the story interesting and made a few posts.

First- you create an entire back story for the WV lady out of your own fantastic "wishin' and hopin' it turns out this way" and now you have me "discounting settled scientific fact" because I am a devout Bible-thumpin believer who you have assigned a project to straighten out ..

Dude- you've crossed the line and are projecting your personal hang-ups and prejudices onto me when you know nothing about me. Take posession of your own beliefs and doubts and leave me out of it.

And try to get out more often..

RNF Writes:

"Mr Mark:

Respectfully- you've convinced yourself that Jesus now never existed. This is easy to conjure up as it gives you the excuse not to confront what he said."

My belief that Jesus never really existed is not in any way some flippant excuse that I've conjured up to "not confront what he said." It's actually the end result of decades of studying the Bible and actual history, and coming to a logical and fact-based assessment of the existing (and non-existing) evidence as to whether Jesus really existed.

I've been over this ground many times on this blog, and I'll not bother doing so yet again. But I will say this: myth is a very, very powerful influence and motivator for human beings. In the life story of Jesus, I see a continuum of earlier myths from other cultures that have been amalgamated to form the specific story of Jesus. There's nothing unique in his particular story save for the selection and arrangement of his story as culled from already existing god stories. Justin Martyr admitted this fact back in the second century, even as he hoped to excuse away the similarities by floating the idea that Satan planted the earlier stories of gods simply to confuse the Xians when Jesus finally arrived on the scene.

I suggest the following fascinating article to one and all, though I will assume that RNH and most other Xians won't be bothered to take a step outside the strictures of their faith:

...http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm...

Anonymous: "I want to share something that happened in Minnesota earlier this year. I have to wonder how often this happens and doesn't make the news."

It happens at least once a year in my home town and makes the news there, though I doubt it makes it much further. But assuming these things happen yearly in every town across America, you are probably talking about 1000 a year.

Now, I would be happy to see data that this is a Christian-only phenomenon. If anyone can show that these "miraculous events" do not take place in other non-christian countries with excellent medical facilities, like Japan or Korea or India or Egypt, then I'll start to consider the Christian element in these events. For example: five Chinese people were recently pulled from the earthquake rubble more than 110 hours after the earthquake. Survival after 72 hours without water is slim. Is this proof that God loves the godless communist Chinese?

Mr Mark:

Respectfully- you've convinced yourself that Jesus now never existed. This is easy to conjure up as it gives you the excuse not to confront what he said.

You ,and me, and all of mankind, are sinners. If you can't admit it, then YOU are the one that has ignorance.

The only help for you is a life changing event to open your eyes.

Your disdain for "religionists", ignorance about spiritual matters, elitism, and bigotry show in every single hateful post.

Timothy -

The assumption that prayer/god/something supernatural healed/brought back from the dead somebody is just that, an assumption.

Anecdotal evidence does not constitute proof. Attempts to establish cause and effect entirely through a biased and untestable world view also do not constitute proof.

The image of the Virgin Mary appears often on pieces of toast and in the water damage of underpasses. Does that prove that god is a Catholic?

Are we to believe everything posted on YouTube? If so, I suggest you check out that nifty German Speed Bump. I'm sure there was no doctoring of that particular video.

What does it matter that there are "many" reports of this happening? More people a year see UFOs and are abducted by aliens. More people a year see Nessie and Bigfoot.

As far as Xians finding miraculous "cures," that's an everyday occurrence at the typical Benny Hinn or Peter Popoff rally. You DO believe those "miracles" are real, don't you?

And why do these "miracles" happen only to Xians, and to Xians who live in ordinary places where they lead ordinary lives? To a person, they believe they've been brought back from the dead because, "god has some great work for me to do," yet these people have never done any great work in the past and - from an economic, geographical and social level - they're not exactly positioned to do anything great going forward. Yet, god has decided that THIS person must hang around to do "great things."

Why does god never seem to give a second chance to the great artists, scientists and statesmen? Dontcha think god would do the USA a world of good if he reached down right now and removed that brain tumor from Ted Kennedy's head?

Here's a project for you, Tim: do some follow-up on the people involved in those miracle cure stories. Report back and tell us all what "great things" they've been doing since they arose from the dead. Surely, there are many reports of their activities in the same local press and on the same UTube where there stories of their miracles first appeared. Surely, some enterprising cub reporter has miles of video footage attesting to the "great works" these lucky people have done - new hospitals built, a cure for cancer, possibly developing a new source of cheap energy.

Tim, it appears that you're the type of believer who will accept anecdotal and fantasy based "evidence" as being truthful, while discounting settled scientific fact (like evolution) as being conjecture. You've got it backwards, friend.

I await your follow-up report on the great works that god's chosen few have done since their "miraculous" recoveries.

Timothy, I'll say one more thing and then I'll shut up!

It's a very tenuous thing to base or to give any contingency to one's faith on an interventionist god.

As a health care provider, there have been all kinds of wild things seen over the years without good explanation. I've had kids survive submersive cold water near-drownings who were in a coma for months; kids hit by cars who were comatose for weeks, who come out with only minor brain dysfunction. Some of these miraculous recoveries were Christian families. Some were not. I had a kid who was congenitally deaf by BAER (an electrical test that measures hearing) only to be able to hear about a year later. The family was not Christian.

However, I'd have to say I've been in the business long enough to see many Christian families praying in earnest for their child to survive cancer, or an accident, or a severe illness. Many, many deaths (I worked with about 8 other pediatricians.) What are we to make of this in regard to an interventionist god?

I think most academic theologians agree that the interventionist god concept is not a good thing to dwell on. It creates more problems than it solves.

Okay I'll officially shut up. Thanks for putting up with this.

I want to share something that happened in Minnesota earlier this year. I have to wonder how often this happens and doesn't make the news.

"How many people get a second chance at life? Rae Kupferschmidt has. In mid-January, the 65-year-old former medical secretary suffered a devasting cerebral hemorrhage, a massive bleeding on the brain.

"They thought I was dead," she says.

In fact, on January 17th, doctors declared her "brain dead." One word, "dead," is handwritten on that date on the calendar in Rae's room at United Hospital in Saint Paul. In that same hospital room where Rae fielded questions from reporters on Tuesday.

Clearly, Rae did not die, but even now, her family is not second-guessing the decision to disconnect life support. Medically, Rae was gone. Daughter Lisa Sturm is an operating room nurse at Regions Hospital in Saint Paul.

"So, I've seen many, many CT's and I never, ever saw one that looked like my mother's. Ever. It was black, meaning there was just so much blood in the head that you couldn't even see any anatomy of the brain," says Sturm.

In grief, Alan Kupferschmidt took his wife of 45 years back to Lake Elmo so she could take her last breath in her own bed. The house was soon full of friends and family who came to say goodbye. Rae says she is glad she was unconscious while everyone was mourning what they thought was her inevitable death.

"If I had seen all the tears and the gnashing of teeth and all that stuff, I'd have felt bad," she says.

As it was, the family began planning Rae's funeral, believing the end was just hours away. Then, Lisa tried to wet her mother's lips.

"When I touched her mouth with the ice cube and then a second time and then I asked if she was in there and she shook her head, yes and mouthed the word, yes," Sturm says.

At first, Lisa did not believe her mother was waking from her coma. She knew that terminal patients can seem to waken for a moment before death, but Rae began talking. Alan's roller-coaster of emotions suddenly sped upwards on a hill.

"For her to start talking to us and everything working, she wasn't paralyzed. She just kept climbing the ladder," he says.

It was a ladder back to awareness after being given up for dead. Rae sat up in her room. A prayer shawl covered her legs. She knitted many such shawls for others in distress but never thought she would need one herself. Rae says she does not remember anything that occurred during the coma.

"I remember my daughter, Lisa, asking me questions about angels," says Rae.

Lisa wondered what her mother was seeing in the room at home. Rae says she did see angels, but no one she recognized. "I said these angels are not here to take me home to my Father. They're here to help me, to help me get over this," says Rae.

Doctors at United Hospital, including Physical Medicine physician Brad Helms are amazed by Rae's recovery.

"This is extremely unusual. It's virtually never heard of. You have some people who get better after a bleed, but in Rae's case, she was essentially brain dead and when she was in the intensive care unit, just was not responding to any sort of stimuli or any sort of activity. I've been here since 1999 and this is the first case like this I've seen," says Dr. Helms.

Rae has been undergoing physical therapy twice a day for three weeks. Dr. Helms expects her to be able to walk unaided in a few months. He says she has the possibility of a full recovery.

Rae and Alan have a zest for life that has carried them across the globe. They are continuing plans for a "roadtrip" to Washington, D.C. and Williamsburg, Virginia in May. Then, they plan to tour Greece in October. Rae Kupferschmidt intends to make good use of her second chance at life.

Others may call her survival a "miracle." She does not.

"I'm not a miracle lady. I am just a very blessed lady that God chose not to be done with," says Rae."

There is a video at this link-

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=498009

Mr. Mark-

You raised an interesting question. Why is this only happening to Christians?

When I read this woman's story- I was fascinated and did some looking on utube and the search engines to see how rare her experience was and if it only happened to people waiting to to have their organs removed (it doesn't).

Most of these stories are reported in local news- very few make it to national news. It happens more often than you might think to Christians who report they were praying with faith. Not one story of the lucky atheist returned to life (except the stories of an atheist who had a Christian earnestly praying for them). All survivors report no fear of death. Almost all say they saw or spoke with angels. They all feel they remain because they have some mission or work to do on earth.

Mr. Mark- you may want to consider the number and nature of these experiences. Your own doubt made you into a prophet predicting the cause and outcome of the WV woman's case.

"Now, the doctors will eventually issue a statement. Most likely, that statement will point out that the patient was never dead, that the talks of organ harvesting were just that, talk, and that they held out slight hope for a turnaround, but they were being honest with the family. Eventually, they'll issue a laundry list of medical procedures they followed to keep the lady alive (which she was), and the heroic efforts they made on her behalf.

And after all that, the religious will swear that the doctors and all the medical procedures had nothing to do with her "coming back from the dead" (even though she wasn't dead)."

Dude- you made it up and then believed it. That is some Santa mentality.. If you would allow yourself to question and investigate- you might realise these are "medical mysteries" and if you are an atheist- its an unknown phenomenon.

For example- there was a non-believing man in Florida who died of a massive heart attack and was without a heartbeat for an hour. The man who prayed for him to live was his Cardiologist. Take a look at this:

Dead Man Raised by Famed Doctor's Prayer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRoAcfzytCA

Here's a poem for my friend, Schmoozealert,
Who asked for it - so let me blurt:
Schmoozie disbelieves science,
On myth he's reliant,
Forgive me, if you find that curt.

Steven wrote: "...if God is an interventionist God, why would he not choose to save those kids who were crushed by a crumbling school building in China, and spend effort and energy on an elderly lady having suffered three heart attacks with (at least some assummed) coma status?"

More to the point, if God had a plan for this woman, why let her die only to raise her again? Maybe He was not watching and went "whoops!", turned around and raised her after he let her die? I'm always amazed how some people are willing to believe what they hear as miracles yet deny what is proven through rigorous scientific analysis, like evolution, etc.

My mom was very religious. She also "believed" in stories of people being "raised from the dead" without much skepticism. She also believed in UFOs being aliens from other worlds. I just took it all to mean she was willing to believe in anything that she thought would be a good thing to be true. Religious belief is a strong human nature and provides comfort in an uncomfortable world. So strong a nature that it has existed long before the bible in every population on the planet, in different forms of course. But stong belief does not make something true, or replace validation, or set aside the need for skepticism about extraordinary claims. Yet I see that happening here with this story.

Timothy, I appreciate your enthusiasm.

I really am glad for this family. I know I would be elated if my mom were somehow spared death, and would celebrate in whatever tradition I knew.

Mr Mark makes some pointed and interesting conversation, though, that I too wonder about, sometimes why anyone would want them back if they were in paradise..

Carl Sagan has a good way of putting it: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If it becomes a national story, and people are interested, we'll get more information.

The hospital seemed reputable, it was a cardiac care specialty hospital, so I imagine they do all the "requirements" to prove "brain death" before they harvest. There were just a few contradictory statements in the story that will play themselves out.

But it is a good thought experiment, and one I'd challenge us to think about: if God is an interventionist God, why would he not choose to save those kids who were crushed by a crumbling school building in China, and spend effort and energy on an elderly lady having suffered three heart attacks with (at least some assummed) coma status?

It actually can create more problems for such a god than it clarifies in a "wonderful" way.

I'm off this topic for now, but hang in there, it will come out in further stories.

Aloha Mr Mark,

I commented on the article about the sun, you remember...not special, yet somewhat unique compared to others? A spin story on a spin site.

Comprehend?

Read up on how toxicity can also affect even the fish. Merely another perspective.

Comprehend?

>>1. What does not being alive when the dinosaurs roamed the earth have to do with anything?

Uh...again, you werent there, I wasnt there, those who found the fossil were not there. Their presentation is conjecture with regard to this creature, that it evolved from something and is the ancestor of something now. And if all the dino's died...then its safe to say all the froggiemandies died too, capiche? Its simple: Dino then, dog now....frogamander then, (your-animal-selection here) now.

Comprehend?

Best regards,

Schmoozie

PS BTW...we are all waiting for, perhaps, some more clean, uplifting prose from your pen. Somehow I just cant see you teaching your prior poem-in-question to those children of yours. Care to try again and knock our socks off?

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

: “ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

See Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Seminar have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.

See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style."

Besides the Josephus reference (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html), NT exegetes use the following attestations to Jesus' crucifixion as proof he existed.

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.-

Were these stories embellished? Yes, but the crucifixion is the same throughout.

The Jesus Seminar after reviewing all the scriptural and non-scriptural documents from the time period, voted red (the event occurred) as follows:

Jesus was crucified

Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate

Jesus was crucified with the participation of the highest Jewish authorities

Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem

Jesus was crucified at Golgotha

Dear Reasonable -

The primary thing wrong with the world is ignorance, and religion must take the brunt of the blame for keeping ignorance alive and well in this world.

Ignorance leads to people believing in crazy concepts like sin.

Ignorance leads people to believe that some guy was a god, and that gods exist.

Ignorance allows people to quit learning, including learning about the fallacies and stupidities of their religion.

Ignorance allows people to say in all sincerity that their very humanity is evil while an imaginary supernatural being is "the truth."

Jesus - for whom NO historic evidence exists that he existed - wasn't too bright of a guy, especially in matters scientific. Like the great, fake god of the OT, Jesus said a lot of stupid things, a lot of evil and disgusting things, and a few very good things that are supposed to make up for all the idiotic things he said.

Jesus was the "most important man who walked the earth?" Important? Yes - as in any agent that brings death and destruction upon mankind must be acknowledged to be important, and we can certainly lay a few centuries of death and destruction at the feet of Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, even if that "man" was really nothing more than a mythical idea. But the greatest to have walked the Earth? Not even close.

Steven -

One final thought on the not-dead dead woman:

Why is it that the Xians are the ones who seem to love the "back from the dead" stories? Why do they think it's so great that one of their fellow Xians has been brought back from the dead?

I'd think that Xians were looking forward to death so they could be with Jeebus. What's so great about being one step away from heaven and having Jeebus send you back to live even longer in this "sinful" world? Seems like the Xians who come back from the dead are getting the shaft.

Now, I could see if it was the atheists who came back from the dead, and if it was their fellow atheists who rejoiced at the return, because we atheists know that this life is all we've got, and it would be a real bonus to be dead and get to come back to enjoy a few more moments of life. But it's never the atheists who come back from the dead, it's always the Xians - who one would think would HATE coming back from the dead because they'd have to leave Jeebus in the process (especially since Jeebus said you had to love him more than your immediate family).

Go figure.

Dear Steven -

The loons are out in full force with their "god raised a lady from the dead!!!" story. No amount of correction, no details, no official medical explanations have a chance of setting the record straight. The faithful have grabbed their newly found myth and aren't ever going to let go.

Another thought: for fun, let's stipulate that the lady did die and did come back from the dead.

How do we know god was responsible for her coming back from the daed? Why, because the patient and her family say so! Amazin', ain't it? It's like how kids know Santa brought the presents down the chim-blee. They said so!

Now, the doctors will eventually issue a statement. Most likely, that statement will point out that the patient was never dead, that the talks of organ harvesting were just that, talk, and that they held out slight hope for a turnaround, but they were being honest with the family. Eventually, they'll issue a laundry list of medical procedures they followed to keep the lady alive (which she was), and the heroic efforts they made on her behalf.

And after all that, the religious will swear that the doctors and all the medical procedures had nothing to do with her "coming back from the dead" (even though she wasn't dead).

Stick around this blog long enough and you'll read idiocies from the religious that make the idiots look like geniuses.

One more for Dr. Steven to ponder over-

Man Dies, Comes Back to Life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pNcYB666bo

PRT-

Actually this has happened more than you might think. We have utube now- so check out this link:

Zack Dunlap -Back from the dead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OmmZnO_dMA

Terry,
sorry to mention this, I'm (in all my spare time) a physician.

Understand it, seen it, been witness to it, get over it.

I thought the physician interview was very seedy, myself. He seemed to shrug his shoulders and say "gosh it's just amazing, haven't seen THAT before."

What I wondered in my skeptical mind was: you know, if they were about to harvest her organs, and they had somehow misread her EEG, or didn't go with some protocol of two independent verifiers or whatever is standard of care at that institute, he's in a bunch of medical-legal trouble. He better start talking about "this was a miracle!"

We'll see how it plays out.

The message I get from the interview is: "son said doctors said she was brain dead," but then from the video interview a very intentional dis qualifier: "she wasn't pronounced dead." Those two are mutually exclusive. Brain death is "pronounced dead." To do an EEG at that stage is to attempt to determine brain death--ie. dead. We are not given any determination of the EEG on either the video nor the story from anyone other than "what her son said." Incidentally it showed him then in front of his congregation praising the Lord (which I concur was appropriate--I'd do the same for my mother.)

Additionally, I see the story has already been embellished a bit. Let's talk about rigor mortis?
Never mind.

Glad for the recovery, But hey, let's give him the benefit--God did it! What about the kids in China? I'm still pissed.

To Google we go:

epistle.us/hbarticles/neareast.html

Excerpt:

" First, homosexuality in many forms pervaded the ancient Near East, and with more openness beyond Egypt. As long as persons got married and had families, homoerotic activity was generally accepted as part and parcel of life. Still, there was a certain stigma attached to a man who took the passive, womanly role in a sexual relationship.

Recently:

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n112/ai_14466341/pg_4:

Excerpt:
Edward Westermark observed that "it is a common belief among the Arabic-speaking mountaineers of Northern Morocco that a boy cannot learn the Koran well unless a scribe commits pederasty with him. So also an apprentice is supposed to learn his trade by having intercourse with his master."(9)

And these comments by the author of the article: findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n112/ai_14466341/pg_4:

“The Hebrew Bible, in particular the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), has done more to civilize the world than any other book or idea in history. It is the Hebrew Bible that gave humanity such ideas as a universal, moral, loving God; ethical obligations to this God; the need for history to move forward to moral and spiritual redemption; the belief that history has meaning; and the notion that human freedom and social justice are the divinely desired states for all people. It gave the world the Ten Commandments and ethical monotheism.

See the added Torah qualifications by the author, Dennis Prager

And from:

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n112/ai_14466341/pg_14

“Just as we owe homosexuals humane, decent, and respectful conduct, homosexuals owe the same to the rest of us. Homosexuals' use of the term "homophobic," however, violates this rule as much as heterosexuals' use of the term "f t" does.”

When the term "homophobic" is used to describe anyone who believes that heterosexuality should remain Western society's ideal, it is quite simply a contemporary form of McCarthyism. In fact, it is more insidious than the late senator's use of "communist." For one thing, there was and is such a thing as a communist. But "homophobia" masquerades as a scientific description of a phobia that does not exist in any medical list of phobias.”

Steven- maybe you don't understand "brain death":

"No one diagnosed with Brain Death has ever recovered consciousness. Those who point to continued electrical and hormonal activity in the Brain Dead are generally attempting to show that death is a process, rather than a moment. The Brain Dead are in a process of disorganization that is not yet complete. In fact, this is complicated by the fact that there have been advances in hormone replacement and similar substitutions for the functioning of the brain stem that indicate that brain stem functions are not at all irreplaceable. Currently, a Brain Dead human may be kept alive (in the cardiopulmonary sense) in order to gestate a baby to term, or to maintain an organ for later transplant, when the recipient is not readily available."

Apparently they were keeping this woman alive until the relatives arranged the organ donation. She was brain dead for 17-18 hours. Once the relatives said their goodbyes and left- the nurse took her off the respirator to prepare for clinical death and harvesting of organs. Once off the respirator -she spoke to the nurse. Absolutely miraculous..

to Please Read This:

saw the video, read the story. Good news for the lady, glad she pulled out. There was a qualifier at the end of the video "It is important to note that the patient was never pronounced dead..." ..darn it I was getting psyched.

well, I guess I won't be reading about it in tomorrow's msn.com headlines after all. But don't give up because Benny Hinn has some really cool miracles you can enjoy in the meanwhile, lots of healings and even raising the dead on one of his videos..

to Please Read This:

well, I checked out the msn.com front page news, and still no headline about God raising this person from the dead.

So I checked in the "health" section, and all that was there was some stuff on McDonald's fries, and puppy clones.

So, I'll check out your link. Do you think God might have given some consideration to those poor little Chinese kids who were killed recently in the quake, instead of the big stage production of this woman in the care of her physician?

Where are God's priorities? If God raised her from the dead, I'm pissed at him for not just having that quake go off a few miles from this Chinese disaster. What the hell is he thinking?

Agathodemon-

Everyone in West Virginia is talking about this. She was brain dead for 18 hours. They were holding her to harvest her body organs. As far as her Dr trying something new- watch his interview on the link I gave. That's your story- not his. And BTW- Drs. are told never to say there is no chance of survival- but there was no doubt this woman was gone. Her fingers and toes were curled. All the nurses on her floor at the hospital saw it. Now she is off oxygen, sitting up, talking and feeding herself. Sorry. This is a Medical Mystery also known as a Miracle from God.

PRT writes:

"WHAT A MIGHTY GOD WE SERVE!"

That's a shame. I was in the mood for Mexican food tonight.

Dear Schmoozie -

Perhaps you read the articles I linked, but you didn't comprehend.

1. What does not being alive when the dinosaurs roamed the earth have to do with anything?

2. The article about the fish that I posted actually stated the opposite of what you seemed to have misread into it. It was about a fish that had defensive scales and lost them as Lake Washington became more and more polluted to where visibility was but a few inches. It didn't need the scales to defend against predators, it just hid in the muck, so the species lost its defensive scales. Then, the Lake was cleaned up to where visibility increased to 30 feet. The fish then "reversed evolved" it's defensive scales so it could better survive in the clean water. Your comment, "Boy, sure looks like he has fallen victim to all the glorious toxicity that the family of man has learned to produce," indicates you've misread the article by 180-degrees.

3. You wrote: "the jibberish of the article about the sun on the Dawkins (go figure) web site...Ah, the Dawkins spin zone."

The Dawkins link I provided actually references a story at the New Scientist website. If there's any "spin" involved, it's not from Dawkins.

But you'd know that if you actually read and - more importantly - comprehended the articles.

As for PLEASE READ THIS.

Check out the full reports - no rigor mortis etc. The doctors were performing some sort of experimental procedure and gave her a 10% chance of surviving. This is not the same as returning from the dead.

I am somewhat bemused by the posters calling for Cal's removal from this forum. It's interesting that we see the same nonsense from the other side on Susan Jacoby's forum. If Cal generates discussion regardless of his personal views, then he is doing his job. I find him personally objectionable and very small minded. Most of his opinions and his sanctimonious bs is hard to take. But you know what, he provides a useful service in providing an anti-role model.

WOMAN RAISED FROM THE DEAD IN WEST VIRGINIA

Doctors said a West Virginia woman who had no brain waves for more than 17 minutes is expected to make a full recovery, but they don't know why.

Val Thomas, 59, was taken off life support at a Charleston, W.Va., hospital after she suffered two heart attacks, her brain waves stopped and she was found to have no heartbeat or pulse, WEWS-TV, Cleveland, reported Thursday.

Rigor mortis had already set in, and doctors said Thomas was taken off life support with only a ventilator being left in while organ donation issues were resolved.

"Her skin had already started to harden and her fingers curled. Death had set in," said the woman's son, Jim Thomas.

However, 10 minutes after she was taken off life support, Thomas woke up and began talking.

"She (a nurse) said, 'I'm so sorry Mrs. Thomas.' And mom said, 'That's OK honey. That's OK," Jim Thomas said.

Doctors said Thomas' recovery is a medical mystery, but Thomas said her escape from the clutches of death was the work of God, not science.

"I know God has something in store for me, another purpose. I don't know what it is but I'm sure he'll tell me," she said.

WHAT A MIGHTY GOD WE SERVE!

http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/19140074.html#

Mr Mark says:

Artists, scientists and others who have the capacity to see beyond the commonplace drudgery of the human condition and who through their thoughts and actions improve our way of thinking and living. These people are worthy of praise. Not worship, praise.

Why should anyone look beyond the "drudgery" of the human condition - does science always make our lives better? (ie, the atom bomb, or the technology that is devised to kill others?) Science can lead to bad things happening to the human condition. Do artists help the human condition in poverty, and starvation? What private organizations do the most to help the poor? Do we see any atheist organizations gather money and help the poor? Or is it the Christians you so disdain that do that?

BTW-

You don't hold a candle to Jesus Christ, Mr Mark.

The reason HE is worthy to be praised is that he solved the primary problem mankind has- sin- and solved it once and for all at Calvary.

I can't help you that you have made yourself the be and end all of your own pathetic world. But in your world, despite all the awful things that mankind does in it, you can't see that sin is the primary problem in the world. People's greed and desire to not love their neighbor , but themselves, and but also love GOD first, is the primary cause of the ills in this world.

There is the reason that the center of time is named A.D. - Jesus Christ is the most important man to walk the earth, and you can't fathom why.

Go figure.

I viewed Mr. Marks web pages and I thought..Well, he and I certainly were not here when dinosaurs roamed the earth. And as for his frogamander, it might just be what it was, as we might call it, but as the dino didnt survive, obviously neither did froggymander.

And that fishy. Boy, sure looks like he has fallen victim to all the glorious toxicity that the family of man has learned to produce.

And finally, the jibberish of the article about the sun on the Dawkins (go figure) web site... Our sun isnt that special...but yet is unusual among stars..having a greater mass. Isnt that something? Different...but not special. Ah, the Dawkins spin zone.

Then, I returned to On Faith just waiting for Mr. Marks next attempt to wow us.

Oh well.

>>Angela sez:

>>"However, doesn't God's word state the heart is deceitful and wicked above all things; who can understand it?"

>>Just in case anyone had forgotten how integral a well-developed sense of self loathing is to the Xian mindset, voila!

>>Thanks for reminding us, Angela.

Well, Angela certainly looks as if she has more humility (your 'self loathing') than you.

Ah, but I keep forgetting, Mr. Mark knows all and sees all in every person who believes in God. (ROFL..........ROFL.........ROFL)

BTW, humility is a decent mindset. Perhaps you could use that in some of your poetry next time so as to make it not so debase and vile.

Angela

I consider myself a serious Christian. As a serious Christian, I see the Christian disconnect with human sexuality as a devastating weakness, which makes it unacceptable in highbrow culture. I also find that lowbrow Christians, such as yourself, are just plain not very nice people, who love each other, maybe, but who are merely unlovingly polite to everyone else.

Promoting the symbols of Christianity is pointless and trivial. While I don’t like to use the word “hypocrite” to label people who aren’t really all that serious about Christianity, it is sometimes very hard for me to hold my tongue. And for a serious Christian, the proper attitude towards gay people should not be all that hard to figure out, should it? A long, long, long, lonnnng commentary is not really necessary, is it?

Your Christian beliefs are lowbrow and simple for a simple mind, and if that suits you then, swell, I guess we're both square.

Dear DITLD -

Re: your back-n-forth with Angela - I'd pay real money if she would once - just ONCE - answer one of your questions directly. She seems incapable of doing so. It's a common technique I see among the fundies...which makes me wonder if they're church-trained in the craft of making "non-responsive responses."

Hey Grouse:

Please explain how a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults is in any way analogous to pedophilia, murder, or bestiality. Why do you think such relationships cause damage to society?

Thanks.

Daniel in the Lion's Den: Does your pastor not quote scripture? Ask him to respond to this post by Cal Thomas. In addition, does your pastor have any idea of the kind of remarks you post on this website. I never claimed to know the mind of God but I know how to live my life guided by the Holy Spirit. You probably would've have despised Peter, Paul, James and John also because they called sin sin and didn't condone it. Again, no sin is worse then the other except blaspheming the Holy Spirit. You are a lukewarm christian.

I just spent some time over at the National Geographic website where I read an interesting article on a species of fish in Lake Washington near Seattle that has gone through a kind of "reverse evolution" process. Fascinating stuff.

Here: ...http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080520-fish-evolution.html...

Then, I hoped over to the New Scientist site where I read an article that says that recent research shows that our sun is NOT fine-tuned for life (as the IDers would have you think).

Here: ...http://richarddawkins.net/article,2622,Suns-properties-not-fine-tuned-for-life,New-Scientist...

Finally, I spied a story on Reuters wherein scientists have discovered a 290-million year old fossil of what they're calling a "frogamander" - a missing link between frogs and salamanders.

Here: ...http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2134298920080522...

Then, I returned to On Faith to watch as the believers in pure myth and fantasy spout off on their religious delusions.

Oh, well...

Grouse wrote: "But lets save all of the off point nonsense and set forth comments on why as a society, we should condone and in fact enshrine homosexuality as a desirable relationship unit. Why do we now throw out thousands of years of stability of society and its building blocks on what is seemingly a whim."

This may be new to you but homosexuality has been around a long time. Its even mentioned in the bible. It has been found in every society the world over, and homosexuals make up about the same percentage in every society. That points to homosexuality being a human trait and natural.

Now I agree with you that man has many traits, some not so good, and as a society we need to discourage the not so good and promote the good. But that must be done within the law and the Consitutution. Would you withhold marriage to people with genetic disease since they may pass those diseases to the next generation? The Nazis thought this would be good for their society. But we are not like Nazis. We have a Constitution, and that Consititution guarantees equality. In reference to civil marriage (the marriage license everyone gets from the state which the state uses as recognition of marriage, not the church service), the Constitution guarantees all people equal protection. Your comparisons that beastiality, pedophilia and incest are very poor choices for comparison. None involve consent.

Please read the Constitution and study it, and learn how it protects our equality and our freedoms, and understand that allowing the expression of people's love in the past has never made society weaker, whether it was interracial, inter-religious, or whatever.

Dear Angela

Since I have not quoted any scripture, I am not picking and choosing.

You are the one who is picking and choosing, and cobbling together your own personal belief system, in which you speak with God's voice.

But let me tell you, no matter how authoritatively you may speak in your impersonation of God, and in your taking the name of the Lord in vain to justify your peronal predjudices and qualifications, dreamed of inside of your own mind and heart, and untouched by the will of God, my ears are closed to you.

So, you think you are God's voice? Fine. Go ahead and speak.

Angela wrote: "...is anything that I quoted not scripturally correct or do you pick and choose what you believe from scripture? Just asking..."

I would ask you the same question. Do you pick and choose what you believe from scripture? Do you believe slaves should submit to their masters and accept a beating as deserved punishment if they do not? This is accepted practice throught the old and new testament. The only way a slave can be freed is for the master to maim the slave, like poking out the slave's eye. Jesus even congratulates a centurian on treating his slave well, instead of demanding the slave be set free (Matthew 8:5-13).

So Angela, what parts of scripture do you believe and which do you not believe, or consider wrong? If its all correct then slavery must be ok with you if you treat them well, and ok to beat them to keep them in line. If I am wrong, please show me the scripture.

Why is it that whenever anyone states their belief about homosexuality, that if it does not comport with a homosexual agenda or agree with homosexuality then it is a hate filled speech. Quit the whining. I have every right to disagree with the homosexual agenda, to believe that homosexuality is a sin and to want to discourage the behaviour. You can disagree. That is fine. Just quit changing the subject.

The issue is whether the concept of marriage, which is a societal institution (and in most faiths religious as well), and the legal and societal privileges that go along with it should be extended to other sexual relationships. It is just that. So lets try to stick to that. All the rest is just nonsense. I argue that it should not be extended because homosexuality is a disordered relationship, it is unnatural, it denys one of the basic tenets of marriage and its value to society, which is family and procreation and stability, and because treating a gay relationship on the same level as a heterosexual marriage would open the societal door to a variety of other disordered relationships including incest, bestiality, and pedophilia being given the special privilege that a proper marriage has in society. Homosexual relationships are not a good building block for a society.

In an earlier post there was much flailing around about those other relationships not being consensual. But an incest relationship could be very consensual, as could a bestiality relationship with a loving pet. People will scrunch their faces on that, and that is the same way that the issue of a homosexual "marriage" would have been viewed only 10 years ago. The passage of time does not make the disordered behaviour any more natural or proper for a healthy society. Homosexuals can have relationships, but do not ask our society to bless them or sanction them as good for society to simply accomodate a very small minority of people and a behavioural urge. It is not worthy of such treatment.

There were other posts that went on about people being born gay and therefore homosexuality being totally natural. But being born with a propensity to some wrongful behaviour means nothing. It is about what we want in society to build a strong society. People are born with a lot of propensities that we do not want or need in a society. We are called upon to not act on those behaviours that are harmful to a healthy society. I also believe that we are called upon to stay away from sinful behaviour, but at the risk of the athiest furor, lets just stay secular. There are people that are born killers too; there are people that are born with an unnatural sexual attraction to children; there are people born with all kinds of behaviour that is not good for a society, separate and apart from what you may think about sin and religion. We ask those people, as a society, to not act on certain behaviours all the time. For example, we outlaw pedophilia even though many have the "natural" urge to commit such acts. Not condoning homosexuality in a society by not giving it the special status afforded heterosexual marriage, therefore, is not denying a right to someone. It is making a decision about what is desirable in a society and what is not. Again, man has free will and homosexuals are going to have relationships. We should just not encourage such behaviour or give it a special status in our society.

Others will certainly disagree. But lets save all of the off point nonsense and set forth comments on why as a society, we should condone and in fact enshrine homosexuality as a desirable relationship unit. Why do we now throw out thousands of years of stability of society and its building blocks on what is seemingly a whim.

Angela, have you publically stoned any disobedient children? If not, are you not picking and choosing Biblical passages?

Daniel in the Lion's Den: is anything that I quoted not scripturally correct or do you pick and choose what you believe from scripture? Just asking...

Thank you again Angela, for telling us all about what is going on inside the mind of God. Otherwise, how would any of the rest of us ever know?

Excellent comments by Fate, for which I'll be surprised to see a Christian advocate response. I too have equated the Bible as being on par with Aesop's fables - there are good moral stories in the Bible. Now though after reading Fate's comments, I may just have to hold Aesop's Fables, based on its greater consistencey, in higher esteem!

Angela sez:

"However, doesn't God's word state the heart is deceitful and wicked above all things; who can understand it?"

Just in case anyone had forgotten how integral a well-developed sense of self loathing is to the Xian mindset, voila!

Thanks for reminding us, Angela.

Prophet: I believe there's always a way to speak with people in love with careful instruction. However, doesn't God's word state the heart is deceitful and wicked above all things; who can understand it? Before we come to Christ, our hearts are wicked and deceiful and we can in the flesh do things that God has commanded us not to do. Also, over and over again we are also commanded Do not love the world or anything of the world or the love of the Father is not in us which means our life should be surrendered to God not tolerance to what the world considers to be ok. God's standards are higher than ours. With disorting God's word, we deny Him as it's the same as unbelief. Charles Spuregon over one hundred years ago stated that Christianity would be on the downgrade due to our wanting to please men rather than God which in a word is called "unbelief". Again, I don't believe most Christians are unloving to homosexuals. Fornication and adultery is no better. Again, sin is sin...

Reasonable Doesn't Have A Clue sez:

"You are your own "god" and can't conceive of Him due to your own ego."

How typical.

Those who believe in imaginary gods think everyone else has to believe in some form of god, even if it means they consider themselves a god.

That's the product of an unthinking and unimaginative mind.

How about this, Reasonable: I don't believe in any gods, but I am more than impressed with the abilities of many of my fellow human beings. Artists, scientists and others who have the capacity to see beyond the commonplace drudgery of the human condition and who through their thoughts and actions improve our way of thinking and living. These people are worthy of praise. Not worship, praise.

It goes without saying that the abilities of such people far eclipse any global contribution I might be able to make to humanity. But even in my lowly state, I have a much more realistic chance of doing something meaningful for my fellow humans than any non-existent god ever will, for the simple fact that I exist and he/she/it doesn't - and that includes the imaginary deity of your particular religion.

Put simply, I would never aspire to be a god. Why would I? Who among us who takes the time to examine the childish, vengeful mindset and the brutal and arbitrary actions of ANY of the gods man has imagined for himself would aspire to become such a loathsome creature?

I say, thank god there are no gods!

Here's a thing: the "moral law" is the golden rule in the Bible. It simply sais: do to others what you want them to do to you. Calling people "wicked" because of their sexual orientation is therefore not not Christian at all. But who cares? Just as long as you can use the Bible as weapon to hit people with, instead of a scripture to contemplate on. An instead of letting that - so fragile - voice of God lead yourself to ever increasing wisdom. The total ignorance of human dignity and lack of humbleness, that is what makes a religous belief fundamentalistic.

Let's get serious marriage in this day and age is all about two people who, yes may love each other, but also can see that by entering into a legal union are signing a business deal. Nothing wrong with that but this dribble that we should concern ourselves with what the bible says is absolutely ridiculous when it is a fact that a large proportion of heterosexual marriages don't last at all. Are all the religious people making comments on this site forgetting that adultery and other unsavoury acts are ruining heterosexual marriages everyday? Let gay people get married they cant make a mess of it anymore than the heterosexual community already have.

i like this, its a good compromise, as we should have in a multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious, tolerant society. your religous text says homosexuality is evil, wicked, sinful, good for you. what should be written into law should perserve the peace and support life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. so believe as you like, preach in your church as you like, and fume over the legalization of gay marriage if you like, its all within your rights, cal.

Cal sez: "sinners will be sinners."

And it looks like bigots will be bigots.

Cal Thomas agrees with rightwing religionists everywhere---muslims, christians, hindus and jews---that homosexuality is sinful. He thinks the bible is the word of "God". Does he also agree with the christian bible that we should be executing homosexuals and other sexual "sinners"?

What in blazes is Thoams's rubbish doing in a national newspaper?

Thomas does what so many others do: quotes scripture as the word of G*d. It isn't. The Bible was written by man. You can believe in the message without assuming the words came directly from the mouth of G*d
Another issue: one can't assume that non-believers are also immoral. The two don't necessarily fit.

Mr Mark-

All I have to say is that you should look in the mirror when it comes to hate. Your elitist, hateful comments regarding "religionists" just exposes you for what you are- a hyper-atheist that disdains anything that has to do with religion and Christianity in particular. I realize I come short of what God want me to be, and will say so. You are your own "god" and can't conceive of Him due to your own ego.

It's your kind that will have "religionists" thrown into detention camps someday because you desire to teach people the "truth" about religion.

Would the Washington Post employ in any capacity someone who called people with dark skin evil? Someone who called jews evil? This is disgusting.

Burgone wrote: "He (Cal) displays a Taliban-esque tendency to ascribe immorality to things beyond his narrow Judeo /Christian perspective."

I guess that makes Cal a Caliban. I wonder how long it will take for 'Caliban' to be recognized by Webster as a word:

Cal·i·ban n. A fundamentalist Christian movement that controlled much of American moral opinion from 1955 until the end of the Bush administration in 2008, when America woke up and realized they were heading toward a theocracy based on the idiotic thoughts and moralistic elitism of Cal Thomas and others who thought biblical law should superdeed government law.

The author is the kettle calling the pot black. His hateful gay bashing is a far worse "sin" than giving equal rights to our citizens.

No, no, Stuart, Cal Thomas is right. America is highly anti-Christian. Here's a long list of examples of how that's the case:
http://skepticx.myweb.uga.edu/antixian.html
(Heh, oopsie, Mr. Thomas...)

I think we need to separate the religious view of marriage from the legal view. I think most gay people would not care whether religious people believed that God endorsed their love for their partners (those of you who are gay can way in on this).

It is the legal issue that really matters. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. So there has to be a reason to deny such protection to gay people. What is a valid reason to do so?

Advocates for banning gay marriage argue that such marriages threaten heterosexual marriage and families? How so? This seems to be unsubstantiated. how many readers feel that their marriages are worse off now that gay people can marry in California?

Others argue that the purpose of marriage is to have children and that children are better off raised by a father and a mother. But marriage isn't about children. Legal marriage requires governments and people procreated long before there were governments. People marry today without having children. so having children is not a requirement for marriage, nor would we want to legislate that only those who have children can be legally married.

Child rearing is a non-issue as well. Gay couples cannot have children biologically. So they have to adopt kids. the courts can decide independently whether a child would be well off in a gay household. This does not require that gays be banned from marriage.

Some posters in this blog have opined that gay marriage is a sin and should be banned for that reason. According to the 10 commandments, so is worshipping false gods (yet this is actually Constitutionally protected), dishonoring your parents, telling ANY sort of lie, working on the Sabbath, and coveting thy neighbor's wife. Do we want each of these to be banned by law as well? It seems that the test of which sins should be legally banned (such as murder or theft) and which should not come down to whether such sins harm society.

For all of the "hate the sin" and "it's not natural to be gay" talk in this blog, no one has come up with an argument why gay marriage (not gay adoption of children, which is a separate discusson and not one related to the recent California Supreme Court decision) in and of itself is harmful to society. For this challenge, I need more than "it threatens the sanctity of marriage". An unsubstantiated claim will not do. You have to show why gays should be treated differently under the laws of man. If you want to argue because homosexuality goes against God, you have to then justify why it is the American government's obligation to uphold the Bible when separation of church and state is Constitutionally mandated and why the government has the obligation to be selective in which sins to outlaw.

Finally, to those who invoke the argument that we live in a democracy and the majority oppose gay marriage, I point out that the Constitution protects the minority from "the tyranny of the majority" under the 14th Amendment. That is the protection we have from all forms of discrimination.

What I find most immoral about Mr. Thomas' argument is that "the moral law" is only that which can be found in the "Bible". (I put the term "Bible" into quotations, because Catholics and Protestants cannot even agree on which texts they consider sacred.)

In Mr. Thomas' world, only those who adhere to Biblical teachings are "moral". By extension, followers of other religions are at best "amoral" if not "immoral". While this is a perfectly normal way of looking at things in a theocracies like Iran, Saudi Arabia or Vatican City, it is at odds with a pluralistic, democratic society.

My understanding of "moral law" is that it transcends religious differences (e.g. the "Golden Rule" -- treat your neighbor as your would like to be treated -- is found in all religions). Mr. Thomas mistakenly conflates Moral Law with sectarian teachings (e.g., should we stone adulterers? ).

He is correct, however, on one count. Those professing to be followers of Biblical teachings have a responsibility -- if only to themselves -- to practice what they preach. A question: does failure to do so make them "moral hypocrites" or "immoral hypocrites"?

As for Biblical teachings on marriage -- I'm not sure which model I prefer: Jacob with only four wives, Solomon with hundreds, or something in between like David.

Let each religion decide on what unions it will bless or castigate. The state, by contrast, confers married couples with special rights regarding taxes, immigration, legal proceedings, inheritences, etc. The state, under the equal protection clause, must make those rights available to all -- or abolish them for all.

J:"What I want is the ability to build a legally secure life with the person whom I love."

Exactly! (and true for all couples, homo- and hetero- sexual, religious or not) Why don't we disarm this entire debate by removing the word 'marriage' from government and let the religions sort out what it means. Since Cal and others insist that they get to define marriage solely by their religion, let them try. They will have to debate it with the Episcopalians, the Wiccans, and anyone else who wants to join in. Or, more likely, they just wont recognize 'marriage' unless it is done in their church.

In the mean time, lets have all couples who wish to 'marry' go to the court house to sign a civil union contract. If they want a religious connotation on top of that, they can have a wedding too. We do it already, but we conflate the legal and religious parts of marriage into one word: marriage. Lets just replace the words 'marriage license' with 'civil union contract' and separate religion from state the way it is supposed to be.

I'm sorry, in which dimension does this "increasingly secular, anti-Christian environment" exist? Certainly not in the USA, where all political candidates must publicly display their supposed religious beliefs; where television evangelism is a multi-billion dollar business; where 80% of the population claims Christianity; where the most powerful man in the world declares Jesus his personal role model? This is the environment where Christianity is under attack? What a grand delusion!

The appalling bigotry is legitimized by the Bible as The "Word": ie, of God.
Thomas et al are vulnerable here because they do not face the current research. Read Bart Ehrman;
you cannot thereafter maitain such bogus beliefs. The Bible is a collection of human writings from different times and places. Put together not by Jesus but by a politically motivated church hundreds of years later.

If Jesus wanted us to have a New Testament he would have written one.

Here's a Challenge:

I won't even begin to teach you about your own Bible.

It's embarrasing that you even have to "challenge us" on where Jehovah challenges "other gods" and where women are relegated to the status of "property" and where the KKK and others get their crazy ideas about "dark skinned people--" do you think these guys are just making this stuff up?

I'd challenge you to read "The Sins of Scripture" or any other number of books that spell things out quite nicely. Try reading Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason," generally anything by Mark Twain, lots of wonderful literature from academic theologians, there's a world of information and debate out there concerning these issues that you insist "don't exist."

Get a life.

"Cal Thomas and his ilk"

When does Ilk Season start?

"Brandine!! Fetch mah scattergun!!" - Cletus from "The Simpsons"

Good grief, this man has little wisdom! I..but,he..it doesn't..whew, I don't know where to begin. He displays a Taliban-esque tendency to ascribe immorality to things beyond his narrow Judeo /Christian perspective. I do respect his right to nail himself to his own cross, but please don't take me with you! Tell you what, go down to your local community college and take a course in Philosophy and learn something about...morality. Its quite a journey once you embark upon it. Eye opening.

"...I have come to see the overarching 'need' of homosexuals to be for society to legitimize their sexual exploits. Sorry, but there's truth there somewhere -- and I don't believe sexual exploits are good for the individual or society at large. And so is legalized gay marriage a good thing or bad thing? I'm still undecided -- but leaning toward its opposition."

I can tell you as a lesbian that I don't need marriage to legitimize my sexual exploits. This is one thing I find most annoying in the arguments of heterosexuals against marriage rights, you only see the "sex" in homosexual. If I looked at all of you through the same myopic lense, I would undoubtedly be uncomfortable too.

I can have sex with or without marriage. What I want is the ability to build a legally secure life with the person whom I love. I want to be able to have her inherit mutual property without concern in the event of my death. I want her to be able to see me and make medical decisions without question in the event that I am incapacitated and need care at a medical facility. I want to be able to file a joint tax return. I want my kids to be able to stay with their parent without the interference of the state or mean spirited relatives in the event one of us dies. I'd like her to get my social security if I die.

The list goes on and on and on and on and yet the debate keeps going back to the Bible. I don't care what you believe, your faith is your faith. The government can't make your church do something it does not wish to do. I also find it very hard to believe that a county clerk is doing God's work.

This country was founded on the idea of the rule of law that takes into account the idea of compelling societal interest. Despite evangelical scare mongering, allowing two non-related, consenting adults to enter into a legal union regardless of sexual orientation isn't going to hurt society and it isn't going to turn more kids gay. As an American, I want and deserve the legal protection of marriage.

It must be said, once and for all, to those who are simply too stupid, uptight, bigoted or afraid of change to consider it, that gay marriage is not about legitimizing gay sex! It's about legitimizing gay love. For each of you ignorant fools who have the temerity to announce that you "know gay people" or have "gay friends," I posit that you do not know the first thing about true friendship, and you certainly know nothing about gay people. Trust me when I tell you that they do NOT need the state to validate their sexual activities. That's a given. Gay marriage is about state-recognized, stable, committed loving relationships. Exactly the kind of thing, if you believe Cal, the state has an interest in promoting. To call a gay relationship a civil union and a straigh relationship a marriage is illogical, and a useless distinction without a difference. They are exactly the same. Either relationship will live or die solely on the commitment of the two people involved. Marriage is only sacred if the two people in one think so, and act accordingly. Otherwise, their just roommates with benefits. The state has no dog in that race. It is the hubris and sanctomoniousness of those who somehow must feel that their status as heterosexaul makes them more valuable and more favored members of society that makes the rest of us so sick to our collective stomachs. Get over yourselves!! Your heterosexuality is irrelevant. And if there is a God, and I haven't reached any conclusions on that, I doubt seriously if he/she/it gives a damn one way or another.

Bravo Cal! Another steaming pile of dreck whose half-baked logic is only exceeded by the awkwardness of your prose.
You, like most Evangelical reactionary wingnuts, fail to grasp that we live in a secular society where all religions are tolerated and none are preferred. Therefore, marriage in our society is a purely legal construct which often coincides with a religious ceremony. Thus, the definition of marriage in the United States is whatever the government of the people says it is. In some areas, the people have decided at one time or another for some space of time that marriage should be legal between to individuals of the same sex and passed a law to this effect. This is a perfectly legitimate, and reasonable act of representative government under our constitution.

You, of course, have the right to oppose any law you like, but you don't get to unilaterally declare that a legal definition of marriage is contrary to the "true" definition of marriage and is therefore invalid. You are not a government, and the rest of the people are not bound by any obligation to respect your definitions of legal constructs such as marriage.

I'm quite thankful for this, as I would really hate to imagine what living in a republic of Cal would be like.

Well, OK, so, fine... you've pointed out that homosexuality is prohibited by the Bible. Call me crazy, but I think most of us already knew that.

The problem you've got hold of, though, is that that's not pertinent to the question of whether gay marriage should be legalized, at least in the United States. Ours is a fundamentally secular nation, as the Constitution makes quite clear, and that being the case, laws cannot be passed on the basis of any religious doctrine.

As others have pointed out, many other things are forbidden in the Bible, eating shellfish and shaving being two of the sillier ones. But you can't use religion to justify passing a law requiring men to wear beards, either. At least, not here. Afghanistan under the Taliban did have such a law.

It is the bigoted, hate-filled, and backward who are "sinful and wicked." May we be delivered of them, their hypocracy, their infantile reliance on myth as fact, and their out and out lies sooner, rather than later.

"I am a human being, therefore, nothing human is foreign to me." ~Terentius (190-160 B.C.)

I trust no god who shuns his own creation, dismissing them as "sinners". Gays are human, gay rights activists are human, murderers and women who get abortions are human and are 99.99999% identical to me and you. No ancient text can tell me they are sinners. if that were true, i would also be going to hell.

Mr. Thomas,

You probably don't remember me but we met during your time at Liberty Baptist College (now LU). I was the product of a Southern Baptist home, Baptist HS, and Baptist College.

Yet I turned out to be Gay. It's not a choice and anyone who says so is lying. When the Genetics are finally proven, the church is going to have egg on it's face. Just as they did for calling epileptics demon possesed or left handed people child of the devil.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with religion, it has more to do with a group of people seeking the same rights that other people can acquire late at night and drunk in Las Vegas (look at Brittney).

I also found it very interesting in the Terry Schivo case, the man was her husband. Under the sanctity of marriage (as you deem it) he should have been the deciding voice. Not one conservative chose to mention that fact.

Until Marriage is dealt with (as in most countries) as a civil event, this inane debate will continue. Get married at the JP for the state, get married in YOUR church, synagoge, or back yard for religious purposes.

I pay more than my fare share of taxes. I actually subsidize your children. Yet I am denied the same rights as you?

If my partner of many years died tomorrow, I would not receive his pension because we are both men? Now that's fair.

Leon McRorie

Heres a Challenge wrote: "I challenge you to find where in the Bible it states that there are "gods" or that African Americans and women are less than full people. I challenge those of you who like to quote the Bible to actually read the Bible."

I've read the bible. I've read where it states slavery is ok and slaves should submit to their masters, even if treated badly:
“Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" (1 Peter 2:18).
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ" (Ephesians 6:5).

The bible also says you can sell your daughter into slavery:
“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:7-10).

Considering the things the bible says I can do, should I adhere to what it says? Should I keep slaves? Should I sell my daughter into slavery? And if not, then why not?

It seems obvious to me that christian people cherry pick what they want from the bible. If they are against slavery, they ignore the biblical passages saying its ok. If they are against homosexuals, they find the biblical passages condemning it while ignoring other passages which describe it but do not condemn it:
Ruth 1:16-17, 1 Samuel 18:1-4, Daniel 1:9.

I agree, people should read their bible, in its entirety. Only then will they realize its contradictions, its shifting of positions, its disconnect with reality and science, and many of its unenlightened views. The bible has some wisdom, but I prefer Aesop's fables because they are acknowledged to be fables unlike many biblical stories, they are short and to the point, they do not contradict, and they generally follow the Golden Rule and provide as much if not more wisdom than the bible. So try reading Aesop instead. It might make you a wiser and better person.

I can't believe you actually got paid to write this piece.

I fundamentally don't understand the insistence on using the Bible to justify anything. At its best, the Bible is written to make sense to people of an earlier time and at its worst, it is fiction. I'd be more inclined to listen to your points, Cal, if you'd base them in logical reasoning instead of on the Bible. But when you (or anyone) starts quoting the Bible (or any other writings purportedly the work of a divine being), I just hear BLAHBLAHBLAH. You might as well be barking or making bird sounds. I appreciate that the Bible is very important to Christians, but the world is made up of people with all kinds of varied backgrounds, and the Bible just isn't important to some of us.

If you are trying to convert people to your point of view on gay marriage, you'll have to find ways to reach out to and sway them that aren't based in the Bible. I'd venture to guess that most conservative Christians already agree with you. In other words, a piece like this preaches to the choir. But maybe that's really all you want to do. To be honest, if I could get paid for writing rants about things my community already believes, I would totally do it too.

Marriage existed long before Christianity and Judaism, though admittedly the morals surrounding it were different depending on the culture. It will exist long after both religions and their baggage, disappear from this earth, check in another 2,000 years. The concept is usually intertwine with whatever religion de-jour is going on at the time. Yet it really has nothing to do with religion, simply the natural pattern of behavior for a social animal.

You ask me christians and jews should spend more time banning pork and bacon as the bible clearly states eating pig is wrong too. Also we should execute the owners of 7-11 for keeping their stores open on the days of rest. While we are at it lets bring back the stoning of adulterers, starting with all the politicians who have had affairs, George can go first.

I am as non-religious as they come. I don't believe in God, I don't believe in the Bible, Jesus, etc. Yet, I am married. To many, many people, marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion.

Don't you just love these conservative hypocrites! With them it's always, "Keep the government out of our lives"....unless, of course, you're gay, or colored, or non-Christian, or a feminist. Then the government should break down the bedroom door and 'save' those poor, ignorant heathens for their own good! Well, Cotton Mather, I have good news for you: First, God created us in His own image...with a penis, with a clitoris, and with an anus. Then God looked at all He had created--including all those penises, clitorises, and anuses--and said that they were "good". My God, the one true God, is a god of Love. Unfortunately, you follow a false god, the god of Hate.

Former Catholic and many others simply miss the point. It isn't about hating the sinner, we are ALL sinners, it's about hating the sin. What Steven calls "hollow rhetoric" probably wouldn't apply as such if the sin was say, his wife's infidelity. There ARE, despite the attempts of many to deny it, moral absolutes. More simply put, there is RIGHT and WRONG. The bigger argument here is the moral relativism that pervades modern thinking.

I have known many homosexual people, many of them fine people, some not (not any different than heterosexual people). Many I consider friends, but that doesn't make their lifestyle "OK". To paint all people who disagree with homosexuality as simply "haters" is disingenuous and wrong.

Marriage is a religious sacrement and therefore should not be acknowledged by the state at all. If a church as a private institution does not want to let gays marry, fine, but no federal sponsorship/funding of any kind shall be given. All the state should do is issue documentation of civil unions; regardless of the gender involved. If it is a union of two taxpaying adults; that's all the state should care about. If the couple then decides to get married as well, it's up to them and their church. It's ridiculous to argue about this at all, and saying that we'll be punished by God for letting gays marry is ridiculous as well. Following along the lines of that same type of "punitive action" argument you could just as easily point to all the strife currently in our country and say that the cause was DENYING gays the right to marry, as everything seems to have gone downhill quickly over the last four years since many states put the issue into voting referendums. Again, it's people with no grasp of simple logic, correlation does NOT always equal causation. You could just as easily link any two causes or effects that coincide; a common practice in the middle ages.

Why is this person even paid to write for newspapers? Oh, because this is America.

Yes, Daniel in the Den. And one was my brother. I cared for him for several months while he slowly died of AIDS. ... I think I'm allowed an opinion.

Ali Ragıp Baltali wrote: "Individuals if they decide in same sex marriage they have to consider reaction of society. I thing they should prefer coexistence."

This type of thinking was used to keep women from voting, to keep blacks from voting, to keep blacks out of white neighborhoods, to prevent interracial marriages, to keep schools segregated, to keep women out of executive positions, etc, etc, etc... Its this type of thinking that established Jim Crow laws in the south, and apartheid in South Africa. Its this type of tinking that maintains oppression and lack of freedoms all around the world.

The Constitution does not state that a person's rights can be ignored to maintain a coexistance. Freedom and liberty are the cornerstones of American society and are DEMANDED by the Constitution. Remarks like your's ask that we ignore the Constitutional protections of equality and equal protection, and just accept ingrained bigotry and ignorance. That is very unAmerican of you.

Thankfully fewer and fewer people are taking your kind of thinking seriously, Cal. May the revolution continue!

"I would challenge anyone with harsh criticims of gay unions to meet and befriend someone who is gay."

I offer my own challenge. I challenge you to find where in the Bible it states that there are "gods" or that African Americans and women are less than full people.

I challenge those of you who like to quote the Bible to actually read the Bible.

"I would challenge anyone with harsh criticims of gay unions to meet and befriend someone who is gay."

I offer my own challenge. I challenge you to find where in the Bible it states that there are "gods" or that African Americans and women are less than full people.

I challenge those of you who like to quote the Bible to actually read the Bible.

"I would challenge anyone with harsh criticims of gay unions to meet and befriend someone who is gay."

I offer my own challenge. I challenge you to find where in the Bible it states that there are "gods" or that African Americans and women are less than full people.

I challenge those of you who like to quote the Bible to actually read the Bible.

Cal, you wrote... "The state has an interest in preserving social order to 'promote the general welfare.'"

Wouldn't promoting stable long-term relationships among homosexuals help preserve social order?

A familiar verse from the Bible, John 3:16, states, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Sounds easy enough, but unfortunately the following verses point out human depravity and wickedness:

Verses 17 and 18: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begottin Son of God."

Verses 19 and 20 then state, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be repoved."

What is this "light"? I encourage you to go back to the beginning of the book of John. Read through the entire book of John. Find out for yourself from an eye witness what kind of a man Jesus was and what kind of God we serve.

A familiar verse from the Bible, John 3:16, states, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Sounds easy enough, but unfortunately the following verses point out human depravity and wickedness:

Verses 17 and 18: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begottin Son of God."

Verses 19 and 20 then state, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be repoved."

What is this "light"? I encourage you to go back to the beginning of the book of John. Read through the entire book of John. Find out for yourself from an eye witness what kind of a man Jesus was and what kind of God we serve.

A familiar verse from the Bible, John 3:16, states, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Sounds easy enough, but unfortunately the following verses point out human depravity and wickedness:

Verses 17 and 18: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begottin Son of God."

Verses 19 and 20 then state, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be repoved."

What is this "light"? I encourage you to go back to the beginning of the book of John. Read through the entire book of John. Find out for yourself from an eye witness what kind of a man Jesus was and what kind of God we serve.

Why homosexuals can't get married, and why it's so challenging to aknowledge their rights:

We live in a Christian theocracy.

Not on paper, but in practice:

-Close ties between elected officials and their powerful religious advisors, including lobbying and financial political support.

-10 Comandmants in and around courts and other offices of justice - with accompanying lawsuits to have them put back if removed. Can anyone point to a case where verses from the Holy Quran, or Torrah or Talmud or Lotus (or any other) Sutra were displayed,removed, and lawsuits prompted their return?

-Notice how most businesses and alcohol sales close on Sunday? Wouldn't it make more sense (and money) to operate all 7 days of the week? Enterprises where it *would* be less profitable to operate 7 days are granted exception, of course.

-Restrained, unarmed people killed by the state (a biblical punishment). You can call it capital punishment, but when the state does it, it's no longer self defense - usually many, many years after the fact - and not all "Capital Crimes" are murder.

Can anyone justify why they SHOULDN'T? It's much more difficult to justify a negative.

Myself (look for RCG below) and others have refuted the 'it's not natural' arguement. If you say they shouldn't be allowed a state/government equality because it's a SIN, you are advocating a THEOCRACY.

HAROLD: Cite your verses! You have before said you don't want to 'muddy up' the Word with your commentary or interpretation. Guess what? Being selective about what verse you use IS commentary, especially when you do not provide citation for others to look it up. How do I know you're not making it up? Ye I say unto you: It is not hard to writeth in Biblespeak, for without yon citation, I can claimest verse forever and ever.

Bible; Slavery good, homosexual acts bad.

constitution: slavery bad, homosexual acts protected as free speech/expression.

So, are we a nation of laws?

Or a theocracy?

cant have it both ways.

>>BTW - check out the non-human animal kingdom where you'll find plenty of homosexual activity

Had a neighbor kid once that taught his dog the jamaica j. o. ...go figure.

care to provide some pictures?

(What DOES this guy do with his time?)

How some enity ("god" sic) who mass murdered a planet can have moral authoruty over what I do in bed is beyond me. This enity also allowed his son to commit suicide,( can hear the holy grails dropping all over the country) and in the Bibles second Peter (the non sexual one)said he/she's going to come back. "like a thief in the night" and once again commit mass murder by burning down the neighborhood and only the blood thirsty will survive. And all I want to do is worship the "creation" (romans) in particular my partner of 24 years. Wheres the (blood sorry) love???? Yes the 95 % may be mentally ill or at the least with border line personality discorders.

So Steve, you have personally known "a few" gays; how nice for you.

The Bible doesn't apply, and certainly isn't binding, except maybe to religious marriages. You "might as well attempt to impose the rules of baseball on a basketball game". The same goes for its pronouncements on sin, or anything else really.

Religion is a human invention to cope with Death and Sex. Death and Sex are two Life issues that humans find they need coping skills with. Religion provides "answers." Christians have their Bible. Muslims have their Koran. All religious folks have Beliefs that stem, they insist, from God, the Almighty, who is In Charge, and determines what is and what is NOT moral. That puts religious folks in charge of seeing to it that God's Will prevails. It is their morality, not God's, that they seek to impose. The Conservative mind loves the idea of Authority. It comforts them to have an Authority to refer to on questions of morality. It charges them up to be an Authority. Once God "says" something, that is it. No more discussion. Mind closed. Nailed shut.

I'm amazed how something (god sic)that mass murdered a world can be call a moral authority over my bed time behavior.

Cal Thomas and his ilk act like the Bible created the marriage of the 1950's--Ozzie & Harriet, Ward & June, Fred & Ethel. But marriage in the Bible was not static--back to the patriarchs it was polygamist, largely for the purposes of consolidating power and property (and wives and daughters were property). When Christian fundamentalist wring their hands at the social mores of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and the other "backward" cultures of the middle east--they should remember it's largely the same mores of our Judeo-Christian antecedents of 2500 years ago.

I'm amazed how something (god sic)that mass murdered a world can be call a moral authority over my bed time behavior.

I'm amazed how something (god sic)that mass murdered a world can be call a moral authoruty over my bed time behavior.

I find the blogs in disagreement with Cal's views especially acerbic. I'd like to consider this and other issues with an open-mind. Sadly, it's a volatile issue. But those favoring gay marriage on this blog really need to tone down their rhetoric and say something that's more intelligent and that wisely conveys their views. ... Finally, having personally known some gays (both family and friends), I have come to see the overarching "need" of homosexuals to be for society to legitimize their sexual exploits. Sorry, but there's truth there somewhere -- and I don't believe sexual exploits are good for the individual or society at large. And so is legalized gay marriage a good thing or bad thing? I'm still undecided -- but leaning toward its opposition.

İf god stipulated the marriage between two sex,believers have to follow his orders.İf individuals desire to make same sex marriage,authorities I thing have the right to deter them from this decision Individuals if they decide in same sex marriage they have to consider
reaction of society.I thing they should prefer coexistence.

oh jezus mother maria cal, go and get a new toupee and perhaps you will be able to find (same?) sex too!!! remember cal when i met you in jail and told you"RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES"! remember this cal and lets do away with all those scams and jezus frauds its total hokus/pokus!

Thomas is a warmonger--

who thinks he can lecture about "sin"?

How "Fox News" of him,

how Republican.

Thomas is a warmonger--

who thinks he can lecture about "sin"?

How "Fox News" of him,

how Republican.

Cal I think your picture says it all...

GaaaAaay!
lol, just kidding, well not really.
That Picture is just SO perfect for this topic.

"Judge not lest ye be judged"

I won't spend much time wondering what sins you will bring before your maker, but I suspect the time you have spent self adulating and condemning others will be a heavy heavy burden.

The word "marriage" has several meanings. One is that of Christian sacrament. It belongs in the church. Another meaning is that of an act done by the state, that involves a bundle of legal rights that deal with such matters as property ownership and child guardianship. There is nothing whatsoever in common between these two things. You have to be a Christian to participate in a Christian sacrament. You don't have to be a Christian to be married by the laws of any state.

Christians should have no problem with any people making an agreement with the state regarding their property, children, etc. It's really not our concern at all; if anything, we should probably be advocating for the wider availability of those bundle of rights to prevent some of the injustices that happen under our current legal system, where, for example, one partner dies and the other partner does not get custody of their children.

But Christians often confuse these two forms of marriage. One way to fix this would be to use two different words for them. It has been proposed to use the term "civil union" for gay marriage, but frankly, I'd like to see the term used for any "marriage" conducted by the state. Then the term "marriage" could remain in its original meaning, which involves a religious sacrament.

I agree with Thomas' point about hypocrisy. Christianity does have a message about sexual morality. But until I see Christians being as spitting nails about adultery and fornication, I'll have a hard time listening to them talk about homosexuality.

Seeing a column like this in the Washington Post is shocking - shocking good. Bout time.

Homosexuals will say anything to justify their deviant behavior. They have this knack of resorting to name calling when someone does not accept their lifestyle. All I have to say is YUK.

.
Those holding to the Generative argument, look around you. In my lifetime we have gone from under 2B to what 6.8B people on 5/22/08 "Human Generativeness" is a real BIG problem on the 3rd rock. I chose not to have children for this reason.

There are way too many of us for the Earth's good and for our own sanity. We are one of the only species to live after our child-bearing years. I believe the "god" did that is for a reason.

Priests of all stripes promote child-bearing to increase their tribe over others without consideration for the overall effect. That worked OK for about 10,000 years but it doesn't work anymore. With current world populations, breeding is counter-productive for the species as a whole.
.

As has once been said... "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals, and three hundred and sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals. It doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals, but that they need more supervision."

Certainly, Mr. Thomas is entitled to his opinions. Just as many of the comments here are equally entitled to point out the massive hypocrisies in his missives. As one who is a former Christian, is a Republican, but maintains the right and freedom to think and formulate his beliefs independent of some religious text, I have yet to see any problem or issue when it comes to homosexuality. Marriage is one of those 'issues' that is a non-issue to me, and that all of the complaints that I hear are strictly based on religious indoctrination, and not on reality or on solid facts.

Or to phrase it as I once recall... "Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to have to deal with the pain and agony of marriage?"

What Cal Thomas calls a sinner is not correct according to the Word. A sinner is one who rejects the LORD and worships, loves, and serves the serpent. They are the children of the living God. Cal is a pure bred, he preaches the gospel to every creature.

“Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.”

But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

“Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole.”

“Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel.”

“the dumb to speak”
“the maimed to be whole”
“lame to walk”
“blind to see”

Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

“be preached throughout the whole world”

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

“Go ye into all the world”
“preach the gospel to every creature.”

“Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.”

“whatsoever Adam called every living creature”
“Eve; because she was the mother of all living.”
“out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field”
“the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field”

And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.

"I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets"
“the sinner shall be taken by her.”

My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause: Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:

“if sinners entice thee, consent thou not”
“swallow them up alive as the grave”
“whole”
“as those that go down into the pit”

And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

“Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.”

“the days of vengeance”
“until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”
“sinners of the Gentiles”
“Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led”
“Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils”
“the sinner shall be taken by her.”
“Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.”
“Eve; because she was the mother of all living.”
“whatsoever Adam called every living creature”
“out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field”
“the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field”

Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people: cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth.
And it shall come to pass, if they say unto thee, Whither shall we go forth? then thou shalt tell them, Thus saith the Lord; Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for the famine, to the famine; and such as are for the captivity, to the captivity.
And I will appoint over them four kinds, saith the Lord: the sword to slay, and the dogs to tear, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the earth, to devour and destroy.

“I will appoint over them four kinds”
“the sword to slay”- “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God”
“the dogs to tear”- “from the power of the dog”
“the fowls of the heaven”- “harmless as doves”
“the beasts of the earth”- “I send you forth as sheep”
“to devour and destroy”- “ye therefore wise as serpents”

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.

“worshipped and served the creature”

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

"corruptible man, birds, fourfooted beasts,and creeping things"

birds
“So went Satan forth smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.”
“the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot”
“blessings of the deep that lieth under”
“the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills”
“David my father, the wars which were about him on every side, until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet.”
“all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet”

, fourfooted beasts
“deliver my soul from the wicked”
“which is thy sword”
“Deliver my soul from the sword”
“from the power of the dog”
“the blood of thine enemies”
“the tongue of thy dogs in the same”
“swords are in their lips”

creeping things
“out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field”
“the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field”
“Eve; because she was the mother of all living.”
“whatsoever Adam called every living creature”

The hell with you Thomas and you're kind of God. You're an ignorant bigot and no different than bigots in white sheets.

Engaging Cal Thomas in this kind of debate is destructive in itself. Let's take away such powerful forums for bigots to justify their fear and hatred of difference.

As always, Mr Thomas sets himself up as judge of mankind. He was fired as a newsreader from KPRC-TV, the NBC affiliate here in Houston, for making bigoted remarks during the news. Whenever a black person was named as a suspect in a crime, he always made some racist remark, has always characterized homosexuals as "deviants" and "child molestors". In other words he's always been a sanctimonious bigot and doesn't mind hiding behind religion to justify his biases. His opinion on gays is about as worthless as a tailor's opinion on the design of the space shuttle. In other words, he's totally useless and a disgrace to respectable Christians. May God be more merciful to Mr. Thomas than Mr. Thomas would be to those of us of whom he disapproves!

I think Cal hates gays because he is hetero but looks very gay.

Cal, it is true that oral sex falls off exponentially after the wedding day and reaches an ansymtopic steady state of one to two a year after the third year. If my wife and me were to quit this practice now, as well as eating the sinful shellfish, can we still be saved? If not, I will be using the Bible as toilet paper and will try to convince my wife to re-engage!

Mr. Mark says: "Now, are Cal and others saying that the only sexual activity that the Bible condones is vaginal intercourse between a married man and a woman? Are they saying that even straights cannot engage in any kind of oral sex?"

Damn, I'm going to hell. Well, what the f. Let the carnival begin, every pleasure every sin!

There is no God, so therefore he/she couldn't constitute anything. That means you will have to make up your own mind about things and take full responsibility for the impact it may have on others' lives. You can not take refuge behind or blame a God or a book. You have to be nice, sincere, good and human all by yourself.

Cal, I don't see how your religous based arguments differ from those used to justify other forms of discrimination. Why should any of us bother who loves whom and what form that takes? Surely a society with people in loving relationships is better than one where a significant proportion are denied that opportunity.

Where does an uncredentialed hack get off calling ANYTHING sin? And if gay marriage constitutes sin what of Cal's own determined racism? Calling something a sin when you have an advanced degree in theology is disingenuous. Calling something a sin with no theological education past Sunday School is idiotic.

Sinners at Dupont Circle, Repent!

Cal,

Get some help. I am a retired, decorated Marine Corps combat veteran with over 30 years service. My next door neighbors are a lesbian couple, my best friends, and they raised three beautiful kids together. I commissioned one in the Marine Corps last year. Decent people are decent people, no matter who they love. And they raise great kids. And I, for one, am proud to be their friend and to have had a chance to know them. Get off it. We need to respect and protect relationships like this. Semper Fidelis

Cal- It's bigotry like yours, wrapped in selective scripture, that drove me out the Republican Party. I trush that your wife walks 10 steps behind you, you own slaves, and you don't eat shellfish - additional nonsense contained in your literal Bible. When your party leaves the bedroom, and respects privacy, I will return. You, of course, will then have to leave.

Papal:

Your argument assumes that "generative" is what we are expected or even required to aspire to. But many heterosexual couples do not aspire to be generative. Infertility and willful contraception certainly do invalidate your argument. The only way your argument could hold is if we required married couples to be generative, or converseley, if we outlawed or dissolved couples that did not want or could not be generative. Marriage is about accepting rights and responsibilities, but being generative is not one of them.

Actually, many lesbians who want kids use sperm from friends or from sperm banks, just as straight women do. These women have just as much potential to be generative as women in heterosexual relationships, married or not.

Non-religious people do not make such arguments, so I can only conclude that yours is a weak attempt to justify religious bigotry.

Wow - I truly hope the Washington Post will be so kind as to have the KKK offering advice about inter-racial marriage soon. Why is such blatant bigotry against glbt people still acceptable in an award-winning national publication?

"even anti-Christian environment..."

Ever since Jesus, Christians have insisted that they are continually being persecuted. Even now, in this Christian-majority country, people are deluded enough to utter this sort of stupidity. Yes, poor Christians, they're all being persecuted... I mean, look at the religions of elected officials and presidents!

It's not as though a candidate for president has to defend himself against false rumors that he is Muslim... I mean, a Muslim could be easily elected president, right?

Obviously the author has a persecution complex. Fine, but it's too bad he insists on trying to persecute others, too. Leave the laws of your God up to Him (or Her, if you prefer). If you have a problem with gays, don't be gay. Don't marry a gay.

As to the question of state intervention, if people like this are so opposed, then we need to do away with state marriage altogether. Let churches do what they want, but the state shouldn't endorse this obvious inequality. Folks who hold beliefs like this will be seen in the future just like people who used the bible to justify laws against inter-racial marriages.

Papal wrote: "Here is the strongest and best argument against "gay marriage": "gay marriage" is contraceptive by design. As an institution, it cannot bring new life into the world, its union is fruitless by design."

So... Do married people have to have children? If you do not have children, say, within 5 years, is your marriage dissolved? Is a woman or man who cannot conceive barred from getting married? Are post-menopausal women prevented by law from getting married?

If this is the "strongest and best argument", you might as well give it up and allow gays to get married. I mean, I have not been following the subject much over the past few years, but I thought there was more to the opposition's position than that. I guess when your position is based on bigotry caused by strict religious principles, it is hard to make your arguments sound like they are based on logic and reason.

And the self-righteous will be self-righteous.

"they invent ways of being self-righteous."

Are all of those verses from the King James version of the Bible? Should we be worshiping King James? The last place you should go for advice is a book written by man with "chapters" selected by corrupt priests or monarchs. The Golden Rule applies. Love thy neighbor as you would be loved.

Here is the strongest and best argument against "gay marriage"

"gay marriage" is contraceptive by design. As an institution, it cannot bring new life into the world, its union is fruitless by design.

Marriage by design is generative. It brings new life. This is true overall. Infertility doesn't invalidate this and even individual acts of conscious contraception don't invalidate this.

MARRIAGE IS GENERATIVE. "GAY MARRIAGE" IS TERMINAL.

This whole challenge to Christianity is to get us to think again about love, marriage, sex and children.

Cherie,

I am a heterosexual who has chosen not to breed. And I know someone who is barren. And another who did not marry until after menopause. None of us will have children. And yet, I see lots of children around. It seems that different people are able to live their lives differently and life goes on. Many of us (humans) want to have babies. That's ok with me. A few of us don't. Why can't that be ok with you? With all the birth controls used by xtians and non-xtians alike, do you really think very many people think sex is ONLY for procreation? And yet, the babies keep coming. Hell, you should be glad we aren't breeding so we can't pass down our non-breeding "lifestyle" to more people and over-run you breeders.

Your comment, "If everyone..." belies that you have a problem with tolerance of views other than yours. What are you afraid of? Is your concept of your self so precarious that you must stamp out this minority behavior lest you somehow become enamored with the Non-Breeder Agenda? Do you think infertility should be made illegal? Condoms and other birth control? Your argument certainly covers all those bases.

And I must respond to your confusion of "the earth" with "the human race". If the human race died out, "the earth" would continue just fine. We may use up all it's resources and die out that way. But the 3rd rock would continue to fly around the sun and the cockroaches would find a way to survive. And maybe sentience would re-evolve after the earth breathes it's sigh of relief at our absence and replenishes itself.

Not normal...not natural...fails to contribute to continuation of the human species...destabilizing to society...so many terms by which bigots will try to justify their bigotry.

What is normal? By definition, something that represents the norm, whatever is most common. People who skydive are not common. People who marry others outside of their race or religion are not so common. But we don't legislate against these practices because they have no intended victims and are an expression of human desires and individual freedoms. This diversity contributes to the greatness of a free society.

What is natural? Driving cars is not natural. Getting breast implants is not natural. Yet we don't legislate against these practices because they have no intended victims and are an expression of human desires and individual freedoms. This diversity contributes to the greatness of a free society.

What kinds of relationships contribute to continuation of the human species? Couples that are childless by choice or by inability do not. Yet we don't legislate against these relationships because they have no intended victims and are an expression of human desires and individual freedoms. On the other hand, couples, gay or straight, that take on the responsibilities of parenthood do. Marriage provides a context for procreation, but certainly doesn't require it.

What kinds of relationships destabilize society? This is perhaps the only relevant question, and the point where the bigots' argument fails entirely. How can it destabilize society to promote committed relationships? Seems like the opposite would be the case--give people rights along with responsibilities that will tend to promote stability in relationships and you will contribute to more socially stable communities.

The only point of instability in such communities will come from religious zealots who think that everyone is required to act according to their religious beliefs. Perhaps we should legislate against the destabilization created by such bigotry.

>>If marriage is so sacred, how come the divorce rate in this country is 50% across the board?

Marriage is sacred. Human beings have just been led to think/believe/act/be otherwise.

As if 'marriage' is the 'reason' for 'divorce'?

Sorry, but that is just an unbelievable question.

It is amazing that some think we are so much more enlightened in this age we live in. With a question like above, I can see we have regressed...big time.

Brambleton wrote: "The point is, laws are predominantly the result of our moral judgment." We, as a people, determine those things that we wish to have upheld and vindicated, and they are transcribed into law."

That is true in most countries and in this one, to an extent, but that is not the end of making a law. Laws cannot violate the Constitution and can be challenged when the appear to.

Brambleton wrote: "Laws existed (and still do exist) that marriage is between a husband and a wife. Our moral compass is now beginning to point to a system of tolerance and non-judgmental attitudes."

What is happening is that the laws are being found to conflict with the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Just as laws that prohibited women from voting did, just as laws that prohibited blacks from voting did, just as laws that prohibited mixed marriages did, just as laws invoking segregation did, just as laws outlawing where blacks could live did, etc...

Brambleton wrote: "Which, of course, leads to chaos. Can't wait!!"

The other laws, when struck down, lead to more freedom and equality. Maybe you should consider that the tyranny of the homophobic majority is what the Constitution protects gay people from. And that in 50 years after gay marriage is legal you might just look at a gay married couple just as you look at integrated schools or a mixed race marriage today, and wonder what the fuss was all about.

The "sin" of homosexuality is equal to the sin of eating shellfish as according to leviticus. So the next time you eat shrimp Cal just imagine it as a penis.

I used to be a conservative. I even liked Cal at one time. I don't know what the hell I am anymore. I voted for Bush - twice - but now I will vote for Obama. I also want gays to have the same freedoms and privileges as every other citizen. Bye bye to conservatism as it is today. Define conservatism as something better and I may come back.

"there is no biblical expectation that those who do not believe in God will follow the ways of God. One might as well attempt to impose the rules of baseball on a basketball game."

do some research. See how many people in prison call themselves Atheist. It is nonexistent. So people who are calling themselves christians are doing the raping and murdering and looting in our society. Come to think of it, there's also a lot of those activites in the bible. Besides, do these criminals not know they are doing wrong in the eyes of god. and since god has been around as long as those who flout is supposed will, i'd say his book isn't working. reexamine your premise, and i think that if you apply any logic to it, your argument will collapse. then again, that always happens with religion. which is why atheists are criticized for questioning people's most deeply held and most ridiculous beliefs.

so no, we who do not believe in god will not follow a nonexistent entity's illogical system of law. we will use our logic- man's greatest ability and society's only true master

This is supposed to be a political comment, by a political columnist?

I think he's lost his way.

Our politics in the U.S. are clear: there is no such thing as a national (or state) religion. Therefore, to quote Bible as a basis for "sin" and suggest that such a sin is "proof" of immorality is simply wrong.

As a Jew, I consider it a sin to eat pork (among other things) but would never suggest it is a sin for "all people" to eat pork, nor could I imagine anyone suggesting that just because it says it is a sin in the Hebrew Bible, that it should be made into a secular law.

Sins are missing the mark of religious requirement. Illegal actions will clearly overlap with sin sometimes. Ethics can overlap either, both, or neither. But none of these defines the others, nor do they have identical purpose.

Marriage has nothing to do with God, or with Christianity. By your argument, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Bahai, Taoists, Shintoists...etc, etc, etc should not be allowed marriages either. And all those marriages in places without Christianity? Null and void.

Marriage is a legal contract, nothing more. You're free to go have a religious ceremony, but the word marriage has nothing to do with God.

OK. Fine. You believe it is a sin. What does that have to do with our secular legal system?

"god created marriage", and you are quoting a passage in a work of fiction written thousands of years after man first began to gather and create society. The New Testament was written far later than peoples of Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mayan, and Chinese civilizations flourished. But Matthew comes along and makes this claim that god told him this was the way it has to be, so now we need to believe it. Should go further back and read the Iliad or the Odyssey to determine our nation's laws? they deal with man's relationship with the gods just as much as the bible.
If we do decide we want to be based on biblical law, do we also need to believe that a child's disobedience must be punished by death. Or that we Americans are permitted to take slaves from neighboring lands we conquer. Really read that book, pal, there is some messed up stuff going on in there. Murder, incest, slavery, and people turning into pillars of salt. The Lord of the Rings seems moe plausible to me, or, god i can't believe i'm saying this, scientology is almost more plausible. It seems far more likely that there are aliens on one of the other millions of planets out there. that's not somethng we can say about heaven and hell.

i'm really mad at you- your ridiculous claims actually made me say something is less plausible than scientology. i feel like i need a shower now...

CHERIE writes:
"If homosexuality was so "natural" or "normal" how would humanity replenish itself. Sex is a physical act and most of all a way to facilitate pregnancy. That is a simple way you can tell that homosexuality is not natural or normal. Case closed."

Case closed on your abject idiocy.

Let me ask you this: is it "natural" to cook one's food? Is it "natural" to distill wine and spirits? Is it "natural" to play sports?

The answer is no. Would you then say the above acts are not natural or normal?

BTW - check out the non-human animal kingdom where you'll find plenty of homosexual activity.

Filthy religionist. Go hump a nun.

I can't believe that the Post has such bigotry on its site.

The problem with justifying the state banning behavior because it is, as you put it, "sinful and wicked" according to the word of God, is that it comes down to whose interpretation of the word of God this is. You refer to conservative Christians who feel that gay marriage is wicked and immoral. Many orthodox Jews believe that to eat pork and shellfish is sinful, and there are those Muslims who believe that an uncovered woman is immoral. Shall we ban those practices as well? In a theologically pluralistic society that professes to support freedom of expression, it behooves us to disallow practices and actions only when there is a clear demonstration of their harm to other people or to society. Gay marriage does not reach that bar, and it can be argued that gay marriage conveys benefits to society in much the same way that heterosexual marriages do.

((crickets chirping))

So I guess gay marriage is fine for us atheists?

Anyone who quotes the make believe stories of the Bible as a justification for denying fellow Americans their civil rights is a sinner.

I'm going to make one more try.

I am an American, Cal Thomas is an American, Barney Frank, the openly gay congressman from Massachusetts, is an American. Under the Fourteenth Admendment, Barney Frank should enjoy all the rights that Cal Thomas and I enjoy. Can anybody who objects to "gay marriage" please tell me why, constitutionally, under the law of America, Barney Frank doesn't? Or shouldn't?

Anybody?

Dear Gary:
Go easy on the kool-aid ... You sound like someone who might actually take a trip to meet the man if he doesn't come down here during your lifetime. So, go easy on the kool-aid, and when the time comes, make sure you meet your maker/judge somewhere far away from other people and don't cause others any harm while doing so.

Dear Gary:
Go easy on the kool-aid ... You sound like someone who might actually take a trip to meet the man if he doesn't come down here during your lifetime. So, go easy on the kool-aid, and when the time comes, make sure you meet your maker/judge somewhere far away from other people and don't cause others any harm while doing so.

I'm with MJM. That libertarian view is exactly what Jesus advocated ("Live and let live").

Remember that Cal Thomas was Jerry Falwell's right-hand man at the Moral Majority for many years. They thump their Bibles at the "homosexual agenda". Don't let them fool you; the American Taliban has an agenda too. Cal, here's something I want you do that wasn't on your agenda, I bet. A work colleague died of cancer this week. I want you to go to her surviving spouse's house and tell that sweet woman and their two beautiful daughters to their faces that they're sinners. I double-dog-dare you. They were weekly churchgoers, by the way.

Mr Thomas,

If marriage was instituted by God and is defined in the Word given to the Hebrews, what is your explanation for the origins and forms of marriage of the Greeks, Medes, Persian, Ethiopians, Bantu speakers, Vandals, Visigoths, Mongols, Arapaho, Souix, etc.? Where these forms also be sacred, given by God? Or would they not be real marriages? How many of the forms of marriage practiced by human societies can you tell us about? How about the forms of marriage practiced by the Jews and particularly the polygamist patriarchs? Do you know what the levirate is?

If the form of marriage you refer to is a sacred institution given by God to the Hebrews only and inherited by Christians, how can a secular goverment force it on non-Christians? When was the last time you ate pork or another unclean meat? Would you favor Islamic states forcing Sharia laws on Christians? Do you recognize Jesus as the originator of the idea of a separation of church and state?

Is it possible that lacking scholarship, all you have to offer is sentiment? Sentiment is important, but is it an adequate basis for deciding what is socially advantageous? Or even for judging what behavior is sinful?

Dear Cherie:

Why are people born with Down's syndrome which is the case of having one more copy of chromosome 21 than "normal people"? This syndrome occurs in about 1 in 1000 births, which means that there are about 300,000 people in the US and 6 million people worldwide with this syndrome. Apparently, infertility is common among men with Down syndrome and is 50% likely in women. Now, why is God producing such beautiful and very affectionate people if they cannot (most of them anyway) reproduce children? Why is God producing "abnormal" people at all - like those with Turner's syndrome or Klinefelter's syndrome or Huntington's disease or Cystic Fibrosis or ... the list goes on ... ?

Perhaps, the simplest answer is the correct one - that just as the church prosecuted Galileo in order to protect its false beliefs, the current children of the church are thumping their own little bibles in vain against the rising tide of scientific knowledge. I won't spell out to you what this knowledge is saying - I will assume that you can figure this out for yourself.

Live your lives according to a three thousand year old set of superstitions and stories if you like. Just leave the rest of us alone to live as we choose.
Readers who balk at Thomas' ridiculous, chauvinist views and refuse to be bullied by moralizing hypocrites should check out the Freedom from Religion Foundation, American Atheists, People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, Free Inquiry and Skeptical Inquirer and the links included on their respective websites.
We will oppose your bigotry with reason and we will win.

Abolish all religion!

Cherie --

You need a lesson in logic. People don't engage in sex only for procreation, so your "it's only for procreation and there's only one right way to do it in order to get pregnant" argument doesn't hold up. Just because heterosexual sex is the most common form, it doesn't mean it's the only form. "Natural" doesn't mean "exclusive." Rather, God loves diversity in all his creation -- just look around you! Homosexuality is just one manifestation of the gift of sexuality we've been given. (And please don't get me started about incest and pedophilia, which, as an earlier post pointed out, are all about power, exploitation and lack of consent, and there are very legitimate public health reasons to regulate against those.)

And I doubt the world will suddenly go gay, so I don't think you need to worry about propagating the species. (Besides, in case you haven't noticed, we're kind of putting a strain on the planet lately, and a little procreative restraint might not be a bad thing!)

But marriage isn't about sex or procreation at all, it's about a commitment of love. Last time I read the Gospels, that was really all Jesus was concerned about. If you can find anything Jesus himself said about homosexuality, one way or the other, offer it up. No? Nothing? Didn't think so.

people who don't believe are not under the rules that GOD has set forth in the bible. they are outside of them. they are without a relationship with the christian Lord and savior. as Jesus said,let the dead bury the dead,you follow me. and don't fool yourself into thinking that the Jesus of the bible ,if He does come back (WHICH I BELIEVE HE WILL)is just going to walk around like some hippy headed to the filmore, the first time He came as suffering savior,the secound time as judge with a rod of iron. thats what the book says. anything else and you are making it up .

He who is with out sin, cast the first stone!

If there is such a thing as degree of Sin, besides the 10 commandments, which I am assuming #1 being the worst to break, on down to the lest #10. Then I think you so called Christians, are in a heap of trouble! The question is, why if homosexuality was such a abomination, Didn't Jesus preach about it? Please do not tell me it wasn't going on during his time on earth, because it profusely widespread. Prostitution was legal during the time of Christ. You can't go by the Bible, because it was written by men! "Leviticus" can be translated to "Laws of the Tribe of Levy." In other words, if you are not a member of the Jewish tribe of Levy, the laws listed in there do not apply to you. I think it is safe to say that most homosexuals are not descended from that tribe.

Most of the quotes I have seen are from the Bible. I am not impressed, and I am not ignorant - if you are reading the Bible in English, there are many mistranslations. Even the third commandment is commonly mistranslated as "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain." This is a mistranslation: the correct translation is "Thou shalt not swear falsely by the name of the Lord." Such mistranslations are everywhere.

I love your Jesus, what a brave compassionate man he was. His whole message was about love, forgiveness, tolerance and not judging! You Christians could learn a lot from him. I have to enlighten you tho, Your God makes Homosexuals!

I'm an atheist. Would Cal deny me the right to marry as well (which would come as a shock to my wife of 25 years)? Afterall, according to his definition- marriage was instituted by god. Who's god? His? Adbul's? Gyoshi's? What an arrogant and foolhardy fellow.

There is no Matthew 19:56. There are only 30 verses in Matthew 19. Dunno walk Cal's talking about, but there is some interesting stuff about adultery in verses 3 - 12, and I wonder if Cal will have the integrity to denounce McCain (verse 9: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery") as loudly as he does other "sinners".

There is no Matthew 19:56. There's only 30 versus in Matthew 19. Dunno walk Cal's talking about, but there is some interesting stuff about adultery in verses 3 - 12, and I wonder if Cal will have the integrity to denounce McCain (verse 9: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery") as loudly as he does other "sinners".

Think what you want but my life is none of your darned business. The state has no valid reason to provide financial entitlements to some people and not others based on mere moral judgements by others. The state should not be in the marraige business at all. Anti-gay marriage laws are just a way for certain people to give money to others who agree with them -- at the expense of those who do not.

If homosexuality was so "natural" or "normal" how would humanity replenish itself. Sex is a physical act and most of all a way to facilitate pregnancy. That is a simple way you can tell that homosexuality is not natural or normal. Case closed. You don't even have to bring out your Bible for that one. You don't have to get into a religious or scientific discussion. Athiests and Christians can agree that the only way that the Earth will survive is if babies continue to be born. A man produces sperm and a woman produces eggs. That proves that a man and a woman were meant to have sex. If everyone acted in a homosexual way the Earth would come to an end eventually. So there is my arguement for why homosexuality is wrong...because it would lead to the destruction of the Earth

Hey Cal,

Not everyone believes this crap, "Marriage was instituted by God (see Matthew 19:56 and Genesis 2:24, the verse quoted by Jesus from Genesis)"

Keep your superstitions and ridiculous "faith" to yourself and let other people live their own lives as they see fit. It's none of your damn business.

Get a life of your own.

billm

oh, dear.

"Truth," Sodom & Gomorrah were damned not for the *type* of sexual practice demanded by the inhospitable mob, but because the mob was *inhospitable to strangers.*

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)

Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10:9-15)

and dear, dear Jennifer - christians are directed to admonish *christians* who aren't acting christian - not unbelievers.

and for all who fall into the "definition of marriage" trap: language is fluid, and definitions are arbitrary. words mean exactly what we, as speakers of a language, agree they mean. they are not written in stone - "marriage," like any other word - "gay," "jazz," "straight," "hot," "bad," etc. - most certainly can change its meaning. and it certainly has, since it does not exclusively mean "a conjugal contract between a man and a woman." look it up.

Dear Reasonable yet Hateful -

Oh, I get it, alright, and what I get is that your bigoted opinion isn't worth listening to.

Have a hateful day.

There is a fundamental, absolute, non-wavering lesson from the place and the word named Sodom and Sodomy.

The place was brought down long ago for the same reasons that are becoming so pervasive in society today, and the spirit of it will bring any nation that condones it again to its knees.

Simple logistics.

Even mainstream Christianity has yet to grasp that homosexuality is a vehicle for the adversary to use to try to eliminate man, who has become his enemy, from the face of the earth....by our own doing.

History has an uncanny way of repeating itself throught the millenia.

Will we learn from history?

We can only hope.

Jordan writes:

"If marriage is so sacred, how come the divorce rate in this country is 50% across the board?"

That's not an accurate statement.

The divorce rate for Born-again Xians is 27% while the divorce rate for atheists/agnostics is 21%.

Reasonable, thanks for the quick reply.

I can conceive of God, because I was a Christian for 45 years before I just sort of lost my faith. It didn't happen overnight but it became within me a struggle to reconcile my reason, and what was a problematic self-delusion in many respects, to the realization that I was fully human, of "the world," and okay with that. It's not the better-than-thou intellectual argument that I frequently hear as a rebuttal, but more of a "well this is the honest me, without any pretensions and no self-delusions." I'm comfortable with less of a need for cognitive dissonance within myself, and I give you the respectful benefit of knowing what I'm talking about.

Now there really becomes a problem, philosophically, ethically, and morally, when we describe some supreme being as helping some, withholding help from others, and arguing that this is simply okay, and that the chips fall where they may because of his whims. That's definitely the attitude of our televangelists, but I don't hold that it's a particularly moral one, and I question the morality of someone who would value such a supreme being, much less be willing to worship one. Someone would need to relay to me why, even in that retributive-justice disaster allowed to happen, innocent people--kids, elderly, do-gooders, good-willed people--would die in the tragedy as a result of a "Helping hand" being withdrawn. Would "collateral damage" be okay as a justification, just in case there were more than just the "sinners" who were supposed to die?

And it goes without saying that I really question the integrity of someone who thinks the supreme God protects "our" country as a preference, because it entails not protecting "another" country as the flip side of the coin, and all the justifications that go into that logic. Wars are started this way, man!

God loves gays. Why? Because she made so many

Hillman-

"And I never asked you to 'condone' anything about me. Instead, I simply demand that I be treated as an equal human being and equal taxpaying American."

We may have something here. How would those of you who are against homosexual marriage feel about giving gays a pass on paying taxes? After all, if gays shouldn't have the same rights as heteros, then they shouldn't have to bear the same responsibilities.

(Anyone care to wager how many people would declare themselves gay if this were to pass?)

Cal Thomas,
Sooner or later, your homosexuality will become public knowledge. I only hope that it happens while you are still alive so we can all enjoy watching you fall off your false pedestal of "morality".

Ah, Mr. 'Protest too much,' "Reasonable not hateful:"

"The marriage of one man to one woman, with the construct of a nuclear family- is to be encouraged in society."

Exactly how many real people do you feel comfortable materially-and-unjustly *hurting* for such "encouragement," sir?

I am so tired of so called Christians discussing the merits of the sanctity of marriage, the sinfulness of homosexuality, etc.

If marriage is so sacred, how come the divorce rate in this country is 50% across the board?

So many of the other comments here ring so much truth, but wake up people, don't try arguing rationally with the right-wing religious nuts. It's a waste of time. Religious people, Christian and otherwise, will continue to pick and choose the parts of the bible that fit their agenda until the end of time. Their hypocrisy has no bounds and will surely never end.

Does anybody on this board have ancestors -- parents, grandparents, great-grandparents -- who were opposed to civil rights for blacks? I wonder how you feel about that, because that is how your descendants are likely to feel about your insistence on discrimination against gays and lesbians. The tide is turning in favor of justice and equality, and this straight man would prefer to be on the right side of history.

Does anybody on this board have ancestors -- parents, grandparents, great-grandparents -- who were opposed to civil rights for blakcs? I wonder how you feel about that, because that is how your descendants are likely to feel about your insistence on discrimination against gays and lesbians. The tide is turning in favor of justice and equality, and this straight man would prefer to be on the right side of history.

Mr Mark-

You just don't get it do you?

The marriage of one man to one woman, with the construct of a nuclear family- is to be encouraged in society. That is what America was built on, even if it was not always applied to minorities,etc.when it should have. It does not mean that men with men or lesbianism should be given the same accord. They simply cannot contribute to society and stabilize it as well as the man - woman marriage can.

Steven-

I don't adhere to Falwell or Robertson's extreme rants, but i will say is that since you can't conceive of God almighty in the first place, then you can't conceive of his withdrawing His hand of protection on our country when we fail to meet his expectations. So it is possible that other acts of terrorism or calamity could have failed to happen due to God's protection, but in others cases he withdrew his protection. This is far from Him actually causing the act against our country.

Atheists can't see that as they are smarter than that, right? Right. That is the typical elitist attitude not governed by absolute truth but by "declining -in- morality" relative truth.

What does government have to do with marriage anyway, if marriage is a religious matter? I say separate the two. The government should sanction unions or partnerships or whatever, and it can define whatever that means and who it applies to. The church can have marriage and they can administer it in anyway they see fit. Problem solved.

"People are free to choose their homosexual lifestyle but do not ask me or try to tell me that I must condone solidifying"

RVing across America to attend quilting bees is a lifestyle. Following a grunge rock band around the country is a lifestyle.

Being gay is so deeply ingrained in my persona that it simply is not a 'lifestyle'.

And my 'lifestyle' consists of supporting my partner of 20 years, walking our dog in the park, supporting my elderly neighbors, paying my taxes, mowing my lawn, being a good American, not complaining when my partner goes overseas to protect you (when we met he was active duty military), etc.

And I never asked you to 'condone' anything about me. Instead, I simply demand that I be treated as an equal human being and equal taxpaying American.

There's no begging for your approval. Nope. I'm demanding equality.

What sucks for you is that you are on the losing side of history here, and you know it.

It is totally disgusting to have a notorious homophobic bigot like Cal Thomas comment on gay rights in this newspaper.

It's akin to asking the grand wizard of the KKK how he feels about african american civil rights.

We need to get this newspaper back to being a respectable one again, rather than a Rupert Murdoch production.

Dear Cal,

Eaten any shrimp lately?

Worn any clothes of mixed fabric?

Thought so.

Sinner!

Love,

Gay Christian

>>Cal and other Neanderthal's rail against gays for engaging in "sinful" acts.

>>I assume that sinful act is sodomy, which the dictionary defines as : "anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal."

Now why, pray tell, Mr Mark does the dictionary call these acts sodomy? Oh wait...wasnt there a story in the bible about a city that was destroyed for doing such acts..you know, men asking for men to 'come outside that they may know them'? But then, you're right, I forgot...th e bozo's who put that word in Websters a looooooooooong time ago didnt know didly squat (excuse me ...I must leave the room for a sec...cant hold it.......HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAA....THE NEADERTHAL IS MR. MARK!!!....I SEE NOW....HES JUST TRYING TO RIB US....THINKING HE IS SMARTER THAN THE ONE WHO PUT THAT WORD IN WEBSTERS......HHHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA WHAT A COMEDIAN.....HAHAHAHAHAH)

>>Well, golly gee...look-ee there. Oral copulation qualifies as sodomy. (Perversion) That means that any straight couple that engages in oral sex is committing sodomy. (Perversion) Ditto any straight couple that engages in anal sex. (Perversion) Homosexuality has nothing to do with it. Heteros who engage in such "sinful" practices are just as sinful. (True..you back up the bible perfectly in that last sentence...keep hope alive)

>>Now, are Cal and others saying that the only sexual activity that the Bible condones is vaginal intercourse between a married man and a woman? (Correct) Are they saying that even straights cannot engage in any kind of oral sex? ('They' is God saying it....besides, avoiding such behavior...it keeps that herpes of the mouth away from you so you dont look like quasimodo with the clap..and that herpes strain of VD would probably have never came along - Disease is human my friend...VD...doing it the wrong way)

>>Watch any porno film and you'll see oral sex. The porn biz in this country grosses $12-billion a year. That's more revenue than the legit film industry. 80% of people in the USA identify as Xians. I have a hard time believing all that porn is being purchased and watched by the 20% of Americans who aren't Xians. It's logical to assume that most of the people watching porn are Xians. I've even heard that Xian marriage counselors are telling couples that it's OK to watch porn if that keeps their sex lives going.

>>I would guess that at least 50% of those porn-loving Xians believe that homosexuality is sinful, mainly because the sex acts performed in such relationships qualify as sodomy. And yet - most of those Bible-thumping Xians are also engaging in acts of sodomy.

Probably not so as you put it. You seem so enthralled by all of this that, who knows, you may be at least 95% of that group yourself. Who really knows. Hey, we can all spout of percentages...15%.......99% this......175.6% that.....blah blah blah.

>>Seems the ONE truth about religion is its ability to foster hypocrisy among it's followers and within its dogma.

Hypocrites then, hypocrites now, hypocrites in the future. They've been around since man came along my friend. But none of them and what they do negate the principles of the bible (and be sure..the bible has both principles and stories of those who went against those principles...big difference)

BTW, got anymore of your vile, teeny-bopper ejaculating gods poems to share with us? They really fit a society..say..such as portrayed in 'A Clockwork Orange' perhaps..dont ya think?

Gives us a warm, fuzzy feeling ...doesnt it now?

KEEP ON SCHMOOOZIN MR. MARK...I VOTE YOU THE BEST AT IT HERE!

BRAMBLETON:
Your inquiry about sexual acts with animals, and why they would be cruel can be determined by consent. Can animals, as we define them legally different from humans, consent? No, because they are on a different legal tier.

GROUSE:
You talk about homosexuality being agaist "natural law". Nature is organic and subject to change via evolution. Streams and shorelines erode, temperatures change, and a whole lot of other complicated processes help select which species live and die. (Human interference notwithstanding). But... what about "natural humans"?

I present to you the untamed, wild, redskinned savage of our own America. While it varries from tribe to tribe - as variations between subspecies of other wild, savage, untamed animals tend to go - there are tribes that believe in "two spirit" people and engage in switching of traditional gender roles, and even homosexual behavior. They've been given a variety of roles in tribal society from chief council to hunter to tending babies, etc. They've been documented in over 130 tribal groups all over the North American continent.

Also, there are many, many documented instances of other animals engaging in homosexual behavior, switching gender roles, etc. That is often seen as a response to overpopulation. Our species is experiencing that to a greater degree every year.

Could it be that we are just naturally following the order of animals?

If you hold yourself above other animals and "wild things" then you might not want to take my opinion or even discuss the issue with me. In your eyes, I would just be a half-breed: Half human being, half wild, savage, redskinned native animal (Aniyunwia, or Cherokee to you).

Rawr. ;)

People claiming a Biblical basis for marriage need to be a bit more honest.

Biblical marriage bears little resemblance to marriage as we know it today.

First, polygamy was an accepted and even encouraged Biblical practice.

Second, fathers could and did force their underage daughters to marry a man they didn't love. Happened all the time in the Bible.

And, of course, there's the marriages of Jacob, whom God blessed. Jacob married sisters. First, he married the one he didn't love, after being tricked into the marriage. Then he married her sister. BUT he stayed married to the first sister.

So let's recap. Biblical marriage included polygamy, in it's most patriarchal forms. It also included forced marriage of underage girls. It even included incestuous marriage.

Brambleton -

Funny you bring up abortion when the OT is very specific in cases where it's not only legal, but demanded of god. Surely you know these verses, don't you?

And marijuana in not "harmful, period." It has proven, helpful medicinal uses. It's no more harmful than alcohol and actually has some benefits.

I hate to say this, but you're coming off as being an under-educated person. By that, I mean that you know certain things but you've stopped learning new things. Read the Science section of any major newspaper and perhaps you'll quit embarrassing yourself with your deluded take on things.

;)

Reasonable,

No offense intended. The murders are terrible, and no one advocates them (at least publicly, except perhaps that church that wears the "God hates fags" posters and demonstrates at funerals of fallen soldiers. Do these people think they're Christian? Do they have scriptural backup for their claims?)

I will argue, however, that there is a fine line between a thinking, discerning belief and it's more malignant cousin, fanaticism. I won't dwell on murders of gays but let me tell you it is a very real problem. It won't go away because I'm claimed to have made a straw man argument of it.

I don't think you would murder a gay man because he was gay. I wouldn't murder a heterosexual man because he was heterosexual, even though I'm an atheist.

What of Falwell, Hagee, others who attribute natural disasters to "God getting back at those sinning homosexuals." Dobson, others who blamed 9/11 on "homosexuals, ACLU...."

This is ridiculous, and I for one will stand up against it.

But this insistence that "sinners are sinners are sinners" is a breeding ground for intolerance, and someday, someone who has received their personal message from God is going to do something about it! That's what I fear most.

Fate,

The point is, laws are predominantly the result of our moral judgment. We, as a people, determine those things that we wish to have upheld and vindicated, and they are transcribed into law. Laws existed (and still do exist) that marriage is between a husband and a wife. Our moral compass is now beginning to point to a system of tolerance and non-judgmental attitudes. Which, of course, leads to chaos. Can't wait!!

Mr. Mark,

You have been blinded by Western Enlightenment optimism. Not all laws are changed or expanded because some lightbulb finally went off in our heads. I could certainly make the argument that the law changes, in some part, because we become more tolerant of other's actions and are too afraid to exercise any conviction. (See abortion)

We know marijuana is harmful. Period. That is fact and it is not in dispute. But more and more people argue that it should be legal. Why? Because they have become more tolerant of the practice and accept it as the norm (and they're too busy watching Jerry Springer and Oprah to understand the subject matter). Have they suddenly become educated to the fact that marijuana is really akin to a snicker's bar? No. They simply lack the conviction to properly place judgment upon a particular activity.

To those who consider homosexuality a sin and an abomination in the sight of God, can you answer the following:

The scientific evidence I have seen suggests that homosexuality is genetically based. If you believe in Creationism, then God created people's genes and therefore the genetic basis of homosexuality.

Why would God create genes that result in a person who is an abomination in His sight? Why would God subject someone to such sin and condemnation in the face of his or her fellow person?

If your answer is, "God wants the person to overcome the temptation", then I ask, "how fair is it for God to expect someone to deny his or her very identity?" How easy would it be for you to deny your heterosexuality? For you to resist the urge to be with someone of the opposite sex and love that person? Maybe life is not fair, but religion holds that God is fair.

If you want to invoke the argument that it is natural for a man and a woman to be together but not two men or two women, then I would ask, what makes it natural? If your answer is, "because God made us that way" then I would reply, "God made homosexuals that way as well so by that argument homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality"

As far as morality is concerned, if heterosexuality is moral because God created it, then homosexuality is just as moral because God created that as well.

Jenna:

"Why not call all marriages (hetro and homosexual) civil unions and let people who want to have a church sanction have an additional "marriage" recognized by God under their own denomination. Pray tell me why that is wrong."

Cause we shouldn't have to.

And it wouldn't happen, anyway.

And it'd take rewriting a lot of law codes, and it'd also mean that het couples *would* lose being defined as married.

This is about legal fairness.

Grouse stated "Marriage absent that conjugal fruit or openness to that fruit is disordered."

So sterile couples or couples who do not wish to have children are "disordered"?

"The disordered nature of homosexuality is no morally different than other disordered sexual preferences such as incest or pedophilia or bestiality."

It's monumentally different. In your three examples there exists no consent, unless your incest comment is in reference to adult relative which I don't assume. Consent means everything and clearly separates the two.

"Marriage betweeen man and woman is a sacred institution and a cornerstone of a healthy family and society."

Except for the "sacred" part, I agree. Committed relationships are healthy for a society. That being the case, isn't more marriage good?

"People are free to choose their homosexual lifestyle but do not ask me or try to tell me that I must condone solidifying that sin into our society through law."

In our society, you would only need to tolerate it. But that isn't Christianity's defining attribute, is it?

And by the way, before you make any assumptions, I'm a straight male who's been married for more than 15 years.

Grouse wrote: "I do not think gay couplehood deserves that stature. Nor do I think incest, or bestiality or pedophilia deserve that honor. Gays are free to live as they want."

Not long ago gay sex was equated under the law with incest, bestiality and pedophilia, and many went to jail. Grouse is worried society is moving toward allowing these other acts (all sexual in nature mind you). What he does not realize is that he himself has accepted that "Gays are free to live as they want". By your own definition you are slipping into the immorality you warn us about. But I wouldn't worry. Most people understand the difference between consensual sex and the others you mention, which are not consensual. You should consider that when you make such comparisons.

"This is not to justify same-sex "marriage," which is an impossibility unless one redefines the word, which many are trying to do."

Wrong.

There's a difference between a definition and a presumption.

Same sex marriage is marriage, whether or not there are equal rights and protections under the law.

If *your* 'definition' relies on particular combinations of genitalia, that's not about marriage.

That's about your inappropriately-exclusionary definition.

That never had to do with what marriage *is* in the first place.

You're right to point out the hypocrisy, and, in fact that not everyone believes in your proscriptions about marriage, but neither is nor your insistence our partnerships and marriages are 'sins,' not 'sacred' any more true than those hypocrisies.

You speak of what you *want,* not what is.

The "marriage" issue is a only matter of semantics. Marriage in modern America is a civil relationship with civil law benefits for all married couples as well as a religious institution for some percentage of married couples. I can be married by a civil clerk of the state or I can be married by a priest, minister or rabbi. It makes no difference to the state -- I still get to file joint tax returns and a spousal exemption on inheritance tax, as well certain recognition in hospital settings as the spouse. So it is a matter of civil law, not religious law (and we do have separation of church and state, right?). Why not call all marriages (hetro and homosexual) civil unions and let people who want to have a church sanction have an additional "marriage" recognized by God under their own denomination. Pray tell me why that is wrong.

Spiritual Mongrel writes:

"If the Christians want to keep Marriage to themselves no problem. But we need civil unions or some smart name that says Gay couples can enjoy the rest of the secular benefits that married people get."

I've got an even better idea: let's give even MORE rights and even greater tax breaks to civil unions than we give to marriage. Let's stipulate that if you have a civil union, you can't have the marriage rite performed in a church. If you do, your civil union is now considered a marriage.

Then, let's sit back and watch as the faithful run to annul their marriages so they can have a civil union which provides more freedoms and a larger tax break than does being married.

How about it, religionists? Are you up to the challenge?

Like was earlier pointed out in the article, people who have no need for the moral order,just make up their own rules. It has always been that way. Just do not expect others who want a better and more healthy society to condone immoral behaviour like homosexuality. Or seek to damage society by condoning it as good or proper for society.

It is a sin. Has always been a sin and will always be a sin. Not only is it against natural laws, it denies one of the most basic tenets of conjugal married life, which is the procreation of the human species. Marriage absent that conjugal fruit or openness to that fruit is disordered. The disordered nature of homosexuality is no morally different than other disordered sexual preferences such as incest or pedophilia or bestiality. More people deciding that they do not want to fight the unnatural tendency or immoral urges and thus just becoming comfortable with it does not all of a sudden make something that is wrong and has been forever into a right. If that were the criteria, all wrongs could eventually become OK and eventually become something special in society that could be condoned. But society would suffer. Marriage betweeen man and woman is a sacred institution and a cornerstone of a healthy family and society. It has been for the millenia. It should not be degraded or polluted by somehow equating it to homosexual companionship. Let homosexual companionship stay just that.

Most of the rationale and arguments for supporting a homosexual marriage amount to saying it harms no one, the two are in "love", they have free will and are adults. Those same arguments apply equally to incest in some regards. So condoning one on those grounds and condemning the other is just hypocritical. But maybe the next step in the agenda is condoning incest. Once a disordered approach to sex is condoned as "normal", then anything goes. It would just be a matter of time.

Some other post gets all jacked up about Cal Thomas calling it a sin and noting wickedness. Spare me the whining. That is true and it is certainly what Cal Thomas believes. Many believe it is a sin. Society is always a battle for ideas. Dont be so indignant about someone speaking the truth about homosexuality. You may disagree, but save the tirade.

People are free to choose their homosexual lifestyle but do not ask me or try to tell me that I must condone solidifying that sin into our society through law. I do not think gay couplehood deserves that stature. Nor do I think incest, or bestiality or pedophilia deserve that honor. Gays are free to live as they want. But do not ask all of society to elevate that minority of thought into a sacred societal institution that is recognized like marriage.

Warning --- this post was constructed from a position of low consciousness --- you caught me on a bad day :)

How about using God’s name in vain as a law. Excellent and the punishment for breaking this law should be what? A fine? How Much? 10 lashes with a wet noodle? Perhaps the 3 strikes rule applies here and on the third strike you get life in prison. But really once there I should curse God to no end for putting me in this hell hole. How about death? That will put a stop to all this darn sinning. Hmm but is that a sin to kill in the name of crime and punishment. Perhaps. What now.

how about say… a scarlet letter.

Per drowning cats in a tub…I didn’t see that on the top ten list in the Bible... are we good here?

I loved Jennifers line “it is our duty as Christians to call out sinful acts”. I don’t even know where to begin.

We are such an un-evolved species… I wish I were a cat.

If the Christians want to keep Marriage to themselves no problem. But we need civil unions or some smart name that says Gay couples can enjoy the rest of the secular benefits that married people get.

Brambleton wrote" How did we make the determination, in my example, that it is "cruel" to the animal in question? Who determined this?"

Who determined it? Not me. Not God. It was determined by our elected representatives, law enforcement, activists who work to protect animals from cruelty and others. What constitutes "cruel" when it comes to an animal is determined by a consideration of needless suffering. We humans do not like to see animals suffer needlessly, and so we have laws against it.

Not everything that is against the law is also an infringement on freedom or rights. I'm not seeing your point here. I hope you are not comparing sex with a dog to gay sex.

Dear Brambleton -

The law is fluid, and it changes "at some point" in human development as we become more intelligent, more educated and more understanding of the human condition.

Case in point: the "Virgin" Mary was most-likely 12-13 years old when she was impregnated with Jesus. Pregnancy at such a young age was a fact of life in a time when few people lived to 30 and many children didn't survive birth. "At some point," the legal age for being considered an adult began to move up, probably mirroring an expanding lifespan for the species in general.

If judged by today's laws, Mary would be considered a victim of child rape. Her son - Jesus - would be considered a bastard as no one today would buy the story of a virgin conceiving a child without having had intercourse with a living, breathing human male, and since her husband didn't seem to be involved in the pregnancy...

Because "at some point" we decided that the legal age for consensual sex wasn't 12-13, and that children don't get pregnant from ghosts, spirits and the magical, invisible hand of god.

Hope that answers things for you.

Along the lines of your distinction between faith and secular society:

Marriage, the sacrament officiated by our churches (and limited however they please, in accordance with biblical or any other dictates) should be distinguished from marriage, the legal term, with all the associated legal implications, administered by those licensed by the state (your minister can't perform a marriage recognized by the state unless he or she follows the state's rules) to those who obtain a license to get married.

With enough legal work, I can give my partner and I most of the incidents of marriage. Domestic partner and civil union laws make that much easier. Unless the point is to subsidize lawyers, I have heard no one attack civil unions on the grounds that allowing automatic property inheritance is an abomination or offense to the Lord. If we don't oppose giving gays the opportunity to obtain the same legal situation as married folks, what earthly, or heavenly, reason is there to make sure that neither gays nor the state use the same word to describe those who are civilly united as those who have received the sacrament, or who have not but had a court clerk perform the ritual and are heterosexual?

Some of you are WAAAAAAAAAAY too interested in sex with animals.

Fate,

How did we make the determination, in my example, that it is "cruel" to the animal in question? Who determined this?

I'm sure such a law hasn't existed since the dawn of mankind, so at some point, we reached the conclusion that sex with sheep, etc. was an illegal activity. Did the sheep tell us that they felt violated by these actions? Did the persons who committed these types of acts find themselves bloodied by defensive wounds?

Thanks.

Brambleton wrote: "If a single man has protected sex with a dog in the privacy of his own home, does this infringe on any other person's freedom? I can't see why it would."

It infringes on a law, animal cruelty laws. Now you can be the judge as to whether the person is being cruel to the animal, but I suspect it would be considered cruel under the law, and thus illegal. Comparing animal cruelty with consentual gay sex is a bad comparison. Drowning cats in his basement would not infringe on my freedom, but it also breaks animal cruelty laws.

And I'm wondering why you chose "protected sex" as the example. Just what is the man going to give the dog, or visa versa?

Brambleton asks:

"If a single man has protected sex with a dog in the privacy of his own home, does this infringe on any other person's freedom? I can't see why it would. Why, then, should this be against the law?"

The law such an action would be against would most likely be an animal cruelty law, wouldn't ya think?

Fate,

You stated, "True, people will do what they want, but that is called freedom, and if it does not impinge on a right or go against a law"

And how exactly are laws determined? Where does the basis for our laws grow out of? If a single man has protected sex with a dog in the privacy of his own home, does this infringe on any other person's freedom? I can't see why it would. Why, then, should this be against the law?

Thanks.

Buzz buzzed: "The rest of your commentary is equally ignorant."

I expected about that much of a counter argument. Maybe I should shorten my responses to just dismissing everything someone says out of hand too, that way I won't make so many mispellings. I would invite you to elaborate on what in particular I said that was ignorant, but that would just be expecting too much. Debate is not a strong point of the religious to whom debate is not allowed.

Dear Jennifer -

Have you ever had oral sex? Do you have oral sex now? That's sodomy, the same sex "crime" you accuse gays of having.

Be honest.

A lot of good behavioral advice here. Only one thing really bugs me. I resent ANY HUMAN BEING WHO PRETENDS OR BELIEVES THAT THEY ARE SPEAKING FOR GOD.
NO ONE - ACTUALLY KNOWS WHAT/WHO "GOD" IS, MEANS, OR SAYS. THE MANY VERY HUMAN AUTHORS AND PRIESTS WHO HAVE WRITTEN, COPIED, REVISED, AND SELECTED WHICH "HOLY" STATEMENTS ARE "GOD'S WORDS" - - - HAVE ALL BEEN MEN WITH AS LITTLE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF "GOD" AS ANY OF THE REST OF US, and that is the truth!

Fate writes, "Here is where Cal tries to sneak in some religious tenant."

Gee, would that "tenant" be a monk, or maybe a nun? Maybe just a layperson who is religious? And Cal's the landlord, why would he need to sneak in tenants?

Oh, you meant "tenet"!?

The rest of your commentary is equally ignorant.

First let me congratulate you on your column being more than one paragraph.

Cal wrote: "It is both a sacred and a legal right. Marriage was instituted by God (see Matthew 19:56 and Genesis 2:24, the verse quoted by Jesus from Genesis)."

Maybe it was instituted by God to the Hebrews via the bible, but it existed in all other parts of the world at that time and long before the bible was written.

Cal wrote: "The state has an interest in preserving social order to "promote the general welfare.""

Funny, you have never mentioned this when talking about gun control.

Cal wrote: "The problem for conservative Christians in an increasingly secular, even anti-Christian environment (which is forecast in Scripture) is this: there is no biblical expectation that those who do not believe in God will follow the ways of God."

I agree conservative christians have this and other problems about the America they live in, an America that has freedom as its basis, which is antithetical to their religious teachings. That is why I consider them unAmerican in many ways.

Cal wrote: "One might as well attempt to impose the rules of baseball on a basketball game."

One wonders why anyone reads your columns.

Cal wrote: "In short, the world does what the world does and is unlikely to be persuaded to do otherwise through politics or law, though again, the law has a role in conforming even unbelievers to a social order that benefits the general population."

True, people will do what they want, but that is called freedom, and if it does not impinge on a right or go against a law, just why do you care what other people do? Do you care whether people have HD TVs or older TVs? Do you care how many computers each home has? Does it matter that you probably have no idea what is in people's homes? Does it matter that you do not know what type of sex is happening 5 doors down the street from you between consenting adults?

Cal wrote: "But if growing numbers in the political and legal system refuse to adhere to the moral law, what then?"

Hmmm, "the moral law". Here is where Cal tries to sneak in some religious tenant, some biblical absolute that American law sometimes adheres to and sometimes does not. Here Cal does what religious conservatives do. Create an absolute based on belief and call it law. He also leaves this hanging there, not defining it nor qualifying it,just leaving it to your interpretation. The reason? Conservative christians will take it one way, the rest of us another. He is purposly speaking with a forked tongue.

Cal wrote: "Another thing: If conservatives believe so strongly in the "sanctity of marriage" (including heterosexual presidential candidates -- past and present -- who have had more than one wife) why don't they impose that standard on themselves? Doing so would give them a lot more influence when speaking of the importance of opposite sex marriage and opposing same-sex "marriage."

Wow, I think we agree on this point. I would add extramarital affairs, heterosexual, homosexual, pedophilial and illegal affairs (hiring a prostitute). Much of that happening in the conservative religious ranks these days, many of whom still have their positions in religion and politics. But hey, conservative christians have their standards right, especially the ability to look away when it is happening to their own?

Cal wrote: "This is not to justify same-sex "marriage," which is an impossibility unless one redefines the word, which many are trying to do."

I guess this means that Cal HAS the definition of marriage. I would like to see it. Marriage is not a new word. It is very old. It was not created by the bible. It was not created by religion. It has existed in all societies, all religions. Its is not owned by christian conservatives. It is a human behavior to commit your life to another. Heterosexuals do it, homosexuals do it, but Cal thinks the terms and what it means is owned by christians. How elitist.

Cal wrote: "It is simply to say that in a sinful and wicked world, sinners and wicked people behave as, well, sinful and wicked people. As Paul wrote, "they invent ways of doing evil." (see Romans 1:8-32)"

I agree. And some would say that denying gay people the right to marry is a sinful way to treat gay people, people who can love one another as much as heterosexuals, but are denied not just by religion, but by civil law, from marriage. You will be judged by how you treat your fellow man Cal. Consider that not all of your beliefs treat your fellow man well, and when you meet your maker consider whether having treated your fellow man badly, but by following the bible, will keep you out of the fire. Just as most people consider an 'eye for an eye' to be evil today, we should not discriminate against gay people based on beliefs from 6000 years ago. Sinners will be sinners even if they believe they are following the bible. Those who see heaven will have treated their fellow man well and equally, as Jesus tried to point out again and again and again. Would Jesus deny marriage to two gays who love each other? Think hard Cal. Just try to imagine Jesus tossing them out of the church.

Yep, and God's word also says: we call evil good and good evil.

Russell -

It is not anti-Christian to call someone a sinner!!!! In fact, it is our duty as Christians to call out sinful acts. There's a whole section in Matthew that talks about this. While we should never attempt to judge someone's salvation or the state of their soul, we are absolutely obligated to adhere and defend the truth as put forth by Christ.

Christ most definitely called out sin - in fact, when he was chastising the men for throwing stones at the adulterer, he also said to the adulterer, "Go and sin no more."

Steven:

I see that you have constructed a straw man that claims that Christians kill others due to their homosexuality, and that this is representative of the Christian evangelical population? Laughable. Apparently you don't really know who the evangelical Christian community really is composed of.

You want to know God's love? Open up your heart to Jesus Christ and what happened on Calvary. Actually read up on it. But don't misrepresent who Christians are to fit your argument.

Gay unions are fine with me- as long as we don't sanction them as marriage. That concept was set up a long time ago and encompasses dynamics that when applied properly can only happen and benefit society if its a man and a woman, monogamous.

Again, homosexuality is one among a plethora of behaviors that are detriments to society. To focus on it among the others like Christians have done - and not gotten their own house in order (divorce rates the same as society or higher) is something that can be criticized for.

Dear Brambleton -

Have you ever engaged in oral sex? Do you continue to do so? Is it sinful?

Just asking. Please be honest.

Cal Thomas says, "But if growing numbers in the political and legal system refuse to adhere to the moral law, what then?"

Here's what: We recognize that we are living in Babylon, not Israel or Judah, which had their own manifold failings (see the Old Testament prophets). This is not, nor has it ever been a Christian nation, and though America has had a heavy dependence on Christian tradition, the Enlightenment eviscerated that connection with its unreasonable dependence on reason (see L. Newbigin, _Proper Confidence_).

So here we are. Jeremiah 29 shows what we are to do in modern Babylon:

"This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 'Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.'"

Wait, pray, work, and trust in the Lord.

Given these views, I expect that Cal Thomas will NOT be supporting adulterer John McCain this fall.

JESUS said, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18 NIV). John McCain is an ADULTERER. The SEVENTH commandment: "You shall not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18 NIV). John McCain shall be PUT TO DEATH. "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10 NIV).

I don't get your premise: that it is sinful for gays to want to be in a committed, loving relationship? If so, that seems a very anti-Christian sentiment. Maybe you need to reevaluate your own values.

Cal, the world does change...welcome to the 21st Century! As is often the case, the fundamentalists in their echo chambers think they can freeze society in the way it was in their formative years (with Cal, oh, the 1950's).

They're so confident the world will agree with them, and so surprised when it doesn't (re: all the court decisions that allow religious expression in a government context, only if the expression is determined to be civic and historical and to have no actual religious meaning at all!)

So, my prediction of what will actually happen is that Marriage will return to its roots as a sacrament, a sacred blessed union, but having effect only within religion under the wildly varying sets of rules and restrictions that the vast variety of religions come up with.

In the meantime, government will revert to its role of establishing the rules for civil partnership contracts, necessary to register the partnership with the state to become eligible for whatever benefits the state determines appropriate for that kind of partnership.

I'll continue to sing at friends' weddings, with the additional joy of knowing that, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, my friends will have both the sacrament they desire in their faith tradition, and equal rights and benefits under the Law!

Mr. Mark,

I don't think God concerns himself with whatever definitions come out of Webster's dictionary. A detailed reading and understanding of the Song of Solomon is really the only textbook a Christian needs in regards to sexual activity.

The rest of your comments are merely supposition. Do you truly believe that 80% of the population are devout Christians? If I said I was Mormon and from the planet Pecan, would you believe that too? C'mon man, think.

And any "counselor" that you "heard about" that professes to be Christian and advises couples to use porn, is, OBVIOUSLY, not a Christian counselor. Any simpleton understands, that while porn can generate significant immediate satisfaction, it can have unbelievable long term effects. And for a Christian (and non-Christian as well), there is zero (none, nada, zippo) chance of husband and wife moving closer to God and "becoming one flesh" if pornography is part of the process.

Forget Cal Thomas' theological meanderings. Marriage between one man and one woman is the wisdom of the race. Let's keep it -- and keep it secular.

"But if growing numbers in the political and legal system refuse to adhere to the moral law, what then?"
----------------------------
Cal is simply a religious bigot- he doesn't accept the fact that others have different views about what is sinful and what is not sinful. He would impose his religion on others, if he had the opportunity, but he acknowledges that he does not now have the power to do so. This is a fascist, un-American view that goes a long way toward explaining why the U.S. could become a Taliban-like theocracy in the future.

Don't take this viewpoint lightly- it is shared by a great many people who insist that people who disagree with them on the definition of sin are value-less and have no moral compass at all. Nonsense. These self-deluded bigots have no reason to fight against the legalization of gay marriage except for their desire to force their religion on all of us. That should set off alarm-bells in any American.

Cal and other Neanderthal's rail against gays for engaging in "sinful" acts.

I assume that sinful act is sodomy, which the dictionary defines as : "anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal."

Well, golly gee...look-ee there. Oral copulation qualifies as sodomy. That means that any straight couple that engages in oral sex is committing sodomy. Ditto any straight couple that engages in anal sex. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it. Heteros who engage in such "sinful" practices are just as sinful.

Now, are Cal and others saying that the only sexual activity that the Bible condones is vaginal intercourse between a married man and a woman? Are they saying that even straights cannot engage in any kind of oral sex?

Watch any porno film and you'll see oral sex. The porn biz in this country grosses $12-billion a year. That's more revenue than the legit film industry. 80% of people in the USA identify as Xians. I have a hard time believing all that porn is being purchased and watched by the 20% of Americans who aren't Xians. It's logical to assume that most of the people watching porn are Xians. I've even heard that Xian marriage counselors are telling couples that it's OK to watch porn if that keeps their sex lives going.

I would guess that at least 50% of those porn-loving Xians believe that homosexuality is sinful, mainly because the sex acts performed in such relationships qualify as sodomy. And yet - most of those Bible-thumping Xians are also engaging in acts of sodomy.

Seems the ONE truth about religion is its ability to foster hypocrisy among it's followers and within its dogma.

Steven,

Appreciate the posts. So far, it seems that we have had a fairly intelligent dialogue. (Please don't ruin it by joining Daniel's crowd and suggesting that people who are against homosexual marriage spend their time committing hate crimes (i.e., in 2000, there were 16 murders in the U.S. motivated by anti-gay hate.)

How about we approach this from the "Washington" perspective? I'll give you gay marriage - you give me abortion. Deal?

Well, I see Cal is on his low horse, again. As far as I can see, roving gangs of matrimonially-minded homosexuals are not hanging out on street corners, forcing themselves on unsuspecting Christians. As a twice-divorced man, I say anyone stupid enough to want to get married deserves to do so. Whatever floats your boat is OK by me. Butt out!

Cal, and Reasonable

I really doubt most thinking Americans believe that homosexuality is a threat to civil social order.

I'm much much more concerned about the behaviors of heterosexual people (who represent a greater part of the population) than I am of homosexual people.

You don't have many homosexual people murdering heterosexuals for their sexual preferences. Those murderers are the god-fearing, Jesus loving types who want to make sure we keep our societies in order.

God's love? Give me a break. Hit me over the head with God's love all day long, all I need is another hole in my head.

It's your response time. I'll move along for now.

Reasonable,
thanks for your response.

I'm actually not all that concerned about sexual behavior. If people respect one another, and are conscientious about sexually transmitted diseases, I'd rather enjoy the sexual experience with my own partner and not worry about anyone else's preferences.

I'll have to defer to other people to judge whether there is scriptural support for slavery, and denigration of women. These are old arguments and I'm not here to convince you.

We speak a different language, when you refer to "sins of mankind" or "God's laws," because you assume we all invest some authority in particular versions of holy scripture. So there's not really any starting point for a discussion, and I'll bow out. It's all been said about a million times on these posts.

But we shall see, won't we, about "God's love" as this is debated and talked about in the next several months, during election time.

There is a line between "disagreeing with someone's sins" and forcing a law on society. I agree with posters from some other threads that suggest that we ought to just do away with civil "marriage," and enforce, support and substantiate civil unions. That way, those who want to be "married" can do so, in a church or mosque or temple, and adhere to any rules that may apply. The rule would be binding only to the extent the couple gave authority to the "marrying" agent, and their civil union would be binding and protected by societal law.

Then, it takes all the "worry" out of the situation by Christians who abhor gay "marriage." Christians can enjoy all the love of God they'd like, and not be threatened by gay unions.

Hi Cal! I'd like to welcome you to AMERICA. Can you say it with me? A-MER-I-CA.

It's a wonderful land where we have all kinds of freedoms. One of the most basic freedoms we have, is that your twisted, sad, distasteful beliefs about YOUR religion, do NOT apply to me! Just as my twisted, sad, distasteful beliefs do NOT apply to you!

There's nothing you can do to stop it, and all your wailing and moaning only serves to display how petty, vindictive, and bitter you are. Why are you so set to make sure that other Americans cannot be happy?

That being said, I wish I was gay so I could french kiss some guy right in front of your house for days at a time.

Cal-

Those of you in the right wing and so self- righteous. And so wrong about almost everything, including gay marriage. Get over yourselves.

Steven-

The difference between gay people and blacks is BEHAVIOR. Christians must realize that although gay behavior is being accepted, many sins of mankind are now accepted as okay and that the gay "lifestyle" or whatever you want to call it (orientation) is just one of them. Cal points out that the world thinks morality is relative, even if Christians believe it is absolute.

Also, the Scriptures never supported any concept that men or women are less than full people. This was mankind twisting them for power- just as many have twisted them before.

The one thing that Christians and non Christians forget is that God id about love, and just because you disagree with one's sin does not mean you can't love them in truth.

Thank you, Cal, for noting the inconsistencies (hypocrisy?) of Christians who condemn gays, but ignore and excuse the marital failures and sexual peccadilloes of straight politicians whose policies they admire and embrace. It demonstrates moral and intellectual integrity not often seen in those quarters.
As a long married, heterosexual,practicing Christian, I think Steven's posting says it very well. One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to see the parallels between the current religiously-justified hate against homosexuals and past religious proscription of Jews, people of color, and Muslims.
Perhaps if more of those who believe like Cal took the opportunity to meet and get to know gay people, they would act more "Christian".

I worked for about 10 years with an openly gay man, who turned out to be my friend and professional colleague; I was honored to ask for his letter of recommendation at the end of my term there--I trusted my son to his care on many occasions. He is one of the most decent human beings I know.

My cousin and his partner have been together for roughly 3 years now, one a school teacher, the other finishing his masters in nursing degree and committed to helping elderly patients with neurologic disease. They are model citizens, loving people, and contributors to society.

What I will vow to fight against are those who demonize these people, these friends and family of mine. I will continue to fight for their rights as citizens, and if it came down to fists, I would stand on their side.

I think this represents Christianity or any other truth claim at it's worst: "the gods hate you, or hate your behavior, and it's all part of a fallen, sinful world" explanation, a simple right versus wrong. First it was African Americans, and women (that were considered less-than-full-people, supported by sacred scripture;) and the modern version are gays. I guess we all have to demonize someone, rally against some cause.

I would challenge anyone with harsh criticisms of gay unions to meet and befriend someone who is gay. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is hollow rhetoric that tries to divorce one's hatred and bigotry from one's theology.