Christian Right Takes on "Terminator"

"Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion." (Romans 1:27)

The BIG Punishment is yet to come. Sodom, sodom, sodom. Why can't these people learn?

The Bible won't exist for centuries if its words has no power.

fr the article:

>...The Family Research Council's latest Action Alert urges social conservatives to contact Schwarzenegger's office directly and tell him to terminate his "inappropriate post-election behavior" regarding the passage of California's controversial Proposition 8 that bans same-sex marriage....

People, please IGNORE the so-called "frc" and their silly little "action alerts". "frc" was founded by wacko "dr" james dobson, who is virulently anti-gay. Work to overturn Prop Hate, and let's get our RIGHT as GLBT couples to marry the partner of our choice returned to us!

I wonder how long it will take the Republicans to toss out the Right-Wing Faux-Christians? They are a drag on the party, so one hopes the split takes a nice long time :-)

Um, the Bible doesn't say that Sodom was destroyed because of gay people. According to the Bible, God destroyed Sodom because its inhabitants were proud and did nothing to help the poor. Which American political party does that sound more like?

Ezekiel 16:49-50:
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness 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.

Passage of the California initiative had reasons other than religion for its passage. California already has a domestic partnership law that is virtually indistinguishable from a marriage contract. So it is not the expected rights appended to marriage that most objected to but the idea that a bond between same sex couples is in no way different than a traditional marriage. It was more about a fight over the dictionary than any legal rights.

Imagine the shock that will come to the FRC's members when they move on to the hereafter and discover that God loves and accepts everyone regardless of the "perversions" human society assigns to them in God's name. Which is the worse sin? Finding a person that you love and committing your life to them... or living almost 2,000 years later than Paul and still not having grown one iota in the understanding that God's love is unconditional.

If gays can't abide by the rule of the majority, who needs election then? Maybe we should scrap all elections and referendums and let the people who hold the bigger stick rule.

It's a waste of time that we are fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not worth to defend our freedom if that freedom means LEGALIZING PERVERSION.

No need for a missile shield as well. Scrap all defenses and let the burning begin. Nobody can stop the hand of an angry God.

Punishment will come. Resistance is futile.

edbyronadams writes
'Passage of the California initiative had reasons other than religion for its passage. California already has a domestic partnership law that is virtually indistinguishable from a marriage contract'

So would you accept restricting marriage to gays and restricting straights to 'civil unions' is they are equal? Why or why not? Would you be happy to lose your civil rights just because a majority voted them away?

I dunno. Why don't we just start changing all kinds of definitions by fiat of the black robed kings? The problem is that "rights" are either "endowed by the Creator", which gets directly into the religious argument, or they are formed by a consensus of the people, a test which gay marriage has yet to pass.

fr marcedward1:

>...So would you accept restricting marriage to gays and restricting straights to 'civil unions' is they are equal? Why or why not? Would you be happy to lose your civil rights just because a majority voted them away?

Exactly right! I've noticed that when I ask Prop Hate supporters how THEY would feel if someone suddenly walked up to them and said THEIR marriage was invalid because they married someone of the opposite sex. Usually they sputter, and have NO answer whatsoever! Decent people, GLBT and straight are working to overturn Prop Hate.

There are things that cannot be changed. God created human to be either a man or a woman. That will continue to be that way. God has always a way of reinforcing that. WW3 is coming and one of its major goals is to clean up the mess. If Christians can't clean up the mess, God will and His hand is much much heavier.

Nearly everybody reading this would find that their parents obtained a marriage license before the day when they were married, rather by a priest, rabbi, minister,imam or justice of the peace. The marriage license authorized a civil union. Therefore all marriages are civil unions, but not all civil unions are marriages! The civil union obtained by two men cannot in fact be a marriage as defined over the centuries, although the rights and responsibilities may be very similar. The gay couples must adopt a different name for their civil union. Lesbian couples must do likewise. In both cases the unions are fundamentally different than heterosexual marriages. Those of us who value marriage as historically defined will never agree to have the name of our union appropriated by those who prefer a same-sex union.

It's really getting difficult to avoid the conclusion that Spidey is a self-loathing gay, such is his obsession with homosexuality and its being a "perversion."

Can't we ALL just get along? After reading the comments above, it is the so-called 'Christians' who are causing the conflicts. From my studies and beliefs, 'Christians' are to love ALL of their brothers both heterosexual and homosexual.
The comments above are everything except loving.

Are you sure you know anyting about Jesus' life and teachings? I have not read the Koran. I have read Old and New Testament. Lot of violent reading. Life of Jesus is more unconditional love. Above comments are the opposite...love ONLY if one agrees with them.

Gay marriages? They do not effect my marriage or anyone else's that I can determine.

It appears that heterosexuals are afraid of homosexuals. I wonder why.

Well, Spidermean2, if we are created by god, she did not create us just as "man" and "woman". There is considerable variation in our sex chromosomes, rather like the other animals on the planet. Humans that appear to be normal males can have XYY sex chromosomes rather than the 'normal' XY pair. Humans that appear to be female can have XXX rather than the normal XX pair. There are half a dozen other variants. If only a "Man" and a "Woman" can be married, how did god let this happen? Surely, if the government has an interest in making sure marriage is only between a "Man" and a "Woman" the government should be testing every married pair to make sure no abominations have occurred! And we should be subject to thorough sexual examinations prior to being awarded a marriage license, should we not? So we need even bigger and more intrusive government to enforce your definition of marriage.
For Goodness sake, work on your own sins and let the rest of us alone!

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. If you believe in God and all the myths surrounding this fantasy, so be it. But please don't clutter up my life and government by forcing what I consider silly unprovable beliefs on me. If I want to marry my ballpoint pen, does that really destroy your marriage?

I apologize for generalizing, but as time progresses and society learns humility and gains knowledge, spidermean2 and those of the older generation who cling so desperately to their religious crutch will begin to die off, taking their bigotry, hatred, and end-of-days proselytizing with them, only to become a small stain on the history of our evolving country. What a sad legacy to be remembered as a blight by others in your family and community, and by those you claim to love so dearly.

It is time for the Family Research Council, and all the good religious people, to become strictly bi-partisan and stop cluttering up the Republican Party with their single issues and former preachers. Moreover,they seem to have as many friends among the Democrats, not all of whom by far are feminists,gays or pro-abortionists. American politics were healthier without religious zealots mucking it up.

The Republican Party no longer has any serious interest in domestic and foreign policy issues. It has become just the "Anti-Sex League" described by George Orwell in '1984' — opposed not only to abortion, but also to contraception, stem-cell research, scientific sex education for kids, teaching evolution, gay rights, you name it — wheeeeee!! Onwards to the dustbin of history!!

My Dear Spiderman2 (and Tony Perkins),

Thank you for your willingness to speak your true feelings. Your opinions were a major factor in helping us to elect Barrack Obama, who will now allow reason, logic and science back into the national conversation.

I encourage you to keep up these hateful outbursts as it will help us eliminate the the politicians who support you, speeding the recovery of our country as it shakes off the polices of your hero, Mr Bush.

In closing, you should know that we will not allow you to criminalize lifestyles and beliefs to make up for your failed bids to proselytize.

With kindest regards,

Terry

The Family Research Council's recent action alert shows that it is terribly confused. Californian's may have voted to deprive gays and lesbians of their right to marry. but they did not vote (thank God) to abrogate their rights of free speech or protest.

EDBYRONADAMS writes, "Why don't we just start changing all kinds of definitions by fiat of the black robed kings? The problem is that "rights" are either "endowed by the Creator", which gets directly into the religious argument, or they are formed by a consensus of the people, a test which gay marriage has yet to pass."

Do you honestly think judges just make these things up? Have you never heard of the Constitution? The 14th Amendment begins, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It does not say, "any STRAIGHT person"; neither does it say, "any person except those of whose sexuality the majority disapproves".

If marriage were just a piece of paper, that would be one thing, but a marriage license carries with it all kinds of legal rights and obligations. The 14th Amendment seems pretty clear on this issue. (Not that it is anyone's business, but I am a straight male, married to the same woman for 40 years, so I claim some objectivity here.)

Regarding SPIDERMEAN2's rant about Sodom, when the Founding Fathers wrote our Bill of Rights, the very first words they set down were, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." Why do suppose they did that, SPIDERMEAN2?

Judging from the divorce statistics, it would seem that Christian heterosexuals pose the greatest risk to marriage:

A recent study by the Barna Research Group interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 contiguous states. The margin of error is ±2 percentage points. The survey found:

- 11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
- 25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
- Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.

GordonCash quotes:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Indeed, any every citizen has the right to avail himself of a marriage contract to a person of the opposite sex. While same sex couples have the option of a civil union contract in California which appends virtually the same rights in practicality. The fight is over the word "marriage" and a majority of Californians still see a distinction between unions of same sex couples and opposite sex couples but do not wish to infringe on the practical exercise of marriage "rights" by same sex couples so have created the civil union.

We know the lesbian side of the "mutual masturbation" affairs. Considering the roles each play, a sex change operation would allow the beauty/gift of reproduction to enter the couple's lives???

And will sex-doll robots make homosexuality a mute issue?? Will a genetic test for homosexuality change the situation?? Result in a cure??

Bottom line however other than the "yuckiness" and unnatural nature of said unions, homosexual activities in general poses no threat to humankind's existence even though AIDs will forever haunt the homosexual male community.

If there is a god, I can't help but think he might have a little more going on than whether or not someone is gay - like maybe why half the world is starving, or why we wage wars without end.

From my point of view, 6 billion people is probably enough for the planet. I'd like to encourage a few more gay relationships.

It's tragic that religion is being used as a front for bigotry; it's frightening that this "value war" that the Christian Right so pompously engages in may now be focused on state and local politics. Speaking as a moderate Christian who voted with the majority of the country for Obama this election, the Christian Right's ongoing attempt to shove their values down our throats is an affront. It guarantees Democrat dominance for the foreseeable future, an unintended but positive result of the Right's close-mindedness; it also means a ratcheting up of partisan tension in our communities, which most of us can do without...

Let the social conservatives HAVE the republican party. The longer they dominate the republicans, the longer they'll be irrelevant.

I can’t tolerate the intolerant.

Time for some modest re-alignment of membership in the major parties. It's time for moderate Republicans to consider moving to the other side of the aisle where they will be more comfortable. No point in their staying with a group of so-called "conservatives" who reject reason, moderation, scientific evidence and toleration.

edbyronadams,
Interracial marriage is legal because of those judges you so dispise. Rights aren't granted by 'the creator' or by 'majority vote', but by our constitution(s). In Caligornia the Supreme Court found a right to marry. Religious bigots and other bigots have taken that right away for the moment.
Just to stay on the same page - the role of government in marriage is that of enforcing a legal contract. I don't think it's either moral or legal to deny entering into a contract based on race, religion or sex, period. Do you support denying legal contracts based on sex, religion or race?
As for civil unions, that's just more 'seperate but equal' talk. But to be fair, would you be OK if they restricted marriage to gays and let the straights like you and me have only 'civil unions'? Or how about getting rid of governments role in marriage completely? Just 'civil unions' for everybody, and if you want to get 'married' on top of that you can just declare yourself married but the state wouldn't recognize marriage any more than the state recognizes 'best friends forever'?

marcedward1 wrote:
"Rights aren't granted by 'the creator' or by 'majority vote', but by our constitution"

So you think those rights did not exist before the writing of the Constitution. I beg to differ. I never used the term "majority vote". I used consensus which is a supermajority and is the basis for people accepting the idea of a new right. I do not support restricting any person from the right to a marriage contract. However I do accept that contract's current definition.

This is about the word "marriage" and the supporters of the homosexual community are well aware that any political arguments are settled by defining the terms of argument first. So they say the fight is about "equal rights" when they already have equal rights. The have a right to a marriage contract as currently defined and they have the right to a civil union contract if they want inheritance and hospital visitation rights etc. if they do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex. Nobody's rights are getting violated.

Here is a thought experiment for you. If there is no distinction between gay and heterosexual marriage, what keeps two NAMBLA types from marrying and adopting?

The Republicans Party's problem is that they are completely out of touch with mainstream America. When was the last time you heard an new ideas from the Republican Party? Smaller government, lower taxes, hate of blacks, gays, Mexicans, basically every minority is the platform. They have lost young votes in droves. They are a dying party if they do not adapt to the changing secular America. There party is made up of old, almost exclusively white men who's time has come to pass. Until they have some new ideas, and STOP demonizing every person who does not fit their mold, they will be the minority party. America is tired of having the so called "values" party of cramming their religious views down our throats.

If not for all of the "out of state" influence and money, Prop 8 would never have passed in California! The Christian Right has never been as wrong as it is on this issue!
"Love God and love your neighbor as yourself" ... wasn't a suggestion ... it is spiritual law.

You said: Here is a thought experiment for you. If there is no distinction between gay and heterosexual marriage, what keeps two NAMBLA types from marrying and adopting?

Answer: Absolutely nothing provided they've broken no laws. The person behind you at the local Target store could very well be a "NAMBLA type", though you'd never know it so long as they've never acted on it in any material way. I've had violent thoughts before while stuck in traffic, but that doesn't make me a murderer. NAMBLA types, as I'm guessing you define them, would be those taking part in perverted activities in a legal sense, in which case they'd be criminals and therefore unable to adopt.

You said: Here is a thought experiment for you. If there is no distinction between gay and heterosexual marriage, what keeps two NAMBLA types from marrying and adopting?

//

If you're suggesting a character test should be a requirement for having kids, start with the "normal' couples who have most of them. The sheer numbers are obvious--the overwhelming majority of kids who are abused, neglected, and victimized are part of seemingly normal heterosexual families. You won't be protecting any of them by keeping the "NAMBLA" types apart.

I'd rather have laws reviewed by educated folks than be governed by the whims of the ignorant.

I guess a lot of the "ignorant" here have forgotten our own history. If we governed by "majority" rule, there would have been no suffrage, desegregation, civil rights movement, or the Scopes trial.

But (by stereotyping), I'm not surprised that certain people here still don't want women or blacks to vote and to have creationism taught in school.

Who had the hair raising adea of putting a completely private matter before the electorate?
3% of the population is gay, so we let the other 97% decide who should marry who?
I am a happily married and heterosexual father of two and yet I believe

IF YOU ARE NOT GAY, YOU HAVE NO SAY!

For the rest of us, this issue is a big yawn. Let the bible thumpers and the gays fight it out. I have read my bible and there are lots of prohibitions in it, lets make sure the holy rollers follow all the laws before they throw stones. And gays need to clean up their act and stop all the promiscuity. But the bottom line for most people is who cares. I have worked with gays and lesbians and while I don't get it they pay their taxes and work hard like the rest of us. Can we move on to something important?

Frankly, a lot of the anti-gay initiatives also prohibit civil unions or any private contracts between adults of the same sex. Frankly, if it's actually about straight conservatives wanting to keep the word 'marriage' to themselves, then they should start by supporting civil unions with full legal equivalencies, as well as a Federal one, guaranteeing full faith and credit as the Constitution is supposed to guarantee.

So gay couples can travel freely. I know I won't be visiting Florida any time soon, and California may be waiting a while.

Not that we personally have big tourist dollars, of course.

But you know something's not right when your dear one pops the question and you have to think about whether the protections of a one-state civil union outweigh the vulnerability to discrimination it targets one for... what would happen in the courts of one state versus another if our respective relatives got irrational about property if something happened to one of us...

This shouldn't be going on in a free country.

I don't care if you think it's 'holy and justified,' Religious Right... the *means* you use are oppression and harm and injustice.

If your God approves of *that,* who wants anything to do with him?

Anyway, Federal civil unions might still have same sex couples as second class citizens, but I suppose if recognizing our equality causes you *so much suffering,* (I weep for you, let me tell you, ) ...well, it'd be a start. It'd reduce the fear and injustice we live under by a big factor.

And, frankly, fighting about the word marriage is something to be done in its own time (Don't you followers of 'The Only Good' have something better to do than pick on me and my dear one? Really? Anything come to mind at this point in history? )

Frankly, do whatever you may to us with the law, when we have a religious handfasting, we're gonna say 'married.' Cause that's what that is.

You can support civil justice, or uncivil injustice. That's all you have for a choice.

Woody Guthrie said it -- The Bible says, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." It never says what color. And for "color" feel free to substitute any discriminated minority, for which gays and their cohorts certainly qualify.

I have no right to tell someone whom they can go to bed with or whom they can marry. And neither does anybody else.

Ayatollah Perkins Ayatollah Dobson, The Catholic Church, The Mormon Church and the nutty evangelicals are still trying to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throat.

Let them keep their influence over the republican's; they'll continueto get more marginalized and irrelevant as time passes.

As a Democrat, I LOVE this story; this is further evidence that the evangelical wing-nut faction of the GOP will be driving social moderates to the Dems for years to come. Obama will win re-election in 2012 with 60% or more of the popular vote.

Personally I do not have strong feelings about gay marriage... but I have VERY strong feelings about equal rights, esp the protections of the 14th amendment, which is what the federal judges - some Republican - base their rulings against gay-marriage bans. Prop 8 will not pass muster against the 14th amendment in court, regardless of the ravings of religious fanatics.

Since when do Christians own the word "marriage"? People of all beliefs and cultures have marriage as an institution. Christians do not own it and should not be dictacting who that right belongs to. As far as I know, ancient Romans were married and they did not believe in the Christian god, likewise I do not believe in the Holy Roman Catholic Sacriments (of which marriage is one), so who is anyone to lay claim to the word.

Christian conservatives are a cancer on our nation.

Busybodies trying to control other people's private and consensual behavior in the name of their own religion are un-American and contrary to our national ideals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Nobody is forcing THEM to marry a gay person, so what are they going on about, wasting everybody else's time?

As per the phony argument that "marriage is sacred", etc-- Maybe if you marry in a church, bu that does not extend to civil marriage. I was married in a courthouse without religious ministering of any kind, and my wife and I did not swear any religious oaths. Perhaps in your eyes I am not married, but in the eyes of the District of Columbia and the Federal Government, I am married, and that is enough for me, and we should extend the same legal rights to our gay, lesbian, and transgendered brothers and sisters. I said LEGAL rights-- a matter of State, not Church.

Please, oh religious wackjobs, quit spewing hate and hysteria, and remember that in this Republic thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

"And gays need to clean up their act and stop all the promiscuity."

*jawdrop.* Err. 'Promiscuity?' Not allowing us to have livelong civil contracts is justified by calling us 'promiscuous?'

What kind of logic is *that?* I mean I do suppose that having legal recognition of our monogamous partnerships would show same-sex couples about as often monogamous as anyone.... would come as yet another case of Christian right leaders being proven *wrong* about the smears they've been subjecting us to in the name of their God as long as anyone can remember...

Always with the authority issues about sex... *sigh.*

" But the bottom line for most people is who cares."

Well, then, maybe trust we who know what's involved, who know how much we really suffer for some people's vague 'comfort' about 'the word marriage.'

I'm bloody sick of hearing about it, too. But my dear one of five years and I don't *get* to walk away from it.

The support's there for federal civil unions, supposedly equal in all but name. That'd be a darn sight better, at least, and maybe when more people *see* us, they won't be as worried about sharing a *word.*

Just how many 69 year old women do you think they'll need to beat up before they "get it right"?

How many churches will be invaded and vandalized before they "get it right"?

Is this how we want our society to pass laws? Based on who can intimidate each other the most? Not on democratic votes?

Ahhhhh yes the Governator is supporting lawlessness, judicial activism, subversion of values etc. Do these knuckle draggers look back on the suffrage movement with the same contempt?

The civil right movement?

The ban on inter-racial marriages?

At what point do far right nut bags finally realize that they're impeded other people's freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness?

America is about progress and not held fast traditions that oppress others. If you don't like it then feel free to leave and start your own theocratic state. We'll give you Alaska as a starting point :)

And, frankly, if you're on the fence about this, talk about an economic stimulus for Main Street small business.

Cause weddings... Are big for local economies. And people with legal rights can buy houses together.

And there's a whole lot of couples out here who have been waiting a *long* time for this.

So, if you're on the fence or anything cause you 'don't care much' about justice... Think of the economic bump. :)

Spiderman (and those who think like you). You, and other religious conservatives make egregious errors in relation to the Bible and the Constitution. Firstly, I have never seen your name mentioned in the Bible; therefore you are not a prophet. Your proclamation of punishment yet to come is no more astute than anything I might say. Next, you quote Romans. Though in the Bible, this is not the word of God but of the Apostle Paul. Paul's opinion of homosexuality is, in the end, not the word of God, but the opinion of Paul the Apostle. Lastly, the establishment clause of the First Amendment firmly states that the US Government is not in the religion/sanctity/religion-based morality business and therefore, no state in the union may enact any amendments to their constitution that are in discord with the federal constitution. I am a firm believer in God and Christ. Christ, I believe, is the God of love, mercy and grace. GBLT citizens are His flock as we are all His flock. He loves them with as much fervor and devotion as He loves us all. You are free to not believe this, but your fire-and-brimstone belief is not more (or less) valid than anyone's belief. Lastly, I'd like to point out that heterosexual men who are in prison for the most horrible crimes (and many unrepentant sinners) are allowed to marry. But law-abiding, tax paying, pillars of communities citizens who happen to have a different sexual orientation than you or I are to be denied their (endowed by their creator) rights to full membership in our soceity and their (endowed by their creator) right to the pursuit of happiness? How does this square, in your mind(s) with our Constitution? No Bible quotes, please. The Constitution (and therefore our laws) are not specifically based on Judeo-Christianity. And please don't start going on about the Ten Commandments. I dare you to find "Keeping the Sabbath day holy" in the Constitution. And please, no 8th-grade debate team "slippery slope" arguments pertaining to NAMBLA, bestiality and polygamy. States have minimum age requirements for heterosexual marriage; if need be (though it seems silly) language can be added that stipulates that the government will only recognize human-human unions. As far as polygamy, the government only recognizes unions between two people, but it has no recourse as to polyamory; if all are consenting adults.

Sheesh. You'd think only far-right Republicans had families. It's really annoying to hear them talk as if they were the only people who believe in marriage and fidelity. After all Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate of all 50 states, and it voted for Obama, and Kerry, and Gore, so you have to call it Democratic.

I just don't see what harm it does for gays who love each other to be allowed to marry. What always bothered me about the gay culture in pre-AIDS days, especially, was the promiscuity and triviality, the lack of permanent relationships. You'd think marriage for gays would be a good thing because it allows them to settle down and get on with the rest of life.

I just don't see how same-sex marriage is a threat to anyone. It looks to me as if the right-wing Christianists are claiming they feel threatened as a mask for just plain intolerance. I know some long-term couples, both gay and lesbian, and I don't feel that they threaten my heterosexual marriage one bit.

su4pettee:

"After all Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate of all 50 states, and it voted for Obama, and Kerry, and Gore, so you have to call it Democratic."

True? Cool.
Perhaps some of the social conservatives ought to move there, if they are feeling their marriages slipping away. Some of that good morality might rub off on them and help them keep together what God joined and no man should tear asunder.

Nah. Lets keep social purity. Separation of the church and the moral.
:-)

mike_lakewood Author Profile Page:

Spiderman (and those who think like you). You, and other religious conservatives make egregious errors in relation to the Bible and the Constitution. Firstly, I have never seen your name mentioned in the Bible; therefore you are not a prophet. Your proclamation of punishment yet to come is no more astute than anything I might say. Next, you quote Romans. Though in the Bible, this is not the word of God but of the Apostle Paul. Paul's opinion of homosexuality is, in the end, not the word of God, but the opinion of Paul the Apostle.

-You never read the lost Gospel of "Spiderman"? All the major questions were answered in that treasured lost book. The founders of the church hid them away since the prophecies and lessons were just too deep for common folk to understand. You could study Theology for 60 years and never fully grasp the lessons of "Spiderman".

semidouble writes
'Who had the hair raising adea of putting a completely private matter before the electorate?'

The mormons and the RCC.

'3% of the population is gay, so we let the other 97% decide who should marry who?'

Not sure where your numbers come from but I doubt they are correct. We have a constitution so that the majority cannot trample the rights of the minority. If you don't understand that, you're not much of an American.

'I am a happily married and heterosexual father of two and yet I believe
IF YOU ARE NOT GAY, YOU HAVE NO SAY!'

Go ahead and preach your bigotry, it will only be that much funnier when your kids reject your arcane and outdated values.

Well, SU, that 'promiscuous gay culture' of the 70s, for the men, anyway, wasn't so much a product of homosexuality itself or anything to do with a majority of gay people, as it was, (and still is) a product of a wider culture that offered nothing to these people but abuse, shadows, and, well, empty revelry.

There's still a fair amount of that out there, but there's been a really growing awareness in the community that we *are* more than that. A lot of gay kids *do* end up having the self esteem beaten out of them and then find themselves cast to the street, and many of those are the ones who end up simply looking for escape from a life with little hope to it, thanks to the ill-treatment and discrimination of others.

When I was born, gay people had just first risen up against a New York police department that could beat and rape LBGT people with impunity...

Since then, well, pride in ourselves ...as we are, has grown an awful lot. And with it, more of us *live* with more self-respect and respect for each other and hope for the future.

There's always going to be some who are promiscuous, in any orientation, and there's still many lives, particularly for the youth, where not much may be too different, but there are options now, besides acting out of internalized shame and hopelessness.

These and other issues should be in the domain of the states, not the federal government.

www.lulu.com/dshollar

Okay, last comment. If I were to base my entire worldview and ideology on any single written text, much less ones filled with fanciful tales and unfounded promises of a perfect paradise such as those found in any of the religious teachings, I suppose I would also get a little defensive when others began to question my fractal and fragile belief system, and the poor logic it is based upon.

Spidermean2: Your words carry so much weight when your login is based on a comic book character. Maybe I should start going to confession with Superman as my pastor. Oh no!! Those Presbyterians are going to hell, they elected Wonder Woman as the first female Bishop.

On a more serious note, when did Republicanism involve passing useless laws that interfere with the private lives of US citizens? Ohh I remember, when the GOP forgot the principles it was founded on and tried to use religion as a gimmick to garner more votes. Good job. Now you know why you lost to Obama. If you wanna turn it around in '12 you'll stop listening to morons like the Family Research Council.

I'm a "Jesus Conservative" kind of Christian, and a Democrat, who always feels uncomfortable about who our society defines as conservative Christians. Real conservative Christians are those who are more concerned with grace and compassion than the kind of "purification" of society that Jesus himself railed against.

Too many Christians get their views from politically motivated pastors and not enough from the Bible. Sodom, but the way, was not destroyed because of homosexuality, but because the city failed to observe the most sacred law of all desert cultures, the law of hospitality.

I cannot support gay marriage in the church because Jesus says in the New Testament that marriage is between a man and a women. But we live in a secular society and the state has no right not to treat all of its citizens equally. The state should not dictate to the church about marriage and the church has no business dictating to the state. That's really what separation of church and state is all about.

The idea that homosexuality threatens marriage has no bases in fact that I know of. Divorce, on the other hand, is tearing marriage about. Why aren't these so called conservative Christians concerned about that?

Once again the religious nutjobs try to ensure that freedom gives way to BIGOTRY AND HATRED!

I sure wish these WARMONGERING, HATE-FILLED Muslims, Christians, and Jews would kill each other off soon, so the intelligent people can get on with making life better for ALL who remain.

I don't know who these people think they are worshiping, but if they are any sort of representative, he must be one EVIL S.O.B.!

Being a Democrat, there's nothing more I'd like to see than to have the repugnican party self destruct. However I am not giving up anything here becasue it is painfully obvious that they need to cut loose from the religious right before the sheer weight sinks whatever good is left in the party.

Here's a suggestion for helping the California economy:

If marriage in California is a serious institution that by popular vote the State reserves only for a privileged segment of the community, then all married Californians should regard the marriage contract as the letter of the law.

Everyone who breaches the marriage contract -- through adultery, domestic abuse, abandonment, infection by STD, overt failure to respect and honor, drunken and lewd behavior, or failure to act as a caring and loving partner -- should be subject to stiff civil fines that would help finance education, health care, and energy assistance.

Marriage license fees should increase to include assessments for each of the previous marriages of the two parties.

Additional special assessments should be imposed per child on individuals or couples who in the opinion of the community set a poor example of marriage.

A "three strikes and you're out" policy should apply for individuals after their third divorce: they should be no more entitled to marry after that than same-sex couples.

Try passing Proposition 8 under those terms.

Bottom line, other than the "yuckiness" and unnatural nature of said unions, homosexual activities in general poses no threat to humankind's existence even though AIDs will forever haunt the homosexual male community.

"If gays can't abide by the rule of the majority, who needs election then? Maybe we should scrap all elections and referendums and let the people who hold the bigger stick rule."

This statement shows ignorance of our system of government. We do not have majority rule in this country. In fact, the government was SPECIFICALLY set up to protect unpopular minorities.

That's true regardless of how one feels about Prop 8.

Mr.Schwarzenegger got into office by heding the "voice of the people". He was a populist who ran against an extremely competent democrat in Grey Davis. Grey got into a financial bind and started to raise taxes. A republican politican, a millionaire, got a recall going which he financed and the necessary signatures were secured to get a run-off. Arnold's celebrity power allowed him to defeat all comers and walk into the mansion at Sacramento.

Gays in every state have loudly demanded their rights. But defining what those rights are or what the majority is willing to cede to gays in California has its limits. And in California the success of Prop 8 has shown that gays went over that limit by demanding marriage instead of civil unions which would grant property and health care benefits.

Now gays have become angry at the majority. Where will it all lead to? Less acceptance and freedom. Perhaps.

If I were gay I would push for civil unions and be happy with that. As long as we are a christian nation the gay lifestyle is never going to be socially acceptable but that doesn't mean they should be mistreated either. Remember gays are treated much worse in Islamic and Hindu countries. And everyone can't always have everything that we want.

"These and other issues should be in the domain of the states, not the federal government."
------------------------------------

No, these issues are clearly in the domain of the federal Constitution-- and the Bill of Rights. All Americans are guaranteed by the Constitution equal protection of the laws, and the government can't make any laws respecting the establishment of religion. (See first and fifth amendments). Through the 14th amendment, the equal protection clause on the federal consitution applies to the states, as well.

Given this law, which is the highest law of the land, any restrictions on the rights of a certain group or class of Americans to marry are unconstitutional. Moreover, it is un-American to have soldiers go off to foreign lands and have their legs and arms blown off, only to come back home and be 2nd-class citizens. The Constitutional rights of all citizens are what make us different from the Taliban and Iran.

The people who are against the marriage rights of gays are simply un-American - they do not believe in the American way of life or the constitutions of the federal and state governments.

Cstation,

With all due respect for your religious beliefs and agreement with all but a smidge of your comment except for "...Jesus says in the New Testament that marriage is between a man and a women." I've never read anything Jesus said in the New Testament that supports your statement. Please, can you post the Chapter, Verse?

Thanks...

The more appropriate heading of this column should be:

Moderate Republicans Take On Republican Left.

Oh, how I wish the Republican party would
"embrace a positive message of faith and family." Of course to the religionazis out there this means the desire to have a theocracy. That would be fine with me because it would place the repugnacant party forever in a minority status, if not killing it off altogether.

"Gays in every state have loudly demanded their rights. But defining what those rights are or what the majority is willing to cede to gays in California has its limits. And in California the success of Prop 8 has shown that gays went over that limit by demanding marriage instead of civil unions which would grant property and health care benefits."

All untrue.

Rights are not 'ceded' by a majority in America. They are unalienable. Courts recognized the full equality of same sex couples, because that's what courts *do.* 'Separate but equal' may be a popular compromise, but that doesn't make it Constitutional.

'Gays' didn't 'demand' the courts to rule that way. The law did.

The 'success' of prop 8 in California was a result of Mormons and Catholics coming from out of state spreading fear and lies about what same-sex marriage means, and about gay people in general... and getting a thin simple majority.

In America, you can't strip unalienable rights from a minority just cause you convinced some people to vote for it one Thursday.

Unalienable.

You *cede* me nothing. My equality is mine by *birthright.*

"If I were gay I would push for civil unions and be happy with that. As long as we are a christian nation the gay lifestyle is never going to be socially acceptable but that doesn't mean they should be mistreated either. Remember gays are treated much worse in Islamic and Hindu countries. And everyone can't always have everything that we want."
-------------------------------------

Replace "Gays" in the above quote with "Jews" or "Catholics" and think about the implications of this statement. The constitutions of the federal and state governments protect "inalienable rights" from being curtailed, even by majority vote. Ever heard of the Bill of Rights?

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that marriage and what occurs in the bedroom are within the penumbra of constitutionally protected rights. Therefore, they cannot be abridged without a compelling state interest. There is no compelling state interest in curtailing the marriage rights of gays. On the contrary, the government should be encouraging marriage and stable relationships.

The only reasons for prohibiting gay/lesbian marriage are religious reasons- and those reasons cannot be the basis of public laws, as per the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government establishment of religion.

As a Christian I find that Supermean2 is one, super mean and two, the leader of a cult. He's a Borg. Resistance is futile! Let's cram our beliefs down people's throats. That will make them dedicated Christians. I believe God made all people the way they are because that's what He wanted them to be. Gay, Straight, purple. He loves us all as we are.
Thank God!!

Rich393 :
Cstation,

With all due respect for your religious beliefs and agreement with all but a smidge of your comment except for "...Jesus says in the New Testament that marriage is between a man and a women." I've never read anything Jesus said in the New Testament that supports your statement. Please, can you post the Chapter, Verse?
Thanks...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matt 19:4-5
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
NIV

Rich393 :
Cstation,

With all due respect for your religious beliefs and agreement with all but a smidge of your comment except for "...Jesus says in the New Testament that marriage is between a man and a women." I've never read anything Jesus said in the New Testament that supports your statement. Please, can you post the Chapter, Verse?

Thanks...

Mark 10:6-8
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
NIV

That's it, crazypeople. Pin all of your hopes for earthly power on homophobia. See how that works out in the long run.

spidermean2:

There are things that cannot be changed. God created human to be either a man or a woman. That will continue to be that way. God has always a way of reinforcing that. WW3 is coming and one of its major goals is to clean up the mess. If Christians can't clean up the mess, God will and His hand is much much heavier.

How is this sort of thinking not a Christian version of al Qaeda?
I think he's probably just a normal guy, not religious at all, who likes getting a rise out of people. Last week he claimed to be an engineer. That was the tip off for me. He probably is an engineer with a wacky sense of humor. But I dont believe for a minute that he's some religious nut. This is all a joke.

Right on, Mightysparrow! :)

(this Sparrow4, or someone new? :) )

Honestly, I think for the other branches of government than the judiciary, then there may need to be Federal law guaranteeing the rights of all Americans to have civil unions with equivalent rights and protections and full faith and credit clause protection between the states.

It *would* offer a lot more protection than my partner and I currently enjoy. Why so many are convinced that it diminishes their Vegas wedding chapel straight marriages not to make *some* families second-class citizens, but it *would* be a happy day.

And believe you me, I'm not gonna let a few radical Christian factions tell *me* who's married before the Gods. Radical Christians can fulminate all they want, we're gonna say 'married' and 'wife.' They don't get to tell the rest of us, including some Christian churches who've done religious ceremonies for same sex couples a long time now, what religion or interpretation thereof, what religion to obey.

And they never have.

Frankly, Prop 8 is likely to be stuck down by the Supreme Court, anyway, the Fundies just want to hurt people as long as they can. Prop 8 treads on fundamental rights.

It's the folks like the Family Research Council and others like them that have brought down the Republican Party. This imbecilic obsession over gays and abortion has nothing to do with the price of bread. They are not Traditional Conservatives. They preach small government and less taxes so that they can get their real agenda passed through Congress. I think that the country has awakened to their true intent and realized that they only care about themselves and not the betterment of the entire country. We see this after 8 years of their oppression and their destruction of our economy. We must purge our great nation of such wack jobs.

"Matt 19:4-5
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
NIV"

This is Jesus speaking on the subject of divorce, and has nothing to do with gay marriage.

AGAPN9: "If I were gay I would push for civil unions and be happy with that. As long as we are a christian nation the gay lifestyle is never going to be socially acceptable but that doesn't mean they should be mistreated either. Remember gays are treated much worse in Islamic and Hindu countries."

In case you haven't caught up on Constitutional law over the last sixty years, separate is never equal. That is why civil unions and domestic partnerships will not do, unless those contracts are made the civil standard for ALL couples.

And cut the canard language of "lifestyle," please. We go to work, pay our taxes, serve in the military and on the frontline of emergency response, and come home to loving partners and even kids and grandkids, just as heterosexuals do. That's the "homosexual lifestyle," no different from the "heterosexual lifestyle," other than that we share our lives with a partner of the same sex.

"There are things that cannot be changed. God created human to be either a man or a woman. That will continue to be that way."

Google 'intersex.' It might be illuminating. :)

"Mark 10:6-8
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
NIV"
-----------------------------

The above quote from the New Testament addresses neither marriage nor gays. Moreover, it only applies if you are a Christian. Secular law can't be made from religion in this country, so quoting scripture for public policy is fine for the Taliban or in Iran, but is illegal in the USA, thank goodness!

social conservatives = bigots, simple minded bigots

"Right on, Mightysparrow! :)

(this Sparrow4, or someone new? :) )"
----------------------------------

Paganplace: I like your posts, also! To answer your question: I, mightysparrow, am not the same person as Sparrow4.

Posted on November 19, 2008 15:05

DJBrent :
"Matt 19:4-5
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
NIV"

This is Jesus speaking on the subject of divorce, and has nothing to do with gay marriage
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Correction:
Jesus is speaking about the creators intent for man and woman is for them to united (married).

unite1   /yuˈnaɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [yoo-nahyt] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, u⋅nit⋅ed, u⋅nit⋅ing.
–verb (used with object) 1. to join, combine, or incorporate so as to form a single whole or unit.
2. to cause to adhere: to unite two pieces of wood with glue.
3. to cause to be in a state of mutual sympathy, or to have a common opinion or attitude.
4. to have or exhibit in union or combination: a person who unites generosity and forgiveness.
5. to join in marriage.

Jesus is saying that marriage is between a man and a woman.
He is not addressing the abomination of gay relationships, whereas;
He is saying marriage is between a man and a woman since the beginning of creation.

And where, in the quotation below (or elsewhere), does it says it is ONLY between man and woman? Sure, they will do all that, but nowhere does it say two women (or two men) cannot do the same.

"Mark 10:6-8
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one."

Primitive people...

> "The future of the GOP depends on strong leaders
> who will embrace a positive message of faith and
> family. Only then will the GOP win the respect of
> voters," Perkins wrote.

Of course, the self-appointed voices of God (Perkins, Dobson, etc.) are the ones who define FAITH and FAMILY. And, if you don't agree with their definition of what it means to be pro-family or to have faith, then you're not a true Christian or a good Republican.

Tony Perkins and all these other self-appointed fundamentalist windbags don't speak for all Christians. And they sure as heck don't speak for all Republicans. It's time for the GOP to listen to Barry Goldwater and rid the party of its over-dependence on the uncompromising divisive segment of religious adherents.

Aha, Mighty. Nice to meet you, too, then. I wasn't quite sure you weren't our old Sparrow with a bit of a name change. :)

Matt 19:
3 And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. 7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? 8 He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

Nope...Divorce.

In America, there is a separation of church and state. There is also equal protection under the law. It is clearly unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry. It is ludicrous that in America, one group of citizens could vote to deny rights, or more to the point take away rights from another group of citizens.
It is more than sad to see blacks as a major group to vote to deny these rights. It wasn't long ago that people used the Bible as justification for slavery and at the founding of our country they were not even considered to be fully human, by Christians! Shame on them! Shame on Latinos also, who have also experienced discrimination in America.
The Mormon Church should not have been allowed to bankroll this proposition, given the separation of church and state principle in our country. This is in addition to their hypocritical history of polygamy and child abuse. Stay in the business world, Mitt, please! It's too much magical thinking for me when the president believes in the metaphysical powers of his underwear. This is much stranger to me than too same sex people falling in love, in addition to believing that Jesus is returning in Missouri. Give me a break!!!!
I would much rather have a homosexual or lesbian president than one who believes gibberish like that.
If anyone thinks that we couldn't have a Christian Taliban in America, they are naive.
Blacks have just stained the great achievement of President elect Obama by voting to deny rights to gays. Religion should be banned from any formal influence in secular matters.
If Christians were more concerned about what was happening in the board rooms, and the orgies of greed taking place there, instead of peoples bedrooms, America might not be on the verge of economic collapse.

Books older than the Jewish Bible exist, many echoing precepts that Jesus et. al. borrowed/rehashed when they came along. That doesn't mean any of them are inspired bt a deity.

And lest it be forgotten, this so-called holy bible has been used to justify other forms of hate and prejudice, e.g. the continued enslavement of blacks in America.

Yeah, sure, we're told these people weren't "real Christians." But, that misses the point. The fact is that people have used/misused holy books throughout the ages to justify all manner of prejudices.

And there is no reason to think that Perkins, Dobson et. al. may not be among those on the wrong side of history.

Since the reactionary, conservative religious kind are often the ones on the wrong side of social progress, it's a pretty safe bet that Dobson, et.al. will go down in history along with the pro-slavery Christians (i.e. they will have been wrong).

It frankly doesn't *matter* what your Bible says, Ana, it doesn't give you the right in American law to tread on the rights of others. Your interpretation of your religion gives you *no* special command or power over others in the law, so that's just irrelevant.

I have a right to freely exercise my religion, too, and that religion is just fine with gay people and gay marriages.

It does take a pretty dim view of hurting and coercing others, though. Or in fact of you lot *desecrating* marriage by trying to turn it into an instrument of control and division and exclusion...

Homophobia hurts straight people, too. How do you ever know someone's married you for the right reasons, if you force everyone to pretend to be straight?

My religion takes a pretty dim view of people fooling themselves and others, too.

Where's *my* rights?

A governor should not be promoting anarchy, civil unrest, and rebellion. That's exactly what the Terminator is doing. If anyone has seen the spectacle which we call gay pride parades (or take a look at Southern Decadence in New Orleans), it shouldn't take long to compute why most people are hesitant to give recognition to this lifestyle in mainstream America. There is no need to explain how heterosexuals have totally desecrated the holy sacrament of marriage to a point beyond recognition. This is more along the lines of figuring out why in the world a Muslim would fight for the right to take communion or why a Christian would protest for the right to celebrate Ramadan. Can't the LGBT community come up with their own traditions? And name it something like a "triangle", a "quadrangle", a "binary union", an "orgasm contract" or something else? Why they feel the need to invade some other faith is beyond me.

To all you Christians using the bible to support your homophobia. I get so tired of you guys cherry picking the bible. The bible also says to stone adulterers to death, instructs how to sell your children into slavery and says that eating shellfish is an abomination.

Don't see you trying to pass laws in relation to adulterers etc. No, its your own prejudice!

Marriage equality for gay people is only fair.

What view do I need to have in order to get a comment in here???

You want to defend marriage, based on what Jesus actually said? Then you need to outlaw divorce.

Until then, your picking on gays is hypocritical and hateful.

And if you really want Biblical marriage, you need to reinstitute polygamy and forced marriage of underage girls. Both of these practices were the norm in the Bible.

Here's a Bible verse worth contemplating:

"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like Him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother." 1st John 4:16-21.

I am a Christian. I try to live in love, a daily challenge that I'd like to see more people take on. I love my brothers and sisters who wish to live a committed life of love with their same-sex partners. I don't see how a loving God could find their committed relationships sinful. I am not afraid that their unions will somehow destroy my marriage or the institution of family. The very notion is ridiculous. Quit parroting the words of Paul, who was human like all of us and couldn't know the mind of God, and search your own heart.

Religious fundamentalists around the world are forcing their views down the throats of everyone they can - the more powerful they become the more forceful they are.

Religion in the United States is no different but perhaps more dangerous.

Belief in our system is based upon no government inteference in religion and more importantly no religious interference in the affairs of government.

I for one will never vote for any G.O.P. candidate as long as Evangelicals & religious fundamentalists have influence in the G.O.P..

They should be repudiated and scorned as the threat they truly are.

As for becoming associated with organized religion, not until I find one that actually practices tolerance; not just talks but actually practices tolerance.

Well, isn't this just a lot of bigotry rolled into one post:

" forgetthis
"A governor should not be promoting anarchy, civil unrest, and rebellion."

I noticed that's what the Christian right is calling it when Americans who've had rights stripped away protest their dirty tricks...

" That's exactly what the Terminator is doing. If anyone has seen the spectacle which we call gay pride parades (or take a look at Southern Decadence in New Orleans),"

Err, straights have Mardi Gras, in the same city, ... And just look at all those Spring Break orgies of drunkenness.

Clearly, we shouldn't be encouraging the 'heterosexual lifestyle.'

" it shouldn't take long to compute why most people are hesitant to give recognition to this lifestyle in mainstream America."

Cause you *defame* us? Yeah, we noticed.

" There is no need to explain how heterosexuals have totally desecrated the holy sacrament of marriage to a point beyond recognition."

So blame gays anyway and deny us civil marriage, instead of dealing with your own religion's problems internally?

" This is more along the lines of figuring out why in the world a Muslim would fight for the right to take communion or why a Christian would protest for the right to celebrate Ramadan."

Err, no. Civil marriage is not a Christian sacrament. Actually, it'd be more accurate to say *you* guys got it from the Pagans. Pretty popular idea, worldwide, actually, if you hadn't noticed.

" Can't the LGBT community come up with their own traditions? And name it something like a "triangle", a "quadrangle", a "binary union", an "orgasm contract" or something else? Why they feel the need to invade some other faith is beyond me."

Trust me, whatever you call your 'faith' is somewhere I'd rather not step. Seriously. 'Orgasm contract?' Trying to degrade others is supposed to prove your presumptive authority?

In America, your religious view doesn't define my civil rights. Full stop.

Marriage.. is marriage. Your *idea* of it is only that. *Your idea.* And your idea of *me* is... Sick.

Do you pray to your Jesus with that brain?

Who's the gayest guy in the Bible? Jesus Christ!

As Jesus said, Moses allowed divorce because of the 'hardness of your hearts."

Clearly homosexual marriage is an abomination against the sacredness of marriage and an abominiation against God.

"The concept of homosexual marriage is too depraved to even be considered by Jesus or anyone else in any discussion of the purpose of God creating mankind!"

The concept of homosexual ANYTHING does not yet exist at the time. The terms "homosexual" and "homosexual marriage" are QUITE modern. Furthermore, to imply that Jesus denounces something by NOT speaking about it is absurd.

There is not sufficient proof that people are born homosexual. It there was, then this situation would be parallel to racism or sexism. The constitution does not provide that everyone has a right to marry. Also, people are not born with the right to do whatever they want. We have laws against doing things that harm others. Some people (in this case perhaps a majority of them) think that being a sexually active homosexual is wrong. Perhaps if gay people get married, then they will adopt or have children and teach them being gay is okay. Some people see this as harmful to the children. The people in California, Arizona, and Florida voted that it was illegal for gay people to marry. Most of them probably believe that being gay is a choice, and a choice that should be illegal because it is harmful.

The problem here is strictly semantics. It is the fact that the legal "contract" between two people is given the same name as the religious "contract," i.e. "Marriage" that is the entire problem. One entitles you to visit your spouse in the hospital, the other relates to your status with God. Not the same thing.

The solution here is simple: government should get out of the business of "Marriage" entirely and only validate "civil unions," regardless of the sex of the participants. Leave it to the various churches to validate the "Marriages" as they see fit.

No Government or Church has the right to tell you who is and isn't your family. Period.

"As Jesus said, Moses allowed divorce because of the 'hardness of your hearts."

Clearly homosexual marriage is an abomination against the sacredness of marriage and an abominiation against God."

HUH?

One ABSOLUTELY does NOT follow from the other.

Archarito writes
'Homosexuals are bigoted against people wanting to believe and trust in God.'

Interesting assertion, can you back it up? Many gays folks want to be accepted in church (heaven's knows why).

'Homosexual activists are flagrant bigots against the almight God'

I think you might be confused. I think that when an institution, be it a church or government, tries to take away the civil rights of a group, it comes as no surprise that they resist. Certainly the folks who support prop 8, mormons, Catholic leaders and smelly old people have drawn my ire, and I'm about as straight a male as you will find. Maybe you should consider how you'd feel if you loved justice and saw injustices being done.
have a nice day!

"The solution here is simple: government should get out of the business of "Marriage" entirely and only validate "civil unions," regardless of the sex of the participants. Leave it to the various churches to validate the "Marriages" as they see fit.

No Government or Church has the right to tell you who is and isn't your family. Period."

AMEN!

In my religion the proper minister of the sacrament of marriage is not the government. So who cares what contract laws the government enacts? So-called Gay marriage has nothing to do with anything that is my business or anyone elses.

I think the only problem with that idea, Archaeopteryx, is that it wouldn't fly, and you'd have to actively rewrite thousands of laws. Full equality in civil marriage pretty much would mean all we have to do is stop discriminating.

If churches have a difficult time making the distinction between civil and religious marriage, maybe they should have someone come to their church and explain the law for ten minutes, or something.

This is great -- the Christian right attacking one of the GOP's most successful operatives. Can't wait for the mid-term elections. And I thought (political) suicide was unchristian. Go figure.

Dear all:

If we're talking about the history of religious texts, including the Bible, we should also consider the actual history of marriage. Regardless of what Christians (or any other faith might say), marriage began as and remains a primarily *economic* practice for survival and production. The control of reproduction and procreation is part of marriage but not a *necessary* part. Religion has nothing to do with it.

I should also say that I'm a big fan of the Romantic incorporation of love into marriage in western society in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. After all, I'd much rather be married to the woman I love than to someone picked out for me by my parents! But that does not undermine the role of marriage as a fundamentally economic arrangement.

And as an economic arrangement, let the free market rule!!!! (And can we get any of the bank bail-out $$$$ to help correct the bankruptcy of religious marriage?)

"If churches have a difficult time making the distinction between civil and religious marriage, maybe they should have someone come to their church and explain the law for ten minutes, or something."

Hear, Hear!

That's the typical pysche of social conservatives, they want religion in politics, but that's wrong. If the Republican Party were to be more powerful, it would have to be more moderate to get independents and conservative Democrats. The more narrower the Republican party is, the less people, it will have. Conservative ideology is almost never the answer to our nation's problems.

tonyprzy writes
'There is not sufficient proof that people are born homosexual.'

You are certainly right. We don't know what biological mechinism is involved in producing gay folks. However it's clearly not a matter of choice.

'It there was, then this situation would be parallel to racism or sexism'

Actually it is sexism - denial of getting a legal contract based on sex.

'The constitution does not provide that everyone has a right to marry.'

Equal rights under the law says it all to me. Back in 1967 there were still about 15 states that outlawed interracial marriage, and clearly that was illegal from our more modern perspective.

'Some people (in this case perhaps a majority of them) think that being a sexually active homosexual is wrong.'

As solid majorities used to be comfortable with denying interracial marriage and denying African Americans voting rights. Majorities don't determine our rights, the constitution does.

'Perhaps if gay people get married, then they will adopt or have children and teach them being gay is okay. Some people see this as harmful to the children.'

But we don't let bigots determine our right, yes? Of course being gay is OK, and being raised by gay parents won't 'turn' a child gay.

'The people in California, Arizona, and Florida voted that it was illegal for gay people to marry.'

Change 'people' to 'bigots and white trash' and you are closer to correct.

The Bible does indeed talk against men laying with men and women with women - what we don't know, what we cannot know for certain - is if this text was added to the Word of God by human men who wanted their opinions foisted on humankind as the Word of God.

We simply cannot know if this is true or not.

I personally believe that the majority of practicing homosexuals and lesbians were born that way. Science tells us this is fact. There is no sense in wondering why. We also know that by default, all humans begin in the womb as female. At precisely the right time in its development, androgens are released that cause the fetus to continue development as a male.

If the right amount of hormones at the right time are not released, then we have "mutated" fetuses. We have physically and psychologicially "mutated" (for lack of a better word) fetuses; why not allow for gender mutations as well?

Yes, there are people who choose to practice a homosexual or lesbian lifestyle. These are usually either very young people, economically deprived people, and even battered women who feel that life with a woman might be less traumatic.

So?

I do believe that each person's walk with God is their own. I do not presume to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't believe. It is not for me to judge.

I would prefer civil unions with full legal rights rather than marriage, but I'm not going to be the one to mind my neighbor's business. I know I don't want my neighbor minding my business and telling me what I should or shouldn't do or believe, etc.

As far as adopting children and convincing them to be gay? It's hogwash. Studies tell us that this just isn't so. As I said, people are born hardwired either male or female. You can't convince someone against his or her will to be gay or lesbian! The very idea is absurd!

Think about it, could someone convince YOU to be gay or lesbian if you didn't want to be? The only thing gay/lesbian adoption might do is teach children that we should love people for who they are, not what they are; that we should be tolerant of those who are "different"; and that "family" comes in all sorts of combinations.

How can that possibly be wrong? It just might be that we could end up with a much more peaceable, tolerant, less judgmental world. That sounds pretty darn good to me.

Why doesn't it to you?

All religious people will not rest until they destroy this world. Sorry religious zealots, there is no afterlife. Once you lose this one that's it. You only get so much time in the spotlight. Why spend your entire life pepetuating what you have been brainwashed into thinking and hoisting that on all others?

"5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Really?! Not what MY Bible says:

Genesis 19:5 And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them:

Conveneient re-write, I must say.

It's not really fair to say that Christians and other religious folks shouldn't use their religion to decide on the laws of our country. The morals and views put forth in their respective religions are what they are most likely using as a primary source of their own morals. Since they interpret the bible to be against homosexuality, it's no surprise that they want secular laws that prohibit such behavior, or at the very least, laws that prohibit what they see as state sanctioned homosexuality(gay marriage). There are other reasons for it as well. People see it as unnatural, immoral, disgusting, etc.

Most religions set forth guidelines by which to live your life in a moral way. These guidelines are usually decided by ancient writings and modern interpretations of them by present day religious leaders. Society evolves and the morals set forth by religions must change with them to include new behaviors and news laws governing those new behaviors that may have been absent before they became prevalent. The problem with religion is that God's word is always the source of these morals. Faith tells you not to question the source of God's word which could be the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran, or whichever other texts are the building blocks of a particular religion. So, in essence, if you're religious, your morals are dictated to you and you're taught not to question them or their source. Expecting others to follow the rules you yourself must live by because of your faith of choice is not only natural, it's what you're taught to do(unless you actually pay attention to what Christ said; most people don't).

Religion and the God's that govern them, whether they are imaginary or not, are a main source of answers and morals for a great many citizens of the Earth and for the most part they teach positive value's like helping others and being responsible for your own actions.

"tonyprzy writes
'There is not sufficient proof that people are born homosexual.'"

Err, well, there's *no* proof we're *not,* and if the preponderance of evidence, (like the fact we can actually make gay lab animals by messing with the hormonal environment in utero... just as predicted, ) isn't enough for you...

Well, why don't you ask some of us what it's like?

Considering anti-gay assertions don't even make *sense,* (frankly, only your side of the debate even *relies* on a notion we're *not* born with our orientations, ...our side of the debate actually works fine if everyone just has freedom to decide for yourself who to marry.

Religions cling to the idea that being queer is something one chooses, cause the truth means you've been abusing people for no good reason for a very long time.

But that's your problem, frankly.

You certainly have *no* proof you know our nature better than we do. Your assertions, (collectively) don't even match up with the evidence we *do* observe.

Hilarious. Yes, the Republicans lost because they weren't conservative enough. Just keep on doing what you're doing FRC et al. - a "heckuva job". More bible quotes please!

Where did the Christian-Americans like Kentuckywoman all go?

Kentuckeywoman, you said:
Think about it, could someone convince YOU to be gay or lesbian if you didn't want to be? The only thing gay/lesbian adoption might do is teach children that we should love people for who they are, not what they are; that we should be tolerant of those who are "different"; and that "family" comes in all sorts of combinations.
--------------------------
Very well put. It's really as simple as that. Knowing there are so many hateful and terrible people out there willing to judge others based upon whom they choose to love (and we can think of a few on this blog), why would anyone CHOOSE to open themselves up to such scorn by "becoming" homosexual? Conversely, those who have chosen to hate others do so of their own free will. A favorite quote "There are two types of people in this world: Those who don't know, and those who don't know they don't know...it's the second type of people that are the worst."

It truly astounds me that people in 21st century America latch on to God conepts that existed in people's heads thousands of years ago. Take the story of Sod. and Gom. The Bible states that Lot was the only righteous man in the city, but he offered his daughter up to be gang raped by a group of sex crazed hooligans. What righteous man would do such a thing? Do you you people who believe in the Bible know what you read? In Judges, the Levite offers his concubine to a group of hooligans who takes terms gang raping her until she is unable to walk, and the Levite chops her up into pieces and scatters her body. Do you people really the Bible?

fr forgetthis:

>...Why they feel the need to invade some other faith is beyond me.

We are not "invading" anyone's faith. We simply want the RIGHT to marry the partner of our choice restored to us, plain and simple.

Californians voted to give certain rights to chickens. What does that say about their thoughts on homos?

Out of state lobbyist and advocacy groups such as Liberty Council (FL) and Family Research Council (DC), Focus on the Family (Dobson - CO) and Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (sic?) (Land - TN) - as well as the Catholic and Mormon churches - continue to meddle in the public policy of individual states, California included. The clear intent is to pump money and resources into campaigns which would sponsor legislation (or in the case of CA, state propositions) geared to advance a regressive, conservative evangelical agenda for a state-by-state conversion of public policy, setting the stage for an assault on the U.S. Constitution by amendment.

"Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, said 'Barack Obama's victory was a defeat for Republican leaders, not for social conservatives'." I've got news for you, Mr. Staver. Not only was the Republican party repudiated by voters (Bush can't get all the blame), but the GOP will come to the conclusion that cynically advancing your agenda as wedge politics to gain election has been the poison pill the American electorate has clearly rejected. The Republican party will soon turn away from you and your fellow culture warriors of the Christian, right along with the Rovian 50%+1 formulas of partisan conquest and non-governance.

The fear-mongering campaigns that religious entities and right-wing evangelicals are sponsoring (and let's be clear, not all evangelicals of faith subscribe to a regressive, theocratic dominance of the commonweal) have made a few inroads. But as this last political cycle has demonstrated, the country is aching for a consensus regarding the nations affairs moving governance forward, not the morality politics of division.

Attempts to commandeer the public policy apparatus from out of state reveal a failure to persuade on the merits of your argument. The country has made a to move in a new direction of renewal - get used to it Mr. Staver. And don't be surprised that many of the Falwell Liberty U. Law School graduate political appointee imbeds (ditto Robertson's Regent U. Law School grads) in the Justice Department will be shown the door after 1/21/09. Apparently, fidelity to God's law at Christian law schools inures one to disregard of the rule of law (Monica Goodling - you know who you are).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040601799.html

And please, Mr. Staver, leave our governor alone. Arnold's got enough on his plate at the moment.

Conservative Christians deplore the actions of "Islamo-fascists" and then act like them. It's time to stop living life viewing the world through the lens of faith.

Yes, Paganplace, I get it. Anyone who does not share your weltenschauung is a bigot. And by the way, praying is not a function of the brain; it is a function of the spirit. Peace & blessings to you as well.

Paganplace writes,

"Religions cling to the idea that being queer is something one chooses, cause the truth means you've been abusing people for no good reason for a very long time."

It would also mean that God himself created those people as homosexuals and that since the pope himself has spoken out against homosexuality, he must not be as close to God as he'd like to think.

Interesting that people who hold up as a model some place that calls itself "LIBERTY" University could also condemn street protests. Let me see, in history what was it that "The Sons of Liberty" did? And one protest produced 15 arrests. There may well be that number of arrests at the Inauguration. Like in the gay marriage group, they will be a small minority of the otherwise peaceful folks. I can only guess what some of these folks would have been saying and what side they would have been on during the Revolutionary War.

What happened to Spiderman?! I miss laughing at his comments... I need something to get me through the rest of the day!! No one else has been quite as "colorful" as him.

DJBrent :
"5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Really?! Not what MY Bible says:

Genesis 19:5 And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them:

Conveneient re-write, I must say.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are a few popular translations of the Bible for your perusal.

Gen 19:4-5
5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
NIV
New International Version

Gen 19:5
5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
NASU
New American Standard Updated

Gen 19:5
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
KJV
King james Version

Gen 19:5-6
5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."
NKJV
New King James Version

Gen 19:4-5
4 as they were preparing to retire for the night, the men of the city-yes, Sodomites, young and old from all over the city-surrounded the house 5 and shouted to Lot, "Bring out those men to us so we can rape them."
TLB
The Living Bible

The Living Bible is said to be written in language most like common everyday language in use today.

Here's a novel idea for Christians...

Why not stop looking to political power to be your savior, and start looking toward the example of Christ, who REJECTED any attempt to influence the world by wielding political power.

What did He do when the Zealots wanted to crown Him king and overthrow the Romans? He rejected the idea, because faith is a matter for each individual heart to ponder, not something to be forced upon a populace by rote of law.

What did He do when Pilate asked Him about His kingdom? He said, "If my kingdom was of this earth, then my followers would rise up, but my kingdom is not of this earth." Pretty clear comment about separation of church and state. In other words, Christians should be working to build the "church" through positive example, not trying to mold a state power (which will always be corrupted) into their savior.

Whether, as a Christian, you agree with someone's behavior or not, it's not your job or your right to judge them and try to tear them down. Your job (should you decide to accept it) is simply to share what makes your life worth living, and that should be your faith in Christ and how it guides your life in a positive manner. Any other action taken that conflicts with that is simply incorrect. As the Bible says, "Love does a neighbor no harm, therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law." That would be the same compilation of Old Testament laws that many Christians quote to slam homosexuals while ignoring their own violations of it. There's a word for that...it's called hypocrisy, and Christ doesn't allow you any wiggle room to ducking your violations of it.

Here's a quote that Christians (and I am one myself) should take to heart and try to live by, rather than pressuring government to create a world that suits their sensibilities and beliefs (which it will never be capable of doing):

"We do not draw people to Christ by loudly discrediting what they believe, by telling them how wrong they are and how right we are, but by showing them a light that is so lovely that they want with all their hearts to know the source of it." Madeleine L'Engle

Solomon Heriger
http://sheriger-codex.blogspot.com

Hmmm, in my Bible, Christ doesn't say a word about homosexuality.

Err, actually, the Hebrew Torah that you're expecting people to take literally does *not* say that the people of Sodom wanted to have gay sex with the angels... The idea of 'to know them Biblically' is an idea that came from the King James Bible.

Particularly if you just want to rewrite it to make it say anything you want, it holds no authority of any kind.

The story is well understood by anyone who knows anything about the rest of the tale and the people of the time and region it's supposed to be about: Sodom was destroyed, the tale goes, cause the people were paranoid and inhospitable and cruel to strangers, actually.

Being paranoid, they tried to get Lot to violate the sanctity of his hospitality, which would have dishonored him, his house, and in fact cost his daughters any respectable status in his culture. (That's why he offered the *daughters* to the mob, to try to shame them out of violating his house. They refused cause they weren't *horny,* they were *paranoid.*

Gods. It's *not that hard.*

I mean, think about it. Why would a depraved mob intent on rape *knock?*

They wanted Lot to be the one to cast the strangers out of his door cause it was about *hospitality,* not sex.

I have my beliefs, and I peacefully disagree with homosexuality. However, I don't look down on them, or view myself in any way as better than them, and as a Christian I have absolutely no desire to try to force my beliefs on these individuals through laws. We were given Choice, Free Will to choose our direction. I believe in spreading The Word, humbly, and allowing people to do with the information as they please even if it means rejection. I will not stand in line and vote based on an individual's sexual preference that is against my beliefs. They're exercising their given Choice, and it harms noone else. I will take issue with government branches with faulty setups which affects quite the broader group of people. There is a difference, and there are issues that must be prioritized.

I've been exposed to studies, and I'm not anti-science at all, I just don't buy into 100% of scientific "excuses" for certain behaviors. For instance, homosexuality. Yes, there are hormones that adds to effects, but it's not like a different spirit takes over your conscious decisions and decided for you to be a homosexual. I speak with experience, not at all with a same sex relationship (never), but the fact that I actually sat and thought about the options. I sat and I thought and I made a conscious decision to be heterosexual. That was the way that made more sense (to me) with the organization of this world, and that is the way I purposely chose. I believe these people made a conscious decision, just as I did. I can only talk about my faith and walk away. I can only stand in line to vote against faulty government policies which affects them too, when fairness is a must. I do not support the particular lifestyle, but I join the ranks of them and others against other ill issues condoned by the government which affects a larger group of people for the benefit of the few at the vast expense of the rest. Their sexual orientation is their business, but my business is with larger issues. I will not stand in line to vote for or against this matter. Christians must remember that we're all imperfect, and that is the entire point. The teachings say we ought to hold others above our own selves, and that can be difficult. God is the only Judge, and we're not in position to try to take over that role. We ought to be mindful of that when we approach certain matters, and prioritize.

Actually, AIDS infection rates are long since far more prevalent among straights, now, ...though admittedly fairly often closeted and ashamed men in societally-pressured straight marriages do often bring the disease home to unprotected wives cause they were toe-tapping in restrooms or otherwise having irresponsible sex.

Frankly, if the Religious Right hadn't been blocking AIDS research and education and proclaiming it was 'God's judgement against gays' with sadistic glee, opposing safer sex education (Such as the LBGT community has done on its own, ...Clean people, we, it'd be a lot less prevalent out there today.

Of course, we queer girls have the lowest AIDS rates of *anyone* and we still get called 'dirty and AIDS-ridden' by you bigots.

By your rationale, lesbian marriages should certainly be heartily-encouraged.

It's time for the GOP to end its alliance with religious fundamentalists and for the Washington Post to drop its "On Faith" section. Religion should be a private matter. Those who try to make it a public issue do disservice to their faith and to their nation.

I am really shocked by some of the things said here. Archarito writes

"When there are maggots, cockroaches, plague laden-mosquitos, and vermin manifesting uncleanness around us - we try to clean up the uncleanness.

Cleanliness in next to Godliness applies in sexual activity too, doesn't it?"

Are you really comparing homosexuals to maggots and cockroaches? Its disgusting, and you are using language that suggests a cleansing of people? You talk about hate for fellow man, but your message is really no different from that of hitler, blaming one group for societies problems and suggesting ethnic cleansing. It makes me sick. And I really do not understand how a religious person can preach such awful things. I am saddened to read your post.

Thought I might interrupt the various Fundy Fruitbats to ask a question: suppose a majority of the good people of California, in an election, decided to support a proposition placing restrictions on the practice of Mormonism in the state. Or, I suppose, on Catholicism, or Pentecostalism...

We wouldn't see the Mormons or Catholics or Pentecostals protesting in the streets?

We wouldn't see it as morally wrong to turn members of a particular religion into second-class citizens?

"I've been exposed to studies, and I'm not anti-science at all, I just don't buy into 100% of scientific "excuses" for certain behaviors. For instance, homosexuality. Yes, there are hormones that adds to effects, but it's not like a different spirit takes over your conscious decisions and decided for you to be a homosexual."

No, it's not a possessing spirit. You speak from some bias that gay people don't *exist* and are simply defined by a 'sin' label you stick on our loving relationships. It's in our bodies, minds, responses, attractions, what sexuality is good for us and and wholesome and honest and makes real bonding behavior...

It's about *honesty* with yourself about how you're made. You can't try to graft on your idea that some *people* *are* a 'sinful behavior.' You'll never understand that way. The confusion shows in the difference between the dogma and how you actually treat us.

You keep saying, 'No, we just hate the sin,' but always, it's 'You gays,' and stereotypes and defamations and all the other things done to *abuse a minority.*

Being queer, well,
It's like being straight, only... Not straight.
No one tells you. No one can. People can certainly spot there's something different about you at a young age, ...they're just taught to fear and abuse it.

(Kind of like the joke, 'When did you first know you were gay?' "Well, probably what settled it was that bunch of people pounding on me and saying,'You're Gay,' :) )

I think that exists the problem as people should to live in the society. In Europe after the beginning of Protestantism was the trouble with this as have people confessing different faiths to live together. At first one recommended the rule whose authority of this the religion and later left himself from this rule permitting to live to every man according to her own faith. Nowadays the problem is that the law forces her own rules to all people. No one can himself annul from him. How in such case has to live with her own rules the man who should give
" the marriage " to the pair of men because is a clerk and is simultaneously Catholic and attends that sins heavy.
To the introduction of the law taking into account the confession of the man do not agree atheists.
The tar baby.

I do have an affection for Canadians like the Govinator.

I guess that I am a "Free" Baptist. JC said that he would baptize with the "Holy Spirit", can I git an amen brother ? Here is another essay I found on creedalism within the Baptist Church. I like Senater Jeff Sessions too:
http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/pamphlets/freedom/creedalism.htm

"The people in California, Arizona, and Florida voted that it was illegal for gay people to marry."

In response to this assertion, marcedward1 writes:

"Change 'people' to 'bigots and white trash' and you are closer to correct."

Actually, if you look at the vote totals in California, 'the separate but equal argument' carried little weight among minorities, who voted in much greater percentages for Prop. 8 than whites, trash or otherwise.

I think, btw, Archarito, that we can leave it at that and let our words speak for themselves.

Certainly, you can't use words from your own religion, tortured to support your clear and noxious bigotry, as an excuse to deprive people of their civil rights with government power.

Your rationale is circular, anyway, Sodom wasn't *named* after 'Sodomy.' (what, you think they had a big sign up, 'Welcome To Sodom, Home of Sodomy.' ) Sodomy actually got applied to non-missionary-position sex when some theologian started the misconception.

(And, actually, strictly speaking, non-missionary penis-vagina sex without enjoying it is what the 'sin of sodomy' was defined as until quite recently. )

You still have failed to explain exactly how you get off calling lesbians 'buggerers' or 'filthy cockroach AIDS carriers.' Or in general, why if it's so about 'specific behaviors' and the Bible, lesbians get the same oppression when we aren't even mentioned in your book.

Or did you rewrite that to put us in, too?

Samson151 - I guess you might be on track if HOMOSEXUALITY were sexual orientation a religion or a guarantee in the Constitution. But, as we all know it is not. Now whether you accept it or not most in the U.S. still believe it to be a deviant sexual practise even though liberal media and homosexual advocacy groups have worked tirelessly to make being homosexual more acceptable to mainstream society. Personally, I try to practise what the bible says and not be mean spirited or cruel to any individual. And if you sin regardless of what that sin is I try not to hold that against anyone - we all sin. But, don't try to push the legitimizing of Gay "marriage" as a right. First of all no traditional accepted Christian religious doctrine accepts homosexuality as something blessed by Jesus or God. If you want a government recognized "legal" relationship then get a contract witnessed by a judge. That is the plain truth of it - Christians will likely never accept homosexuality as a "normal" relationship in the context of a sacramental blessed marital relationship.

Spidermean2,

Why do you even write in? Ive seen some of your postings and I can already tell you are one of the most ignorant people I have ever heard. Dude,
just shut your mouth. Anybody else who wants to quote a book, written by man, talking about a supernatural spaghetti monster should get kicked out of the argument. Dont let me start on the religion bs I hear on this site. You guys are followers.

ByronAdams,

Allowing gays to marry is a freedom and a right. Gays should have the freedom to marry in this country(the land of the free...) and the right to marry just like anyone else. There should never have to be a proposition presented by the government to allow you to vote for gay marriage. Im straight and I dont remember having to vote for marriage between opposite sexes. Its a sham by some of these religious freaks to keep society going backwards. All I can tell you is that there are way too many biggoted people in this country. They want it their way or no way at all.

Obama2008,

You are a fool. How many gays do you know? It isnt a choice. It never was choice for them. They are in a society that tells them its wrong not to be straight. Im sure you have someone in your family that might be gay and they wouldnt tell you its a choice. You either like women or you like men...that is how it works. The people that go both way are only fooling themselves. My brother is gay and for him, it was something he fought for very long because he didnt know how we would take him. He struggled mightily with how he felt. I wish he would have come out sooner. Its nice to know you dont want to hate on them or consider them lesser beings, but Im sure if you saw two men kissing right in front of you, you would walk off in disgust. I smell a hypocrite.

Christians don't *have* to stop imagining whatever they please about us, boys, (Though it'd sure be nice,) ...all you have to do is not use my government to enforce injustices upon me and my dear one, and people like us.

And, yes, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, last I heard.

If we're not an identifiable minority, who are you calling all these names?

edbyronadams writes

"Change 'people' to 'bigots and white trash' and you are closer to correct."

'Actually, if you look at the vote totals in California, 'the separate but equal argument' carried little weight among minorities'

I doubt that argument was made. The bigots (RCC and mormons) spent what - $25million+ promoting their hatred in a well orchestrated campaign. There was no similar campaign by the pro-marriage side. There was no outreach from the gay community to the black community. However it was certainly the old people that made the difference - if you take away the votes by the old fogies prop 8 fails.

'who voted in much greater percentages for Prop. 8 than whites, trash or otherwise.'

I've heard different. Where's your evidence?

Did Adam ever marry eve? Did Lot have sex with his own daughters? Does the Bible state anywhere that marriage was between one man and one woman?
Didnt Abraham have sex with his slave to have children because his "wife" was barren? The gay community in California should flip it back on the so called "straight" people and start voting on their marriages...no divorce penalizing adultry, etc. Let the straights squirm.

You see, in a sane world, you wouldn't get to walk around trying to justify vile bigotry about the 'nature' of 'you gay people' on one hand, and then claim 'those people are not a people.'

Can't have it both ways, not even in tortured Fundie logic.

EDBYRONADAMS said:
Here is a thought experiment for you. If there is no distinction between gay and heterosexual marriage, what keeps two NAMBLA types from marrying and adopting?
=======

It doesn't take much thought to run through this experiment and find it a failure.

One: what currently keeps a NAMBLA-type from adopting today? Single adoptions are allowed.

Two: what currently keeps a NAMBLA-type from marrying a heterosexual partner and adopting?

Preventing gays from marrying does nothing to reduce or prevent child molestation.

This argument is rather like a vegetarian organization refusing membership to non-whites by reasoning "if we let them join, what will keep some meat-eater from getting in?"

"Actually, if you look at the vote totals in California, 'the separate but equal argument' carried little weight among minorities, who voted in much greater percentages for Prop. 8 than whites, trash or otherwise"

Many of the minorities that voted were either uninformed or not of this generation. Its no surprise that people of all races from earlier generations are much more homophobic than this one.

Isn't equating gay unions with marriage bigotry against God fearing people?

Why not let gays create their own contracts that does not impinge on the 'marriage' contract?

Why not call it the gay/lesbian contract?
Or the communal contract?
Using the word 'union' seems out of place for gay/lesbian civil contracts doesn't it?

Marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman.

Archarito wrote: Isn't equating gay unions with marriage bigotry against God fearing people?
-----

Do you include Hindus, as gods-fearing? (plural). They have weddings and marriage, too.

So do agnostic and atheist heterosexuals. Myself included - I hold marriage to be sacred. To me and my wife. No god necessary.

Marriage wasn't invented by, and doesn't belong to, Christians.

Right now, 50 percent of marriages end in divorce(the straight kind). It doesnt seem like these holier than thou types really consider marriage to be some holy right or else they wouldnt be getting divorces left and right. You talk about it being a sin, yet its ok for some of you to bang everything in sight(its ok because its opposite sex banging) and have kids out of wedlock. Im sure your creator looks fondly on that one. Its about time we let gays marry. I guarantee you they raise that number up a few notches.

TNH1,

exactly where in the Constitution does it mention HETEROSEXUALITY as a religion or a guaranteed right?

No one, not even gays, are arguing that any Christian religion should be forced to perform same-sex marriages in their churches--merely that they should be allowed to get them from the state. You know, like Sarah Palin did when she eloped. If the government is going to be in the business of recognizing, sanctioning, and even performing marriages, then there is no justifiable reason to keep gays from enjoying that same service.

And no, "I'm not comfortable with gays getting married" is not a reason. Just as "I'm not comfortable with a black man marrying a white woman" wasn't, as the Supreme Court ruled forty years ago....

marcedward1 :
Archarito writes
'Isn't the development of aids from sodomy just such an example?'

I never heard that aids was created by sodomy. I think you are rather an ignorant bigot, but feel free to cite your evidence that aids was created by sodomy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Wikipedia:
AIDS was first reported June 5, 1981, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded a cluster of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (now still classified as PCP but known to be caused by Pneumocystis jirovecii) in five homosexual men in Los Angeles.[127]

Also: my father a surgeon by training, was a very compassionate man who was the MD in charge of tuberculosis control for the County of San Diego during the early nineties, and; who also dealt with a lot of aids patients who also had TB. He told me about the origins of aids.
Years earlier he had spent many years in Africa dealing with the health of oil company workers all over the entire continent.
Aids started with sodomy and quickly spread.

ARBURRITO,

Im going to be so happy when you die, head to those phony pearly gates you probably wet yourself over, then find that on the other side, a gay parade is going on and everyone is having fun. Then again, I dont think you are headed there because it doesnt exist.

ARCHARITO,

Your posts are quite a delicious parody of the religious right! Very funny. Very funny indeed.

For a moment there, even I thought you were serious!

Priceless.

You couldn't do a better job skewering the fundies if you tried.

It's not really fair for you to make so much fun of the God Squad, but it sure is funny!

Keep 'em coming ... I don't think the progressives on here get you yet! (*wink*)

FRC's Tony Perkins warns, "The future of the GOP depends on strong leaders, who will embrace a positive message of faith and family. Only then will the GOP earn the respect of voters."

Sooo, this is how the GOP is manipulated: with meaningless language and threats that invert the truth. Not letting gays marry isn't positive but wholly negative. The GOP needs to call Perkins' bluff.

"Many of the minorities that voted were either uninformed or not of this generation."

Not of this generation? Don't let me get in the way of your generalizations. Maybe that generation thing is something that causes them to be lumped into "white trash".

Archarito Author Profile Page:

"Isn't equating gay unions with marriage bigotry against God fearing people?"

_____________________________________

How about, no? Civil marriage has nothing to do with any god, yours or others'. It is a contract between two people and the state where it takes place that establishes the rights and responsibilities of the contracting parties. Equating gay unions with marriage bigotry against God fearing people belongs in church, not city hall.

Viruses closely related to HIV are found in monkeys and other non-human primates in Africa, and many scientists believe that the first humans were infected through contact with monkeys in the middle years of the 20th century. We don't know of anyone who has attempted to have sex with a wild monkey. It's hard to imagine that such an attempt would make it past first base, but perhaps that's one way to get scratched or bitten. Sometimes monkeys are eaten as food, and it's perhaps easier to imagine contact with infected blood through a knife cut during preparation. So this is one possible explanation for the origin of HIV/AIDS.

ARCHARITO,

Just because your father was a surgeon in training, did not mean he was the all-knowing when it came to aids. Aids can be spread in many ways and whoever had it first wasnt born with it, so I wonder how it started? And whether he had vaginal intercourse or committed sodomy(as you would put it), it would have been spread. Your argument is moot bro.

TMH1: Please reread the US Constitution. Let me recommend these links:
Amendment 9: http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_lessons/bill_of_rights/media/nine.htm
Amendment 10: http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_lessons/bill_of_rights/media/ten.htm

...in other words, since homosexuality is not specifically prohibited, sexual orientation can be a protected right. Granted, the US Constitution also allows the majority of the enfranchised citizenry deny natural rights (slavery, Jim Crow). However, it also included a judicial branch to protect minorities against the rule of the mob. The latter has failed many times (Dred Scott v Sandford) but sometimes the courts do get it right (Loving v Virginia).

Oh yeah, one more thing:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

In other words, the US Constitution will more likely be interpreted as guaranteeing the right of an individual to choose his or her sexuality before the courts will recognize religious precedent as a reason to prohibit gay marriage.

I won't preach tolerance and human rights in your church, if you don't preach in my courts and civil code.

Why is it that bigots so often don't seem to think or write clearly, as this comment below shows. Scan it for a moment. The writer says the "Bible won't exist if its words has [sic] no power." So that means the Bible is only subject to whether people follow its many often conflicting admonitions? Or does the writer have so weak a grasp of grammar as to be really trying to say the Bible wouldn't have lasted this long if its words weren't powerful? Well, that's as may be. Different people, different sects, different religions interpret it differently. It sure has power: to turn people's heads and create contention. The writer is probably totally unaware that in Jewish tradition, for example, the Sodom story has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Be that as it may, the Bible serves far too many people as a club to beat people over the head with.

"Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion." (Romans 1:27)

The BIG Punishment is yet to come. Sodom, sodom, sodom. Why can't these people learn?

The Bible won't exist for centuries if its words has no power

Somebody said that during his more than 30 years of living in Los Angeles, he never experienced the kind of bush fire happening in SoCal right now.

He hasn't seen anything yet. Greater fires are coming (exploding fires) if people will continue to disregard the Word of God.

WW3 is coming and unlike the previous world wars, mainland America especially the liberal states will not be left untouched.

Don't mess with Christian values coz it's God who's hurting. People has no idea what that really means. It could be PURE TERROR and right now it just around the corner.

California may be burning now but you've seen NOTHING YET. T

Punishment is coming. Resistance is futile.

"Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion." (Romans 1:27)

"Not of this generation? Don't let me get in the way of your generalizations. Maybe that generation thing is something that causes them to be lumped into "white trash"."

Really, since you seem to know about this why dont you post some facts, give percentages. I used my experience to justify my previous statement. I guarantee you most of the minorities and whites that voted for prop 8 were older people. My generation does not have as many prejudices as ones of the past do. Oh, there I go generalizing again. I cant seem to stop. Please get out of my way.

--I truly wish that people would not cherry pick the Bible; especially when it comes to the words of Christ. However, I do know that Judgment throughout Christ's message is to be left not to us but to Jesus and to God--you can pretty much pick any chapter. Perhaps this is because humanity possesses a limited and myopic view of reality. Often Humanity tends to focus on what they want to see instead of what should see. Our perception of reality is tainted by our needs, wants and unconscious desires. We hurl words like gays, bigots, small minded, abomination, and so on for what reason? Education by force seems to always work!!! It is to assert our authority or dominance in support of our own superiority (often a false superiority, really arrogance or self-righteousness). I think most of you-both sides- need pompoms instead of key boards!!!
--Does the Bible condone homosexuality perhaps, though many of the arguments used are very loose (and unless you are a Jew you cannot use the Old Testament--for we have been freed from the law by faith in Jesus). Now many versus do condone lasciviousness which is often associated with acts of homosexuality, but primarily the language speaks of taking young boys and others against their will and people letting themselves be overwhelmed by sexual desire i.e. Romans 1. These and like verses are generally always associated with men —so perhaps women are off the hook--and have been condensed down with the use of the word homosexual, but generally are described and not labeled. The most often used is from Paul’s writings, I forget where, but while it “May,” indeed, condemn homosexuality, it does condemn those whom judge them; a sort of dual edged sword, perhaps. Paul also says that in heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage...
--The argument of Mark 9 is quite peculiar because of context; it is speaking of divorce. Making it apply exegetically may be a stretch. I do know that Jesus spoke quite often on Love and Not Judging. The idea being you must live your life regardless of what is going on around you, have an opinion, vote, great but in the end LOVE. Why do we focus on those who want to live monogamous lives together? The true killer of family values is a 50% divorce rate and a me first, money centered society, and people putting their drug—money,sex,booze,internet,TV, porn… ahead of their spouse and children. If my brethren would rail against that stuff, spending the same amount of money to combat those things as Homosexual marriage—which in our society is inevitable (not saying you have to like it or live it, but you should love them and respect their freedom, because there will come a time and is rapidly approaching when Christians will be persecuted as they are by us.) Yet I simply say the Lord Judge. As for me I serve the law of Christ which is Love and I suppose was/is the greatest commandment. I leave you with this though you are in this world, you are not of this world, work for love and faith all else matters not.--Peace

"Sometimes monkeys are eaten as food, and it's perhaps easier to imagine contact with infected blood through a knife cut during preparation. So this is one possible explanation for the origin of HIV/AIDS."

Yeah, the most likely vector, actually,

I think it's telling, how the conservative Christian minds leapt immediately to imagine 'You gay people were having sex with monkeys!' when there was an obvious way in which a good quantity of monkey blood and sharp objects are present together on a frequent basis.

And still seem to try to use AIDS to justify their bigotry even though the rates have shifted and lesbians actually have the lowest of anyone.

Arnold just might be the one individual who could bring the Republican Party back to reality. The party needs a strong courageous voice to lead it back into the world of moderation. The religious right has become the party's Achilles heel. When they are no longer in charge is when a good many of us will return to the Republican fold. But as long as the Sarah Palin mentality continues as the party's driving force, that return is highly unlikely.

"WW3 is coming and unlike the previous world wars, mainland America especially the liberal states will not be left untouched."

SPIDERMEAN2,

If WW3 is coming, you are the first person I will shoot.

I apologize if this gets posted twice. I seem to be having trouble submitting it.

I am a white Christian conservative male…but I believe that everyone has certain, inalienable rights. And I will fight for these rights for myself and others (certainly includes homosexuals). Note, however, that I did not say which rights are inalienable, mainly because I am still wrestling with this issue. That’s all I’m going to say about my personal convictions for now.

The religious right is the most vocal opposition to gay marriage, but it is not the only opposition. It’s already been brought up in this conversation, but I’ll do it again: remember that the people who really gave Proposition 8 the votes it needed were African Americans and Latinos, a number of who voted for Obama. The majority of whites who voted on it voted against it. This is just a microcosm of the whole US, but it does show that a significant portion of the population outside the religious right in that area also oppose gay marriage. I just wanted to mention that. That being said, majority rule does not make something just or morally right. Speaking of which, stop saying that the government doesn’t legislate morality! It does. Murder, theft, rape, abuse of power, and social justice are all examples of moral issues that the government does (and should) take sides on. The question is, whose morality, and to what degree does (or rather, should) government legislate it? Why, the correct one, of course. But whose is that? Really, I want to hear what people think and why. And please don’t just say that the correct morality is “what we can all agree on” because that’s along the same lines as saying majority rule makes something right.

Here’s a question I want to throw out there. The notion of inalienable, or innate, rights has come up a lot in this ongoing conversation. On what basis do we assume that all people have inalienable rights? I’m not saying we don’t have them…I believe we do, but I have a reason to believe that, namely because I believe all people were created by God and bear the image of God (gays and lesbians included).

"He hasn't seen anything yet. Greater fires are coming (exploding fires) if people will continue to disregard the Word of God."

Actually, they shouldn't have disregarded the Word of Enviromentalism, ...everybody *was told* that developing in those areas would lead to this... it doesn't *take* a supernatural explanation, just knowing what that terrain *does.*

It is always curious that those faithful believers in the religion of "love" are so quick to condemn those that don't match their particular format. I have many "same-sex" friends who have married and nothing has changed in my marriage of over 14 years (18 years together!). Let's have a constitutional vote on protecting marriage where spouses treat each other well. Do Christians who oppose "same-sex" marriage abuse their spouses and children? Probably there are some that do. Should they be outlawed?

As for Schwarzenegger: I live in California and it is hard to know what he really believes because he is an actor who wants to change jobs and become a senator and he knows he needs support. I find him to be rather narcissistic and not trustworthy. Right now he is pro-"same-sex" marriage and "green". Tomorrow? Who knows. He has actually morphed into Grey Davis--now that he has proposed a vehicle license tax increase that got Davis recalled and Schwartzenegger into office.

Contrary to popular belief, African-Americans represent just 7% of the population in Ca., needless to say it was not this voting-bloc alone that defeated this proposition. It appears that for the first time Gays voted at a higher percentage for the Republican party than in years past. This group can not have it both ways. They can not expect to be supported by Blacks and then vote against Barack who is black.
Too equate equal rights with civil rights is a slap to the face of African-Americans who can list years of discrimination versus examples of hate crimes. Neither is acceptable, but neither is comparable.
Gays have been getting married for years they were just marrying straight people and playing straight. African-Americans can not play black they are black. There are some unchangeables in this life and being black is not one of them.
Personally I could care less about who marries whom, but it is insulting to continue to insinuate that interracial marriage or marriage among blacks was once against the law, so therefore we as the American public should see the error of voting against Prop 8, but again the argument is silly. It was not about same-sex marriage it was about a male and female being allowed to marriage.
Maybe the gay movement should look at the scope of their arguments and the racism within their community towards people of color before they

"If WW3 is coming, you are the first person I will shoot."

Maybe that's the main reason why Spiderman is wearing a suit and a mask. He knows there are so many stupid people around.

I wonder when will they start marrying their goldfish.

Fundamentalist religious people make serious trouble for all sorts of regular people all over the world. Here in America fundamentalist Christians are a worse danger than Bin Laden and his nutties.

Do the nation a favor, do not put up these idiots. Whenever you get a chance, tell a fundamentalist Christian to go to hell. Don't let them pollute our society with their psychologically disturbed ideas with letting them know their time has past with Bush and neocons. GO TO HELL evangelicals!

"Proposition 8 the votes it needed were African Americans and Latinos, a number of who voted for Obama."

Err, well, a lot of African American churches are actually biased against gays, and a number of urban African Americans are Mormons, they did heavy recruiting in that venue some years back. Latinos, of course, are mostly Catholics.

Both of these groups were targeted with misinformation that implied that not passing the intiative would hurt them in some way.

And a fair amount of effort has been taken by some to try and drive a wedge between civil rights for gays and civil rights for racial and ethnic minorities, even if the Christian conservatives are trying to use the exact same laws and propaganda to hurt us as they did to criminalize interracial marriage, etc.

The parallels are pretty obvious, and there were actually a lot of gay folks in the civil rights movement. People forget that Stonewall only happened in 1969, and prior to then *queer folks* could be beaten and raped and harassed and jailed with impunity by the police, even in New York City.

There are a lot of folks out there who want black voters to forget the connections.

There is no meaningful difference between James Dobson and Bin Laden. Two flavors of the same poison.

ZANDERBOB,

I think the whites who voted for Prop 8, 50%for/50%against, latinos were like 55/45, blacks were 70/30. Its a shame that many minorities voted for Barack and still show themselves to be bigots. Way to take a step back people. You want to have rights yourself and not be hated against, yet you arent humble enough to spread that type compassion to others, especially the ones you dont agree with. Does anyone here really think Barack would oppose gay marriage? I think many people who voted for this Prop 8 were older. I do think that minorities are more homophobic than whites and thats a shame. Im a minority and I would vote against Prop 8. I just didnt have the chance.

See, here's an example of that wedge-driving, right here:

"It appears that for the first time Gays voted at a higher percentage for the Republican party than in years past. This group can not have it both ways. They can not expect to be supported by Blacks and then vote against Barack who is black."

This 'appearance' is something you made up.

McCain/Palin didn't even get the *Log Cabin Republicans'* endorsement, and Obama received overwhelming support from the LBGT community.

What you trying to pull?

Marriage is a matter for the individuals concerned, their families and their churches. The state has no business licensing marriages in the first place.

States are properly concerned with contracts, their regulation and enforcement. Civil unions are a matter for the state - not marriage.

If we get the state out of the marriage business, then Prop 8 becomes moot.

"Maybe that's the main reason why Spiderman is wearing a suit and a mask. He knows there are so many stupid people around."

Maybe Spiderman wears a mask because he doesnt want anyone to know that he is a tard and needs a helmet instead.

As long as you're mentioning Stonewall, we might as well note that the post riot freedoms created the culture that allowed HIV to run riot. Can I be assured that gay marriage, changing one of the basic building blocks of society won't engender unintended consequences as well?

a helmet to protect myself against nukes. Stupid people make good ideas.

I hate to break it to you, but gay marriage has been around a long time.

1. Gay marriages were allowed in ancient Rome, although they were banned later. Emperor Elagabalus married a man, as did many other Emporers. See this by a Roman poet named Martial:

"Do you see that man, Decianus, with unkempt hair, whose stern brow even you fear - the man who talks about the Curii and our protectors the Camilli? You shouldn't put any trust in his facade: yesterday he was the bride."

2. Fujan province in China: gay marriages were celebrated. In the Guangdong province, lesbian marriages also occurred.
Sources: Ming dynasty writer Shen Defu "Miscellaneous musings from the Humble Broom Book Room" and Hu Pu'an "A Record of China's Customs: Guangdong."

3. There were openly accepted transgendered people among American Indians, who went on to marry men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

4. Lesbian & gay marriages were and are allowed in many African tribes.

There is other scattered evidence for gay marriages throughout history. As for being gay itself, well, that's been around as long as people have. 1500 animal species have also been seen to practice homosexuality, including many species of birds and apes.
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718

Christian Emperors in Rome (Constantius II and Constans) were the first to explicitly outlaw gay marriage in 342 AD--it apparently was happening before then. Wouldn't that make -them- the ones who "changed the definition of marriage"?

Yeah, Solon, the Athenian whose name has become a synonym for lawmaker, regularized the laws for the practice of pederasty. But one shouldn't really mention the ancients in any modern argument about homosexuality. Since it was quite prevalent then, perhaps even a norm, it undercuts the "born with it" argument unless you want to explain how the gene frequency changed so much in such a short time.

Spidey actually said:
"Punishment is coming. Resistance is futile."

Yup. Spidey is Borg all right. Always figured he was alien.

"If WW3 is coming, you are the first person I will shoot."

...not if I find him first.

OH THOSE HOMOPHOBIC RIGHTWING REPUBLICANS ARE SO LAST CENTURY! ARNOLD Z. IS CORRECT, MARRIAGE RIGHTS FOR ALL AMERICANS GAY OR STRAIGHT! LETS STOP THE HATE ! STOP THE H8 ! PLEASE PLEASE DONT FORECLOSE ON OUR HOMOS!!

edbyronadams--

I don't believe it undercuts anything in the slightest. I don't believe homosexuality ever went away between then and now, it was basically shoved in the closet. Laws saying you're going to be killed for practicing homosexuality tend to make people a little reticent about revealing their preferences.

Archarito, you are the most disgusting sort of bigot. You write:

"If sodomy was not a perversion against God and His Children, why would God have sent angels to destroy Sodom?"

He didn't. There is no God. There are no angels. If you think there are, show them to me. Prove their existence.

"Mankind has authority over all the animals."

Tell that to the next grizzly bear that you meet in the woods.

"Love for fellow man should be inherent in all of us."

Funny, I'd never know it from what you write.

"People should be prevented from transmitting aids, and; the original transgressors were those engaged in sodomy."

Not true, actually. It came originally from a mutation of an organism that caused a non-fatal disease in green monkeys in Africa. Natives ate the monkey meat, and in handling the carcasses, contracted the new disease. It was then, and still is a disease of both sexes in Africa.

Migrant workers from Africa brought it to the Caribbean, where vacationing gay men contracted it from them. They brought it back to the US, so it was for a time, more prevalent among gay males. It is now in both sexes. Just a fluke - no special propensity to be a gay disease.

"Uncleanness associated with sodomy should be regulated since it has been such a plague upon so many people."

Since it's now passed heterosexually, shall we just ban all sex?

Spidey stupidly said,
"a helmet to protect myself against nukes. "

Here is how you are wrong, Spidey:

When I was in basic training in the Army, a long time ago, we had a lesson on what to do in case of nuclear attack. The whole company was in formation.

The sergeant said, "Place your helmets on the ground beside your right foot!"
We obeyed.

Then he said, "Prop your rifle on your helmet."
We did.

Then he ordered, "Move your left foot as far as you can to your left."
We complied.

Then he commanded, "Lean over as far as you can and put your head between your legs...."

Puzzled, we did.
Then he shouted, "Now KISS YOUR ASS GOO0-BYE cause you ain't gonna make it!"

Ever seen an entire company of soldiers rolling on the ground laughing their asses off?

There is absolutely nothing that is conservative about banning gay marriage. A true conservative wants as little government interference in the lives of American citizens as possible. There is nothing more intrusive than banning two individuals who wish to marry from doing so. The same is true for abortion. The government and the religious right need to stay out of a couple's bedroom and private life and out of a woman's uterus. One might call the religious right's actions fanaticism not conservatism.

I want to try and explain something. Now, this is a very brief (and probably pathetic) attempt at an explanation of the traditional Christian view on homosexuality as a sin. I will be including scripture, which probably doesn’t carry a lot of weight with the majority of posters here judging on previous comments. I’ve already lost most readers with that comment. Please know that I’m not trying to persuade anyone to legislate anti gay marriage laws or any anti gay laws. If anything, please look on this as an explanation, not a condemnation.

Classic Christianity, as it has largely stood for the past two millennia, accepts that the Bible (Old and New Testaments) is the actual Word of God (inspired by God). The apostles and the overwhelming majority of Christian fathers and mothers from the very beginning of the faith stand united in proclaiming that all scripture (including the letters from Paul contained in the Bible) are the words of God by the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if you say that you are a Christian but that you believe that this is just the opinion of Paul, you should know that you go against the vast majority of Christianity both past and present. Now, how you interpret Romans 1:26-27, where Paul denounces homosexuality or misuse of homosexuality (depending on who you are) is another story. Again, the vast majority of the Christian tradition has always taught that homosexuality as a whole is wrong, and that this passage speaks specifically to that.

Now, this whole sin thing is a huge turn off for people. I’m definitely not going to convince many (if any) people that sin exists in a blog post, but let me just give this brief and not so profound or well-reasoned comment. The majority of us believe in injustice, so already we can generally accept that there is such a thing as right and wrong. One way to look at the Christian concept of sin is that God made things a certain way. Just like he created gravity and other natural laws, he created life to be a certain way. He created marriage to be a certain way. And if you break God’s laws, the way He created things to be, they will break you. Just like if you tried to break gravity, you’d lose.

Genesis 1-2 tells this story. It starts out with God creating a man named Adam and no other person, and then it goes on to say that it was not good for man to be alone. So God created a companion for Adam who was equal to him, but at the same time different – a woman named Eve. The long and short of it is that they need each other for completion. This was the creation of marriage.

Genesis 2:23-24 says this after Adam first sees Eve “The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.’…For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”
Jesus of Nazareth quotes this in Mark 10:6-8 and Matthew 19:4-5.

Michaelsmind: You are absolutely right in a lot of what you say. Just after Paul calls out homosexuals for “exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones” he condemns those who pass judgment on others. The church is responsible for lovingly disciplining those within the church…it is not its job to judge the world. Furthermore, you are absolutely right that the church at large is focused more on railing against homosexuality than the collapse of Christian marriages due to “a me first, money centered society, and people putting their drug—money,sex,booze,internet,TV, porn… ahead of their spouse and children.” Amen, the church needs to spend more time looking at itself.

However, I’ve got to disagree with you on a few things. First of all…the Old Testament is just as important to us as the Jewish canon is to a practicing Jew. It tells the whole story of God’s redemptive work up until Christ. Also, as for the law of the OT, Matthew 5:17-18 quotes Jesus as saying this.

I'm pretty sure that Prop 8 will be overturned by California's Supreme Court as violating the state constitution.

I'm also sure that this blog is correct in predicting that fundamentalist right-wing zealots - the kind that euphemize themselves as 'conservative Christians'- will now recognize they are suddenly impotent in Washington, and will start trying to stir things up at county, city and state level, and in schools and colleges.

I'm equally certain that their day is over, and they will die out as a meaningful political force over the next 40 years.

These are the End Days, alright. The death throes of anti-intellectual, ultra-rightwing populism dedicated to electing incompetent middle-aged wealthy white men.

Why are so-called "Christians" at "war" with their fellow Americans who happen to be gay? How does gay marrige affect your life? It just doesn't. Stop shoving your religion down our throats. Not everybody has to live according to YOUR religious beliefs. How are you different than the Taliban? We will resist your attempts to turn our secular republic into a twisted and oppressive theocracy. We're not interested.

The Bible obviously has no place in a debate about equal rights in the 21st-century. This is not a theocracy, and we will defend OUR country.

Also, the Bible says slavery is okay, it's fine to beat and rape women, people with disabilities should be forbidden from entering a place of worship, it's an ABOMINATION to eat shellfish, wear clothes made of different kinds of cloth or cut your sideburns, etc. Clearly, these things like ancient Middle Easterners views of homosexuality are totally obsolete and irrelevant.

Finally, in free Democratic societies, people don't vote on the civil rights of others. Is this a free Democratic society or not?

I don't care what the religious right or traditional conservatives believe about homosexuality or anything for that matter. Their beliefs do not belong in the political arena and religious organizations that fail to keep their beliefs where they belong (in their churches, synogogues, places of worship) should be punished for going against the rule of law - which is separation of church and state. Our country and our state do not exist to validate any religious beliefs about morality and we cannot allow them to get away with trying to force their "activist" beliefs onto the rest of us. I am a secularist and the state is a secular realm. Religion has no place in politics, except to be kept as a freedom that all citizens can enjoy in their respective places of worship. The state and the Governor of California does not and should not be influenced by Christianity, anymore than it should be influenced by Nazism, fascism, buddhism or other religious ideologies. The state has no interest in taking away people's freedoms, especially if those citizens do not cause any demonstrable or substantial harm to others. Thus, gays and lesbians should be able to marry one another without having approval from the rest of the state. The Governor was justified in supporting the rights of gays and lesbians to protest and demand judicial rectification of this outright discrimination against a minority by a slim majority.

SPIDERMEAN@ wrote: "Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion." (Romans 1:27)
_______________________

And? So what?

The Bible is not the law (thank GOD). We DON'T and WILL NOT live in a theocracy and the views of ancient Middle Easterners are irrelevant in a debate about equal rights in the 21st-century.

Your religious views are yours. I think it's all a bunch if nonsense. So why should everybody have to live according to your beliefs? The answer is: We don't and we won't.

Mind your own business, and live your own life. Leave everybody else alone.

Thank you for the ACTION ALERT link.. so I could again send a commendation to GOV Schwarzenegger for support the CIVIL RIGHTS of Californians. Now, our Supreme Court will hear the case after written arguments are submitted by January 15...and we will know... My guess is around May 15th next year.
STR8 Against H8

To clarify a point. No where in the U.S. Constitution is there a provision for the "seperation of Chuch and State". This Country was founded on a religious principle. Remember the persecution in Europe. What the U.S. Constitution states is "that the state shall not form a religion". Such as Catholic in Italy, Epsicopal in England, Hebrew in Israel. Our Government can not form its own religion. So please everyone, get it right. The voice of the people have spoken in California. Now it's time to move on......

Gay marriage is an abomination before God.The
word of God in the bible clearly says same-sex
relationship is abominable.Proposition 8 has been
passed by the voters, why can't the gay population
accept the will of the majority? why do they keep
forcing the straight population to accept their
lifestyle?No wonder California is burning like
hell, the bible says,' God is not mocked' and
gay marriages is a direct mockery of God's will
and purpose for creating a man and a woman, and
mocking God has consenquences, what's next after
the wildfires, a massive earthquake in San Francisco, it is very possible. I pray that more
homosexuals will come to know the Truth and the
truth will set them free and the truth is homosexuality and gay marriage is complete violation of God's purpose for creating mankind.
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life if only
gay people will realize that homosexuality is
not an alternative lifestyle but a destructive
lifestyle and repent and be saved in Christ they
will see the big difference. Many gay people are
emotionally tired of their lifestyle but they
feel they are stuck in that lifestyle and can't
get out, but there is hope for them, repent and
be saved.

GETITRIGHT13 needs to get something right themselves: The Supreme Court, you know, the body actually qualified to interpret the Constitution, has made it quite clear the the First Amendment does not allow any government of the United States to favour one religion over another religion, or religion over non-religion.
The Constitution, thank God, is a living, breathing document, and the United States is not a theocracy . . .

I wonder how many people have read the Bible, the old and new testament. I decided it was time in my life that I stop just reading the Bible here and there and read the entire Bible. No where in my Bible did I read that God gave me permission to judge my fellow man. In fact, my Bible tells me over and over again that I have no right to judge another. It tells me that I am to live my life by His word and to leave the judgment to Him. I feel that those who choose to judge others will one day face the "true" judgment.

Clean Coal, Military Intelligence,Compassionate Conservative,...Christian Right....you know where I'm going with this!

If you are a homosexual and want to be saved and
be delivered from the darkness of homosexuality
simply pray ' Father in heaven,I recognized my
sinful nature and I repent of all my sins specially homosexuality. I come before Your throne of grace for forgiveness and mercy and
I call upon the name of Jesus Christ as my God,
Saviour and Deliverer to be saved, I accept Him
in my life and I pray to cleanse me from all my
sins and create in me a new man in Christ, and
In Jesus Name I pray all these things amen.

getitright13 Wrote:

"To clarify a point. No where in the U.S. Constitution is there a provision for the "seperation of Chuch and State"."

Well look at the First Amendment and the religious test clause in Article 6. Sure there is no direct mention of "separation of Church and State," but the establishment clause in the First Amendment is usually interpreted to mean to not favor one religion over another, and this includes no religions, so basically separate the two institutions. This is what the founding fathers intended, a letter by Thomas Jefferson is where the term "separation of church and state" originated from.

"This Country was founded on a religious principle. Remember the persecution in Europe."

No it wasn't, it was founded on many principles and religious freedom was one of them. That includes the ability to practice no religions. Many of the founding fathers were deists and the last thing they would want to see was religion in the government.

"So please everyone, get it right. The voice of the people have spoken in California. Now it's time to move on......"

At one point gay marriage will be allowed across the United States it's just a matter of when. Remember that interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states until Loving v. Virginia in 1967! Until that point the best way to go is through the courts, they are often ahead of their time in judgments based on equality and right and wrong, not on christian morality.

There is hope for all gay and lesbian people,
God did not create anyone to be gay or lesbian,
God loves you all and He wants you to be saved
by calling upon the Name of Jesus Christ to
be saved and be delivered from sins and bondage
of homosexuality. Come to Christ while it is not
too late yet. Read 1st Corinthians 6:7 and it
says homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom
of God' unless they repent and turn away from
homosexual lifestyle. Jesus loves you all.

The FRC is a christofascist organization. They seek to impose their specific brand of ultra conservative doctrine on the world, not unlike the Taliban. Their criticism of Schwarzenegger means Arnold is actually on the correct path!

To all of you folks quoting scripture and all, I say...I fully support you practicing your religion, but you have no right to impose it on others. None. If you are against gay marriage, don't have one. If you are against abortion, don't have one. Your belief, however, that you have a right even an obligation to force your views on the rest of us, is bunk. It is narcissistic, ill mannered, cruel, and indicates a serious lack of critical thinking.

Keep your religion to yourself. Your rudeness at seeking to impose your beliefs on others is unacceptable.

SPIDERMEAN2 :
There are things that cannot be changed. God created human to be either a man or a woman. That will continue to be that way. God has always a way of reinforcing that. WW3 is coming and one of its major goals is to clean up the mess. If Christians can't clean up the mess, God will and His hand is much much heavier.
---
Actually there are 6 different human chromosomal gender configurations, not two. You might want to actually study a little before you post because your information is inaccurate.

SPIDERMEAN2 :
Somebody said that during his more than 30 years of living in Los Angeles, he never experienced the kind of bush fire happening in SoCal right now.
---
This is funny actually. There are brushfires every year in SoCal, and just because one person says they have never seen such fierce fires, you leap to the conclusion that this is a punishment from God?? You really should seek psychological help...really. You come across as absolutely nuts, and not too bright, but mostly you come across as mean and hateful...which I thought were against your religion. Oh well,, a hypocritical christofascist is nothing new.

Why should life in the twentieth century be dictated by a stupid old book cobbled together by the ignorant ruminations of desert tribes thousands of years ago. Citing the bible as an authority is manifestly laughable to intelligent people. Who cares what your imaginary friend thinks?

mtnmanvt "Actually there are 6 different human chromosomal gender configurations, not two."

And for two years or more, and there will be 8. After doomsday, it will be back to 2 again.

mtnmanvt "Actually there are 6 different human chromosomal gender configurations, not two."

Wait for two years or more, and there will be 8. After doomsday, it will be back to 2 again.

VINCEPORTER :
Why should life in the twentieth century be dictated by a stupid old book cobbled together by the ignorant ruminations of desert tribes thousands of years ago. Citing the bible as an authority is manifestly laughable to intelligent people. Who cares what your imaginary friend thinks?
---
I take it even further. If their are deities, goddesses and gods, then Jahweh is a regional god from part of the desert we call the "middle east." Jahweh, if you look at the three religions that worship him (The Muslims call him Allah) is clearly a psychopath, a narcissist. He demands that he be the only god. He demands that Abraham take Isaac up the mountain and sacrifice him to show his loyalty. He recants when Abe raises the blade. In Jahweh's name we see thousands of years of bloodshed, intolerance, cruelty, and a supreme(ly greedy) church which hides it's pedophiles and invests in war. jahweh sends his only son to die in agony. This is someone to worship?? I don't think so.

SPIDERMEAN2 :
mtnmanvt "Actually there are 6 different human chromosomal gender configurations, not two."

Wait for two years or more, and there will be 8. After doomsday, it will be back to 2 again.
---
ROFL! You have the whole internet at your fingertips. Please, for your own sake, get some education.

"...If you are a homosexual and want to be saved and
be delivered from the darkness of homosexuality
simply pray ' Father in heaven,I recognized my
sinful nature and I repent of all my sins specially homosexuality..."

With respect, I prayed for at least 15 years. If ever there were a human being who did NOT want to be gay, that would have been me.

Doesn't work that way.

I prayed for change (celibate the entire time--in fact, a "virgin"). Finally, God granted my prayers: I met another man, fell deeply in love, and he with me, and we have been together in marital bliss every since.

And God knows my heart, and smiles upon our joy.

God is love.

And God isn't cruel.

I will continue to pray, only now my prayers are that other good, decent, moral gay people (including many people of faith), will indeed come to be content with their portion in life, as we are exhorted to be.

Peace.

I think gays would be better off putting it back on the ballot, where it should pass by a handy margin next time (without the greater-then-usual black turnout which sunk it this time). This running off to court is getting pretty old, especially if the supreme court is going to essentially say the people cannot amend the constitution. Arnold should shut up.

vinceporter wrote "Why should life in the twentieth century be dictated by a stupid old book "

Because the "stupid" old book want to preserve the life of the stupid people. Doomsday is coming because nobody believed it. Just be patient coz it's coming very soon.

The partisan in me welcomes the purging of rational conservatives and moderates from the GOP, but the country would be better served by the clash of principled opposition.

Since the Faustian bargain of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" the GOP has been effectively commandeered by Evangelical zealots who spare no expense to impose their version of morality on the country.

We hear again and again about the supposed scourge of "gays redefining marriage". Yet it was Prop 8's _supporters_, many of them Mormons from out of state, who spent $73 million to insert an explicit legal redefinition of marriage into our state Constitution here in California.

The CA Supreme Court had previously found that to the extent "marriage" is used in a legal sense, it must be applied to all duly committed couples equally, regardless of their relative gender.

In other words, "separate" is not "equal". "Activist judges" did not tell anyone what to call it or impose a definition on this or that word: They just ruled that the status has to be applied fairly, regardless of what label the state chooses to employ.

The rational conservative will recognize that the fundamental error here is the state's appropriation of the word "marriage" in a legal context. If marriage is a cultural and religious concept circumscribed by what is found in the Bible and similar texts, then the State had no business co-opting it in the first place. The rationale for maintaining a semantic separation shrinks even further as "marriages" and "same-sex unions" become more and more indistinguishable in terms of legal, contractual rights.

The obvious solution is to abolish legal "marriage" per se, and issue everyone civil union licenses, which couples would be free to further celebrate, aggrandize, and characterize in whatever manner befits their religious beliefs.

But that just won't do for the zealots of today's GOP, who are fine with having arbitrary sectarian agendas (and restrictions on others' pursuit of happiness) enshrined in black-letter law, so long as the agendas are their own.

SPIDERMEAN2 :
mtnmanvt "Actually there are 6 different human chromosomal gender configurations, not two."

Wait for two years or more, and there will be 8. After doomsday, it will be back to 2 again.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(gasp...)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

CJANASCO

Gay marriage is an abomination before God.
-------------------------------
Hey fruitcake. Read the WHOLE Bible, not just the parts that support your homophobia. What about these abominations? I guess if you eat seafood, leftovers or have gay sex, it’s all the same.

Leviticus 11:12 Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you.

Leviticus 19:7 If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination;

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination

Yeah, the California State Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 to legalize gay marriage and invited the public to amend the state constitution to restrict it is champing at the bit to rule that effort by the public void. I'm sure of it. Sheesh.

Amazing, the number of bigots with their heads buried in the sand. But I must confess that comments of Spidermean2 made me chuckle.

I wonder when Armageddon (Second Coming) is going to take place. It would indeed be a great day if and when the Christian fundos take off for heaven. Come to think of it are they really any different from the militant Islamic fundos? I'll take my chances of being left behind to suffer a horrible fate.

The rabid Christians are oblivious to changes taking place in America and elsewhere. Excerpt from a blog published Oct 25, 2008:

"A sorry lot with tunnel vision. Their America -- the Judeo-Christian America is changing and there is nothing they can do about it. We are truly in a melting pot. This America is for Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, tree worshippers, and....for Muslims. This America is for the devout and for atheists; it is for straights and for homosexuals; it is for the whites and for people of color -- black, brown, yellow."

mtnmanvt believes there are 6 genders.

Let us examine what that means. 1:male 2: female 3.homosexual male 4:homo female 5: bisexual male 6. bisexual female.

Wow, what became of our science? Since when did humans think like monkeys again?

Arminius belongs to the seventh perhaps. None of the above. We need another marriage law for that.

I think the 8th gender will be those who wants animals as their mate.

Doomsday is coming folks. 100 % sure. The first bomb I think will land at the California Supreme Court.

A question for those of you proclaiming homosexuality as a sinful choice...

Would you please comment on how you've been personally tempted by the idea of hot man-on-man monkey love (or woman/woman)?

I'd like to hear more about the daily internal struggle you face in maintaining the heterosexual attraction which God has ordained for you, in the face of what I assume must be very powerful and compelling homoerotic temptation by Satan.

What are some of the sinful inclinations you've personally experienced in this regard? How have you overcome them through the power of prayer? Witness for us, please.

youarestillidiots, the Lord chateneth his true children. That is the difference between a true Christian and an unbeliever. We feel the "whip" while you guys don't.

SPIDERMEAN2 :
mtnmanvt believes there are 6 genders.

Let us examine what that means. 1:male 2: female 3.homosexual male 4:homo female 5: bisexual male 6. bisexual female.
---
Wrong again. In fact you damed sexual orientations, not chromosomal configurations. The chromosomal configurations are :::drumroll:::XX, XY, XO, XXY, XYY. I could only find 5...I thought I remembered there being six but oh well.

youarestillidiots, the Lord chasteneth his true children. That is the difference between a true Christian and an unbeliever. We feel the "whip" while you guys don't.

mtnmanvt, you forgot XYZ and ABC. I think ABC is the one referring to humans whose mate are animals.

SPIDERMEAN2 :
mtnmanvt, you forgot XYZ and ABC. I think ABC is the one referring to humans whose mate are animals.
---
LOL...do you even know what a chromosome is?

As a Republican, I think some of these vociferous "Religious Right" people are big phony-baloneys.

They should be spending more time meditating about the works and acts of Jesus rather than trying to dictate to Caesar the letter of the law.

"do you even know what a chromosome is?"

The XY sex-determination system is the sex-determination system found in humans, most other mammals, some insects (Drosophila) and some plants (Ginkgo). In this system, females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), and are called the homogametic sex. Males have two distinct sex chromosomes (XY), and are called the heterogametic sex.

I wonder where they are getting those extra X and Y to arrive at 6 genders?

SPIDERMEAN2 :
"do you even know what a chromosome is?"

The XY sex-determination system is the sex-determination system found in humans, most other mammals, some insects (Drosophila) and some plants (Ginkgo). In this system, females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), and are called the homogametic sex. Males have two distinct sex chromosomes (XY), and are called the heterogametic sex.

I wonder where they are getting those extra X and Y to arrive at 6 genders
---
Hey good for you, you looked something up! If you want to understand the configurations other than XX and XY, do some more research. It's fascinating how many variations there are in nature. Just because your mind doesn't comprehend, or your doctrine (written before anyone had even heard of chromosomes) is incomplete, doesn't mean you have to remain ignorant. Do some more studying, you'd be amazed at what you'll learn.

mtnmanvt wrote "XX, XY, XO, XXY, XYY. I could only find 5..."

Now we are dealing with science fiction. I really wonder what microscope they are using to see an "O" chromosome. I'd like to have that one. Maybe, OOO? When would they discover an "A" so we can put together an OA combination. O for Over and A for acting.

I think liberal democrats and some crazy republicans like Governator have that OA chomosome.

I thought we were all god's children...? In any case, I was asking about temptation from below, not chastisement from above.

You see, I'm very confused about this...because if people can be cured of homosexual sin, then obviously innocent souls can also be drawn into it.

I was raised in a Christian household in a small God-fearing community where nobody I knew was gay. When I "came out" as an avid heterosexual straight during grade-school, no one was shocked, and no one attempted to divert me from this path of tacitly obvious virtue.

But then I moved to San Francisco, that cesspool of iniquity, where for the last decade I have worked with and lived side by side with gays and lesbians. And yet I've never felt the slightest temptation to become gay myself, any more than a lion in a wheat-field is inclined to take up vegetarianism.

That was true when I was a practicing Christian, and it's true now. Don't you find that remarkable? How did I avoid being infected and contaminated by such licentious displays as the Folsom Street Fair, or gay weddings at City Hall?

Anyway, after observing my own bizarre personal immunity to gayness, I've come up with this crazy alternative explanation. According to my new theory, all these self-described "normal" Christians who are outwardly obsessed with condemning homosexuality and 'rescuing' gays actually perceive this so-called "temptation", not because they are the chosen (or chastened) of God, but simply because ***they themselves ARE gay***

And since they've invested so much of their spiritual identity in the idea that being gay is a terrible sin, they find they would rather wage a crusade against specks in the eyes of others than submit to a disastrous self-examination of the logs in their own.

But I'm sure that's all just crazy talk.

youarestillidiots, read this and COMPREHEND if possible.

"Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion." (Romans 1:27)

Why should we LEGALIZE PERVERSION? Nobody is stopping anybody to be stupid but I think it's a different matter if we place stupidity on a pedestal. What is perverse should always be considered as perverse.

SPIDERMEAN2 :
mtnmanvt wrote "XX, XY, XO, XXY, XYY. I could only find 5..."

Now we are dealing with science fiction. I really wonder what microscope they are using to see an "O" chromosome. I'd like to have that one. Maybe, OOO? When would they discover an "A" so we can put together an OA combination. O for Over and A for acting.

I think liberal democrats and some crazy republicans like Governator have that OA chomosome.
---
Thank you for continuing to amuse me! Google "XO Chromosome" and see what you find out. Here's a hint...it has nothing to do with politics.

youarestillidiots wrote "I thought we were all god's children...?"

That is what you think but what matters is what God thinks.

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God". Not everyone is his child. Maybe, everyone "WAS" his child but was lost somewhere down the road. That gay marriage thing is really a bad compass.

mtnmanvt "Google "XO Chromosome" and see what you find out. "

Yup and it's called an aberration or an ABNORMALITY. Just like gay marriage is.

SPIDERMEAN2 :
mtnmanvt "Google "XO Chromosome" and see what you find out. "

Yup and it's called an aberration or an ABNORMALITY. Just like gay marriage is.
---
Based on your stated beliefs then, you are saying that God created an abnormality. Hmm. Do you think God loves his abnormal children any more or less than his normal ones?

How do you know that YOU'RE not deeply abnormal?

In May, Sally Quinn posted an essay entitled, "What's Wrong With Gay Marriage?"

A number of Conservative Christians replied, with alot that is wrong with gay marriage. Mainly what they don't like about gay marriage is the "gay" part; they don't like gay people, period. Therefore, the argument for or against gay marriage is not really about marriage, but abouts the dignity and rights of gay people as good and deserving human beings, that they deserve the same respect that is extended to all other people.

So I, also posted a very long comment, which I am reposting in modified form here:

First of all, it is my belief that human sexuality is very complex, and not well understood by anyone today, nor in the days when the Bible was written. Therefore, I am giving my opinions based on my experiences and observations.

One thing that I have observed is that, for the most part, when Christians think of gay people, all they think about is the logistics of sex and sexual positions, making assumptions about individuals, which they could have no way of knowing, but can only imagine and suppose, and from this, they make all their judgements. I think this is a little simple minded, and is the reason why people who give it more consideration find Christianity to be so off-putting.

Being gay is a whole collection of traits, which are integrated into the personality, so that it is a major defining quality of the personality. Therefore, a gay orientation cannot be "erradiated" without drastically altering, changing, and damaging the personality. Even if you had the power to make this alteration in another peron's personality, I would not think that it could be done in love.

Same sex attraction is only one among the collection of traits that gay people seem to have. The actual logistics of sexual positions and sex acts varies from person to person, and you cannot know what any single person does in private, gay or straight, unless they tell you. Would you ask?

If you would not ask your own relatives and neighbors about the physical details of their sex lives, why then would you ask, or even wonder about a gay person's sex life? In all cases, it would be equally none of your business. Even to suggest that you do not approve, and to suggest that they pretend to be "normal" is not your business.

And the second thing I want people to think about is who gay people are. People seem to have the feeling that there is an organization of gay people with an "agenda" and that they do not know any gay people, although perhaps, they may have met one or two along the way.

But that is a false and wrong assumption. Gay people are a part of life and always have been, They are everywhere, in all countries, in all cities, in every state, and even in little towns and villages.

If you get out of the house at all, you encounter many gay people every day of your life. When you walk through a mall, eat in a restaurant, fly in a plane, even in your Bible study group, and sitting in church, there are gay people around you. So, again, it is a little rude to discuss them, in their own presence, as though they are strange reptilian things with scales and horns.

They are just people.

I have one last thing to say. For a gay person to qualify as a good person in the eyes of Conservtive Christians, there is always a complication. This involves the insistence that people who "feel" gay should seek to surpress it, and try to be "normal." Yet if such a man seeking to be normal, seeking to marry and take a wife for the purpose of seeming and being normal, would that be fair to his wife? Would anyone want their daughter to marry a man like that? Would that make for happiness? And if so, then what of this man who has been asked to pretend to be normal? He is, still rejected for pretending to be normal, which is not the same as being normal. He should be always alone?

Just some things to think about.

Yay! Spidermean is back!!!

Dude, are you drunk when you write these things?!?

"WW3 is coming and unlike the previous world wars, mainland America especially the liberal states will not be left untouched.

Don't mess with Christian values coz it's God who's hurting. People has no idea what that really means. It could be PURE TERROR and right now it just around the corner.

California may be burning now but you've seen NOTHING YET. T

Punishment is coming. Resistance is futile."

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Pure insanity.
....You need help.

Well, I was baptized a Methodist, and I'm moved to wonder how you would know any better than I "what God thinks" about that.

But let's put aside the matter of who is and who isn't one of "God's children". I can't help noticing that you aren't answering my main question.

youarestillidiots :
I thought we were all god's children...? In any case, I was asking about temptation from below, not chastisement from above.
==================================
Google John 1:12, and tell me what you think.

To all sane people here:

Spidey NEVER answers direct questions. He is also undoubtedly a liar when he claims to be an engineer, since he gives no proof. He is either a very clever and malevolent internet troll, or else seriously disturbed. Probably the latter. Hell, maybe both.

Danielinthelionsden,

What an excellent and thoughtful comment. Too bad there aren't more people using common sense.

Nice essay, Daniel-in-the-den. Crazy, mind you, and you'll burn in hellfire everlasting for thinking such things. But nice nonetheless. Next you'll be telling us Jesus was all about peace, love and understanding.

Maybe he was, but what's Jesus compared to Paul? It's the writings of St. Paul (nee Saul) that make up such a critical (and convenient) facet of modern religion when it comes to condemning the nature and behavior of others.

His Road-to-Damascus conversion marked him as the archetypal twelve-stepper of the modern era, and he approached his epistolary task with the zeal typical of any newly rehabilitated screw-up eager to light the way for everyone else--yet subconsciously projecting his own peculiar weaknesses and predispositions onto everyone else.

I especially like how Paul teaches us that it's best to devote yourself entirely to Christ and the church, and forgo carnal pleasures entirely--but, for those who can't resist their lust, it's probably better on balance to "marry than burn".

Gosh. Was there ever a more unstinting and full-throated endorsement of the Divine institution of marriage? Clearly, the author of Romans is a man from whom we should all welcome advice on what makes for a healthy union between two loving people.

There were many such devout pamphleteers in the wake of Christ, but men decided which ones made it into the canon. We've been living with the arbitrary and often cruel consequences ever since, both Christians and non-Christians alike.

Elipeyton,
If you can read John 1:12 then I'm certain you can also read my post directly below yours. Can we move on to the next diversion, like how many angels fit on the proverbial pinhead? I say 13!

youarestillidiots :
Elipeyton,
If you can read John 1:12 then I'm certain you can also read my post directly below yours. Can we move on to the next diversion, like how many angels fit on the proverbial pinhead? I say 13!

November 19, 2008 11:13 PM | Report Offensive Comment
===============================================
Far from a diversion, John 1:12 is a crossroads. It also seems to differ from your position that we are all God's children. That's why I was curious to get your take on it. This issue is more important than whether Barney Frank can marry Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

I think people are forgetting that this countr was built on the bible that is why we had social gospel were the countries government was based on the church yes it it is true this country is popular for religous freedom But let me say this gay marriage in my opinoun is wrong i think country has gotten a little corrupt no one was born gay being gay is a life choice. Let me say this we were all born sinners its our choice if we want to stay that way God does not hate sinners he just hates the sin we our all his children.And another thing i feel the same way about abortions if you are not prepared for the baby then dont commit the sex act and i know your saying what if i got raped well dont kill the baby for what someone else did to you.I am 14 and i have a very strong opinoun if you have questions email me at pearlywirly94@gmail.com and please dont send me anything mean or nasty thankyou

Spiderman

Jesus said, love your neighbor as yourself; love your enemies and do good to those that hate you; for if you love only those who love you, then what is the credit in that? ...for even the gentiles and tax-collectors do that.

I do not know the Biblical citation for this; since I have not memorized the Bible, and I do not have an on-line Bible to copy and paste from. But I know from my childhood upbringing, that it says that in the Bible.

So, why don't you tell me the citation? And then tell me what you think it means? And what do you think, is therefore, your obligation, as a Christian with regards to your feelings towards gay people?

You know, we're all focused on different things here. My original comment was an aside to spiderwhatsit, and was parenthetical to my focus on how the Christian Right perceives and addresses homosexuality, both within and without its ranks.

The silence in response to that issue is deafening thus far, as apparently everyone wants to argue instead about who qualifies as a child of God. You're welcome to go at that question all you like, but not with me.

I was, as I have made clear, a practicing Christian for many years, baptized in the Methodist church, and was therefore a "child of God" under everyone's definition. At no time, then or since, was I tempted in the slightest by the rampant homosexuality that encompassed me.

I find that very interesting, given the prevailing argument that homosexuality is a choice and a sin--into which error, one presumes, believers and heathens alike are actively tempted and lured by the Enemy.

I want to know why I'm not so tempted; why my "maintenance" of my heterosexuality is so unconscious and effortless.

I'd also like to hear those who do experience the "gay lifestyle" as an active temptation describe exactly what it is that they experience, and how it is that they resist these constant homoerotic urges and reassert their attraction to their spouses and/or the opposite sex.

It would make a fascinating testimony. Perhaps 'Pearlywirly13' can take a shot, having just authoritatively informed us that "we're all born sinners" and "no one was born gay being gay is a life choice." Really? Elaborate on your own choice, please.

People are all born sinners, and being gay is a sin, and yet no one is born gay? M.C. Escher has nothing on you, kid.

Schwarzenegger has had too much exposure to steroids and the "Swimmers" family. I'm sure the California activist a##holes in robes will usurp the will of the people for the second time.

Daniel, these words came from a person who followed the words of Jesus if it did not come from Jesus Himself.

"Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion." (Romans 1:27)

It's a danger sign which said "Danger Ahead : Do Not Cross".

Some idiots vandalized the sign and overwrote it with. "Go Ahead, Jump (without a bungy)"

The funny part is many people find it as a LOVELY SIGN.

When the fire starts coming, try to look back and check the sign again.

I'm very pleased that Gov. Schwarzenegger is taking this stand. Proposition 8 is nothing more than religiously-inspired bigotry; institutionalized discrimination is nothing of which we should be proud. Hopefully the California Supreme Court overturn this fatally flawed initiative, which should never have appeared on the ballot in the first place.

I hope that this marks the start of the declining influence of theocrats in American politics. The only interest a government should have in theology is to guarantee every citizen's right to live according to their personal beliefs.

I saw a danger sign that read:

"If this sign be under water, the road is impassable. But if this sign be found floating in the ether, devoid of any logical context, spidermean2 shall consider it a parable unto the children of the Sodomites."

Homosexuality is a WOUND inflicted on the child at a very young age. It is NOT normal and it has to be CURED.

The lack of an EMOTIONAL MALE BONDING given to a child contribute to gay/lesbian behavior. There are also other factors like exposure to perversion.

Most gays don't remember the wound as they grow up coz it happened when they were still very young. They were like clays molded that way and it started at their very young age.

To others, it's a choice. A choice they made in their adulthood.

I hope that answers your qustion, stillidiots?

And isn't it a strange coincidence that sll the people who hate gay people also hate President Obama because he is black?

Maybe homophobia is more than being anti-gay; maybe it is a whole collection of anti-social, xenophobic, fascististc-type traits; a "sour-grapes" syndrome.

Oh well, maybe.

stillidiots, idiots don't read traffic signs until a trailer truck runs them over and the sign is plastered on their faces.

The sign syas :"Idiots, be guided as you cross and try not to bump the speeding cars"

Daniel, I love black people because 75% of them opposed gay marriage. How about that?

Spiderman

Are you saying that being gay is not a choice?

I think that is what you said.

You just blurted it out!

You said, being gay is not a choice; we all heard it, and now you can't take it back.

You said, that being gay is not a choice; that is what you said, we all heard it; you said it, and we heard it.

(Now, let's don't dwell on it.)

spidermean2 Author Profile Page:

youarestillidiots wrote "I thought we were all god's children...?"

That is what you think but what matters is what God thinks.

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God". Not everyone is his child. Maybe, everyone "WAS" his child but was lost somewhere down the road. That gay marriage thing is really a bad compass.
-------------------------
How about this? I don't give a flying f**k to be the son of such a God.

Who says it's a He anyways? You? I think it's a She.

Anyway, Spiderman, something seems to be awful wrong with you, I mean besides just ordinary gaden variety Jesus-mania.

If you are worried that you might be gay, I would suggest that you just relax and give it some time. Just try not to worry, and things will probably be ok.

Check your reading comprehension , danielDen.

Also don't forget to re-read the sign. It must be reading comprehension also. "Do not cross" means "Stop, breath slow, turn 180 degrees and run straight ahead and never look back ".

Spider:

If you are going to quote the Apostle Paul in your fight to demonize gays then you need to accept everything Paul said, including his instruction that slaves obey their masters and that women be subservient to men.

And how about going right to the ultimate source? Jesus never mentioned gays. Not once. But he did mention divorce, when he condemned it strongly.

Yet I don't see you advocating making divorce illegal.

Why not?

Divorce is legal in the Bible if the other partner is guilty of adultery, otherwise, it's illegal.

daniellion:

"If you are worried that you might be gay, I would suggest that you just relax and give it some time. Just try not to worry, and things will probably be ok."

:-) :-) :-)

"A major Christian Right organization is calling out Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, . . ."

And the tail continues to wag the dog. How is it, upon even the slightest of their hissing, reptillian utterances, do these white-washed tombs continue to garner reporting and publicity and reaction and even an ounce of influence in this great nation's public affairs?

Yes, go ahead, keep bickering over the fine points of your theology in this "forum." The Middle Ages is alive and well, thank you very much.

mcdooley "The Middle Ages is alive and well, thank you very much."

Ironically, the liberals to be blasted back to the Middle Ages in the near future.That's the prophecy.

Thank you, Gov. Schwarzenegger, for protecting our secular state. Who marries whom is none of the religious' business. My vote for you is assured.

mcdooley, California just had an election banning gay marriage, idiot. What wagging the dog are you talking about?

Somebody should cut the tail wagging the dog. It's called the Califonia Supreme Court.

If referendums can't be respected anymore, how about baseball bats? They were doing that in Afghanistan so why are we there to stop it if our system here doesn't work?

boy, i do notice no love nor compassion by you religious freaks who it seems never try to follow the words of your Jesus! If being gay is learned, well then i do believe that Hetro must also be learned--right?! So, lets see! When did your parents teach you to be straight? Or the schools, or your friends for that matter? If sexuality is learned, please explain how you all learned to be straight? Was it in the church? And just at what age were you taught it? Now, if you also believe that a gay person through therapy can be convinced to go straight, then you will also have to concede that a straight person can be convinced to gay--right? I mean, you can't just have it one way! I am straight and i personally don't ever remember being taught to be straight. I remember having a girlfriend in Kindergarten and no one said that was the way it was supposed to be! And this was in a catholic school. I don't remember one single nun or priest ever teaching us about sexuality and hetro verses gay? Don't remember ever hearing it from friends, teachers nor my parents. And, i don't ever remember being confused about it, nor asking my parents at age 5 if i was making the right choice in choosing a girl over a boy! I really would be most interested if some of you religious fanatics could please explain to me how you were tutored in choosing a girl over a boy if your male, or a girl choosing a boy over a girl! And as i believe your are born either gay or straight, my feeling is if you had to learn to be straight, you are probably latently gay!

Hatred and fear consume those who claim to be followers of Christ, who uttered nary a word that could be construed as anti-homosexual. They take their loathing of those different than themselves and their homophobic fear that they too might have a seed of homosexuality and then search through the Bible for justification. They won't find any in the words attributed to Jesus Christ. There are some words they should heed, however -- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "If you have done it to the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me."

The hate-consumed, so-called, Christian right will take down the Republican Party that was thrilled to have them as foot soldiers and mindless votes against economic self interest. But, now the debt to the zealots is coming due and the GOP will stand for the Gone Other Party. If the GOP is prepared to become a tiny minority, let it (PLEASE) nominate Sarah Palin in 2012.

Here's the thing:

Instead of supplicating before the Christian Right, the GOP could just as well say SCREW YOU! and they would still get their votes. These Christian Redneck Wackos would never vote for a Democrat. If they threaten to stay home on election day, then so much the better for the rest of humanity.

Hooray for Arnold! I'm glad somebody has the guts to stand up to these Christian bigots whose bullying and intolerance have no place in a democracy!

Spidermean2 said:

"Homosexuality is a WOUND inflicted on the child at a very young age...[M]ost gays don't remember the wound as they grow up coz it happened when they were still very young."

So, in other words, Spiderman is saying that BEING GAY HAPPENS, and BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE.

Spiderman is a REAL dope, and just babbles any nonsense that overflows into his cerebrum from his demented soul. And in all this babbling and ranting about how much he hates gay people, he mistkenl blurted out that being gay is no one's choice.

FRC's Tony Perkins: "The future of the GOP depends on strong leaders who will embrace a positive message of faith and family. Only then will the GOP win the respect of voters."
Hasn't this man read anything besides his Bible lately?
The widespread Republican losses in the recent elections were in large part because American voters are rejecting the Religious Right's attempts to impose its version of morality on everyone through legislation.
I wonder if any of these people have thought through what this nation would be like if they were to succeed in implementing their full agenda?
There would be no freedom at all. Friends and family members would be denouncing one another. It would be a Totalitarian State, with all the requisite evil that implies.
Until humans reach perfection the Christian Utopia is unattainable, and continued attempts to legislate one can only lead to the death of all that is good in our country.

These conservative and right wing organizations voice positions as if they speak for all Americans. I'm sick to death of these self-righteous and arrogant groups who simply have no understanding or respect for the importance of separating religious and secular State affairs. The vision they hold of America is not of a democratic republic, but a fascist theocratic state similar to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I'm sorry, but there are far more critical social issues to resolve in the United States than disturbing the private sanctity of individuals' bedrooms.

This is not Victorian England. This is the 21st Century. We should pride ourselves on inclusion of all forms of marriage and family life. To discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation is un-American. End of story.

Where were these guardians of family values when their president condoned the use of torture, sometimes of the innocent, sometimes to death? Where were these people when Bush invaded Iraq, causing the deaths of at least a hundred thousand civilians? These people have values but they are certainly not family.

And let us state this unequivocably, partularly to Spiderman above, YOU ARE BIGOTS. Peddle your opinions but understand that YOU ARE BIGOTS.

And you are wrong. This country is remarkably tolerant, as you can see from the opinions of its young people. Even some young evangicals are saying that they do not care whether a person is gay or straight/

And Spiderman, how dare you label being gay a perversion? HOW DARE YOU? You small minded little bigot. It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt. YOU HAVE REMOVED ALL DOUBT.

Let the social conservatives blast away; It will only serve to marginalize them more and show them to be the fanatical puritans that they are.
Civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage. The Europeans get it. I think the majority of Americans are now getting it.

Spidermean said: Why should we LEGALIZE PERVERSION?
------

You've asked this several times. I wonder why you are so consumed with interest in the so-called perversion of homosexuality? First of all, homosexual sex acts are no longer illegal in most states, and it's marriage we're talking about.

Secondly, our laws do not forbid many, if not most, things that many would find "perverted", as long as they are between consenting people.

It's legal for me to do all sorts of freaky things with my wife. Some really disgusting things. Perfectly legal. Are you concerned?

What about me sitting here, picking my nose and eating boogers? Why aren't you down at City Hall trying to get my type arrested?

The laws are neutral on "perversions", so your argument, "why should we legalize perversion" is nonsense. Let alone the fact that gay marriage, or being gay, is only perverted in the eyes of some people.

For those of us who see marriage as a sacred union, ordained by the Divine, of a man and woman, the idea of homosexual "marriage" is a perversion. It flies in the face of tens of thousands of years of collective wisdom and tradition. Libertine liberals aside, most state's electorate have overwhelmingly rejected such a notion based on their deep conviction that homosexual marriage corrupts the very concept of the term. The subtle but very real media assault on the institution of marriage has affected the youth, who are much more vulnerable to such effort. But this alone does not make right that which is fundamentally wrong.

The most rigid and dangerous of intolerant, bigots like spidermean (what a telling name) are so obviously rageful, sad closted gay people, it's like a neon sign tattoed across their foreheads. You are a sick, pathetic individual and come across loud and clear as gay. Once a week one of you judgmental, fundamentalist nitiwts falls or is dragged out of the closet (my favorite was the one with father of five who who also had the long term relationship with a gay hooker who sold him meth). Pedophile priests anyone? And on and on and on. GO TO A SHRINK before you are busted yourself (not that you wouldn't deserve it).

Separation of church and state. It's the only way people of different faiths can get along enough to agree with respect to the law. I have my own religion, to which I am deeply commited, thank you very much, and my religion has no interest in judging homosexuality. I think that, if the right disagrees with separation of church and state, they should fight that battle, and the rest of us should just get on with things and legalize gays marriage.

So the issue with Spiderman and the other Jesusfreaks on here is the "sacredness" of marriage. Well, I have the solution - get the government out of the marriage and divorce business and leave it totally to the churches. States will no longer issue marriage licenses nor will they grant divorces. If you want to get married, go see your priest/pastor/bishop. Same for seeking a divorce. If you don't want to go that route, then live together and have a common-law marriage. Simple enough. Better yet - all you right-wing religious fascists need to go find an island to live on and leave the rest of us decent folk alone!

Spider:

You didn't answer my question about divorce.

The Bible is pretty clear. No divorce, except the man can divorce the wife if she cheats on him. Note: Several of the quotations from Jesus on the subject don't even mention this exception. And nowhere is the wife allowed to divorce for any reason.

So why aren't you out there fighting to ban divorce, except in cases where the woman cheats on the husband?

And why aren't you all for polygamy and forced underage marriage of girls? Both were the norm in Biblical times.

Spider:

You also didn't tell me why you insist that modern US law follow the words of Apostle Paul when it comes to gays, but we are free to ignore Paul's instructions that slaves obey their master and women be subservient to men.

Please answer.

The religious right has defined the argument by using the term "cultural wars" so it's time for the rest of us to challenge them and use the correct term -- "religious war". That's what we are fighting in this nation. The religious right is using religion to promote an agenda of ignorance, intolerance, guilt, hate and fear as a weapon to gain control of our lives and dictate how we should live them. That's not culture.

The Terminator's opinion on religion is of no importance whatsoever.
If somebody had said to Jesus that the future of the faith He was founding would rest upon the views of a mediocre actor some two thousand years hence, the Bible would have had one more reference to:

"And Jesus wept."

There are enough of us weeping right now.
Schwarzenegger: A terminator Governor;
Reagan: An actor President;
Bush Senior: A nasty warmongering President;
Bush Junior: An ignorant warmongering President;
Palin: Almost a Cheerleader Vice-President.

We clearly have no standards.

Marriage in a house of worship and the civil contract of marriage are two different things. That's why those who want to marry must present a civil license to the religious leader performing the marriage. Gays are interested in the rights and benefits inherent in the civil contract -- those rights and benefits granted by the government to which we pay taxes, just like Spidermean2. We understand that individual sects should set their own standards for religious marriage. I personally don't care if you call the civil contract "marriage" or "civil union," as long as it carries with it the same legal benefits and obligations that marriage carries today. Here's an example: my partner of 20 years and I jointly own a home. If she dies, I must pay federal and state taxes on her half of the home that passes to me as a "gift." If we were married, I would not have to worry about the possibility of losing my home and moving our children at a time of crisis because of the financial burden of a gift tax. One of the many unique benefits of the civil marriage contract is that it protects the transfer of property from one spouse to another after death. The government does not grant that protection in any other civil contract. Spidermean2 can believe what he wants but he should not be able to decide at the ballot box that I am not entitled to the same legal rights he has, and the government should not selectively guarantee civil rights.

Somebody show me where, in either the new or old testament where God specifically says anything about being straight or gay....You won't find it because there is no direct word of God in either new or old testament.

There is however, a lot of editorial work where someone, usually to consolidate power within a circle of influence, claims God came to them in a dream.

This same mentality infects the religous right. If we discriminate against gays and effectively reduce their status to "less than a citizen", which group would be next, Black Americans, Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans. Hey, don't forget the lesbians......Is this starting to sound like the Nazi's or the KKK....because that is the slippery slope when a segment of society is targeted. First, use slurs to demean them, then round them up and off to the concentration camps...

When you clown shoed fools meet God, I bet it is you who gets the rapture right between the eyes.

"Orthodox Christians" want Schwarzenegger to "terminate his 'inappropriate post-election behavior." Proof that their agenda is dictating their twisted Leviticus picking (except verse 19:33, of course) on the rest of us and making America their own private theocracy. Thank God we sent the intolerant white evangelical Annie Oakley who would promote this packing back to Alaska.

Gays happen. They happens in nature and they happen in people. Most people would not "choose" to be gay based on the hateful, intolerant environment Mormons, Irish Catholic bigots like Hannity and O'Reilly, Muslims and evangelicals create for them. God creates gays just as he creates heterosexuals. Preach and rant and hate all you want but homosexuality is a fact. Demonizing all gays as child molesters, disease spreaders and perverts is using the tactics of Hitler and Rove's to scapegoat a group to rally the mindless religious masses around a demagogue like Dobson. People who do this are no better than the Nazis.

Gays have always been among us and will always be.
Banning them, discriminating against them, electro-shocking the to "cure" them like the Mormons have done, or even killing them like Hitler and the fanatic Muslims have done will not make them go away. Either acknowledge they exist among us and give them the legal rights heterosexual couples have or continue insulting the name of Jesus or whatever God you use to hate, fear and exclude others and then reap what your hateful heart sews. Amen.

Other elements of our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Recently Libya agreed to pay $1.5 billion to the victims of their terrorist activities Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they have threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!! Or is he???

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel hopefully a fresh sense of civility is afoot.

5. North Korea was taken off the terrorist country list recently.

6. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

7. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

8. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

9. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

10. Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

11. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

12. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

13. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

14. The terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends. Radovan Karadzic was finally captured on 7/23/08 and is charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the law of war -- charges related to the 1992-1995 civil war that followed Bosnia-Herzegovina's secession from Yugoslavia.

15. And of course the bloody terror brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

pies2go wrote:
"The government does not grant that protection in any other civil contract." This is simply not true. Property transfer, for the most part, is a state issue, and civil unions, at least in California, grant the same rights to surviving partners as spouses. There is the federal matter of Social Security benefits, but since the article supra is about state laws, it is not under discussion. Perhaps since the Democrats are now firmly entrenched in Washington, they could take up the matter of federal discrimination against domestic partners, but somehow I don't think their constituency will press the matter. It's much more fun to rail at "Christian bigots" than it is to expect your vote getters to act in your interest.

"the idea of homosexual marriage is a perversion. It flies in the face of tens of thousands of years of collective wisdom and tradition."

Actually, not tens of thousands, but more like 1666 years, since 342 AD when Christian Roman emperors declared same-sex marriage to be illegal. It was legal prior to that in Roman society.

It's true that marriage has traditionally been between the sexes, in most cultures. But societies change. Slavery was the norm, with few blinking an eye about it, for the vast majority of human history. Should we retain that practice, for the sake of tens of thousands of years of collective wisdom and tradition?

Here is California, for once in many, many decades doing the right thing -- banning the nonsense of gay marriage -- and Gov.Schwarzenf.....er has to ruin it all.

"So why aren't you out there fighting to ban divorce, except in cases where the woman cheats on the husband?"

I don't think this is a fair critique.

It would be like saying, "If GLBT rights are really civil rights than why aren't GLBT issues highlighted as just and only that? Why aren't they out there fighting for every other minority like themselves as opposed to highlighting their issues as unique?"

I think all people have a right to defend their own communitiy groups' interests. That is the definition of democracy. With the caveat that all people's fundamental liberties are protected according to the Constitution. However the Constitution does not mention marriage, so many would suggest that that is in the people's power if any government power at all.

My question is "Who is in who's grill?"

To me it seems as if both groups are trying to make the typically church sanctioned institution of marriage the major business of the state thereby forcing the state to encroach on the church's turf. In that way, both sides are guilty of violating the church/state provisions of the constitution.

So, I'd like to see some of us respond to Miersow's comment that there are civil union contracts still available to gay couples. Could it be a sufficient solution to the problem and how would that make both sides feel?

Also, wasn't it the Mormon church that funded a lot of the television campaigns? The Mormon church and the "Christian Right" may line up in quite a few areas, but neither they nor less political Christians have the same leaders by any means. So everyone should be careful about their generalizations.

Statements that begin with "All Christians are X" leaves just as little room for understanding the other as "All gays are Y".

Dear Tony,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man and a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? She is 6 years old, healthy, and very smart. She doesn't want to be a slave, so that might be a problem.

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19 24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear contact lenses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev. 19 expressly forbids this: How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? What should we do with the NFL?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these
things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

If y'all passed and actually enforced laws against incest and inbreeding with one's cousins, all the Christian conservatives would vanish within a few generations. It's your own fault for letting too many cousins marry and turning a blind eye to incestuous crap like the Yearning For Zion Ranch and people like the Billy Graham clan for far too long. Yes, I said Billy Graham clan, as in the BIlly Graham Crusade. Bill Graham's cousin married their 12 year old cousin... part of those good ole down home Christian family values... YEEHAW!

Lee,

Is this last comment for or against freedom of choice in marriage?

I am ashamed to live in a country so bent on intolerance and hatred. I am ashamed that one is called unAmerican because they are not a Christian. I am ashamed that the distinction between church and state is no longer black and white, but a very hazy gray. I am ashamed that my very close friends are not afforded the luxury of being able to marry, as I am able to do in eight months because I am heterosexual. I am ashamed that gays are not looked at as people but as outcasts of society, through gross misinterpretation of Jesus' teaching. Though I am 31 years of age, I am still shocked by people's lack of tolerance and their hatred. I hope I remain shocked and do not fall into an attitude of complacency.

We've waited almost 20 years for this - the cat fight between the fanatical fire and brimstone religious right and the more rational, more realistic GOP middle like Swartzeneger. What a show this will be. Yeah!!

My advise to Tony Perkins - don't give an inch. Call Arnold Satan. Predict Armageddon again. Strike down by any means necessary all opposition. Show the "compassion" we all know you rant. Show those young Christians what's it like to hate and dispise a certain demographic. Talk about family values and caring about all our brother and sisters while simultaneously throwing gays and others who are different under the bus. No blood, no foul, right Tony Perkins?

I'm praying for the hard right to win. This would all but guarantee LIBERAL victory and leadership for this country for the foreseeable future. The breakdown would then be something like this: 65% liberal, 30% GOP middle, 5% lunatic fire and brimstone religious right.

And the Toby McQuire wannabe, we all think you're an closet gay anyway. You can fool some of the people some of the time...but the religious right all of the time.

ScottChallenger, with your electoral predictions, how long do you think it will be until the majority in Congress acts to remove federal discrimination against same sex couples? It amuses me that the fire is being thrown at California for passing Prop. 8 when that state offers virtually all the rights to same sex couples via domestic unions while their newly elected federal legislators and president get to skate.

"(Schwarzenegger) has acted contrary to the rule of law and has helped foment an environment of lawlessness (one protest produced 15 arrests), intimidation, and racism. Condoning street protests and supporting judicial activist scams to overturn a popularly approved state constitutional amendment approaches advocacy of anarchy," the FRC Alert states. "Gov. Schwarzenegger is playing a dangerous game, and it needs to stop. Now."

And tell me...where were these fine religio-nazis when Palin and McCain were whipping crowds into frenzied hate, calling out Obama, calling for him to be strung up, to be killed....where were the religio-nazis when the Palin/McCain crowds were race-baiting? Until you can throw stones, stay away from glass houses.

Here's another question(s) for conversation/ philosophical naval gazing that may progress things,

If marriage or civil unions aren't defined as between a man and a woman then what are they represented by? What is the limit of a civil union? One concern that there is, is that opening up the definition starts to give credence to polygamists.

If corporations are legally persons then could they have wives/ husbands? (Silly thought)

JOHNRBOMAR :
For those of us who see marriage as a sacred union, ordained by the Divine, of a man and woman, the idea of homosexual "marriage" is a perversion. It flies in the face of tens of thousands of years of collective wisdom and tradition. Libertine liberals aside, most state's electorate have overwhelmingly rejected such a notion based on their deep conviction that homosexual marriage corrupts the very concept of the term. The subtle but very real media assault on the institution of marriage has affected the youth, who are much more vulnerable to such effort. But this alone does not make right that which is fundamentally wrong.
---
If you don't think it's right then DON'T DO IT but you don't get to dictate to everyone else. What part of that is so hard for you to understand?

Do you not see that the very ideological perspective you are holding is part of the problem in this world? People need to learn to accept even that which they disagree with, with exceptions like harming others and harming the planet. You are free to believe whatever you want, why do you feel that it is your right to impose your choices upon others? How does the marriage of people you don't know and will never meet affect you? Only by you focusing on how it bugs you, but it is actually none of your business. Please stop trying to impose your life choices on other people. It is rude.

To Edbryonadams: None of my commentsa addressed gay marriage but since you asked - I'm not so sure gay "marriage" will ever be allowed as a blanket right in every state. The religious right can have the word marriage if they want it so badly as far as I'm concerned. Civil unions with absolutely the same rights by law - and I mean exactly the same as marriage rights - is much more likely.

I'm not a promoter of their lifestyle, but I do believe in equal rights for all - even if they are different. More importantly - what happens when it is scientifically proven beyond doubt that homosexuality is genetically predisposed - like Parkinsons, heart disease, etc. What happens then? The same denial from the right that we hear about evolution of the human species?

Rule of Law? Will of the People? Someone really does have to remind Mr. Perkins and his Family Research Council that, oh, about 75% of The People opposed the Religious Right's Terry Schievo intrusion into a private family matter because of its rigid ideology -- and event, by the way, that began the long descent of public support for conservatism in this country. And even a conservative Supreme Court wouldn't accept the extra-constitutional law a Right Wing Congress passed (and Bush flew home from the holidays to sign) in order to get the feds to butt in on a state matter.

The question was when do you expect the Democratic majority in Congress to act to remove the federal discrimination against same sex couples, such as SS survior's benefits? There was nothing about gay marriage in the question.

Well, your religion is not a state religion. We don't have that here in the USA. We have a Constitution that gives all Americans the same rights. When I was growing up in the church, I learned about helping the poor, the sick, the old. Not a whole lot of time was spent worrying about other peoples' private lives. What changed? Why are conservative Christians so concerned with this? I'm married, and I feel no threat whatsoever from gay people. Someone please clue me in. I don't need the Bible verses. I have read them. I also know the verses that say we can own slaves and sell our children and beat our wives. I have to admit, I choose not to take those verses to heart. I am more into studying the ethics and peaceful lessons that Jesus teaches. OK, waiting for my lesson from Conservative Christians.

SCOTTCHALLENGER said, "what happens when it is scientifically proven beyond doubt that homosexuality is genetically predisposed - like Parkinsons, heart disease, etc"

I think many would find this comment offensive to suggest that propensities to be homosexual can be categorized like diseases. Unless you are suggesting that tendencies towards things like heart disease should be seen as a behavioral right that people have. I don't think either are acceptable for a liberal, free choice society.

Edbryonadams - forgive my misinterpretation. In all honesty, I think it will be six to eight years before gay marriage couples are given the exact same rights and responsibilities as married heterosexuals. The country simply isn't there yet - my opinion. But soon the science will be in - it's just about done now - that undeniably proves predisposition to homosexuality.

If the science comes in sooner then maybe this time frame is accelerated a bit.

California already has a civil union law that gives same sex couples virtually the same rights as traditional couples. This entire fight is about culture and the right to a word "marriage". Despite the rhetoric of the supporters of gay marriage it is not about denied civil rights. Meanwhile, the party they put in power in Washington has no demands put upon them to advance the cause of real rights for same sex couples.

Wilvus,

According to the words of our Supreme Court justices our right to privacy exists in the 'prenumbra' of the Bill of Rights within the Constitution.

This is fancyman talk for it was so important that we didn't feel like declaring it as a right in plain English. Thank you founding fathers :)

The interpretivist side would say that it wasn't mentioned but very subtly hinted at because if explicit it would be more likely regulated by the federal government.

The traditionalists suggest that it never existed and since it wasn't mentioned it is a right that is reserved for the states to determine.

Personally, I think our culture has progressed into a more individualistic one. I don't know whether privacy was really the same concept back in the mostly agrarian 18th century. My guess would be that it is different now. This leads into the constructivists' dilemma...

Dear Atlas Hugged. Yes, predisposed to homosexuality. I realize this freaks people out. But the science is already almost there. I too used to think gay behavior is learned and is greatly affected by the environment one is raised. Wrong - at least for most. I'm not saying there are not those who have learned and have been molded by their environements. This I do believe.

Another fact. When Obama was born, 22 states had laws banning interracial marriage.

To Nicholashoffman:

High Five dude, Sweet burn!

ScottChallenger said, "But soon the science will be in - it's just about done now - that undeniably proves predisposition to homosexuality."

Without disputing the substance of your point, I would simply note that this part is hogwash. Science is *always* tentative, so it will never be "done". Certain ideas and paradigms may have the current consensus, but science cannot irrevocably or permanently "prove" anything. That's just not how science works. See Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

fr spidermean2:

>Homosexuality is a WOUND inflicted on the child at a very young age. It is NOT normal and it has to be CURED....

There is no "cure" for being GLBT. One is either BORN gay or straight. There. That wasn't so hard now, was it?

Edbryonadams:

A clarififcation is needed. I'm referencing all 50 states, not just California. But let's be honest - California's civil union law does not give the EXACT same benefits, rights and responsiblities to gays. This is no opinion, it is fact.

The law should be (or rather will be) changed so the civil union is exactly the same in every respect as heterosexual marriage. The issue then goes away and everyone - except maybe the right - is happy and treated equally. Even if they don't get to use the word "married."

nicholashoffman- absolutely great post. I'm still waiting for someone to answer you, so I can see how you can pick and choose which "laws" I have to follow.

ScottChallenger, you don't get it. The fight is precisely about the use of the word. Meanwhile real discrimination happens to same sex couples on the federal level but no pressure is brought to bear to change it.

I am a liberal-leaning compassionate person who is heterosexual. On the outside I should be for allowing gay couples to marry, but I am puzzeled as to why I do not. I don't think marriage is just about two people being in love. Or about declaring their love to everyone. Or about being able to have and raise children. Or about the legal rights given to couples who are called "married".

Heterosexual couples who live together for years in a relationship are said to have a "common-law" marriage for legal purposes. But there are many heterosexual couples who are in are in love with each other and decide to "live" together outside of "marriage". So what does any of this mean to gay couples who are in love and want to spend their lives together?

Well, it seems the most important things to be considered are the fact that the couple is in love and wants to live their lives together, which nobody is stopping and the fact that a formal marriage confers legal rights to those able to be married. The rest is just emotion on both sides of the argument. Conferring the legal rights of marriage on gay relationships and allowing the couple to live their lives without outside interference should seemingly defuse the gay argument for marriage. They will have the rights they deserve.

Marriage is not a homosexual realtionship. It is a heterosexual relationship by definition. Changing that relationship changes the meaning of the word into something it is not. Calling "baseball", "football" and calling "football", "baseball" is nonsense. Marriage is not something that gays should want to be a part of, since they are not heterosexual and the symbolic part of being called "married" is not worth fighting for. A married heterosexual couple are "partners" for the life of their relationship. An unmarried heterosexual couple couple are "partners" for the life of their realtionship. A homosexual couple, granted the rights of marriage, without the symbolism, are "partners" for the life of their relationship. Add to that the fact that the divorce rate for heterosexual couples is over 50 % makes all of this a show about nothing and a fight not worth fighting about.

Is this the height of delusion or what? The Religious Right actually believes the recent election results are proof that they haven't been socially conservative enough!?! My goodness. If they don't get it now, no amount of repudiation will convince them that America is turning a corner on the bigoted, dogmatic, arbitrary authority wielded by Christian conservatives.

This mentality explains why they so dearly shackle themselves to the past. The future is not their friend, and they know it will not remember these days fondly. Of course, I'd wager my earnings on the prospect that these very conservatives will one day claim responsibility for the advancement of gay rights, just as they have so hypocritically done with all other social progress. But there are those of us who will remember, and they won't get away with this kind of revisionist history again.

Dear Biteme1,

Don't shoot the messenge and this is not made up. Yes, they are very very close to proving undeniably (except for the chronic deniers)that one can be genetically predisposed to homsexuality. Think about it - and put aside all biases (and it isn't easy) - in your heart you truly believe gay people really wanted to be this way? Granted there are a 1% handful who we could all agree want to be gay by choice or by environment. But all?

Scientific research will most likely prove that THERE IS NO GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO HOMOSEXUALITY.

What scientific research HAS found is that there are DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGES that predispose people to homosexuality. i.e. predisposition to homosexuality is a result of hormonal conditions in the mother, often as a consequence of birth order, or other environmental stressors.

This being the case, it can be argued that homosexuality is a type of birth defect. And while we should never discriminate against people due to birth defects, we certainly should not be celebrating those defects, nor promoting them; rather, like the March of Dimes, we should be seeking to prevent them.

Edbryonadams - I think you're right I'm not following you. Here's the bottom line - civil unions for gays in all 50 states, exact same benefits, rights and responsibilities. They do not get "married" that phrase is for hetero-marriages only.

They say they want "marriage." But they can't have that word. If I may - and I do not intend to offend gays - I think what they want is equal treatment and benefits. I think if they are provided this, the issue goes away pretty quietly and "marriage" is saved.

So Yes to keeping marriage for heteros. And Yes to giving civil unions the same benfits, rights and responsibilites.

"Conservative ideas resonate with most Americans," says Mathew Staver.

What a stupid thing to say, given the general election repudiation of conservative ideas.

These idiots are done. Finished. They have no message.

["There is no "cure" for being GLBT. One is either BORN gay or straight. There. That wasn't so hard now, was it?"]

This is a mis-conception. I speak as a former homosexual, myself.

One day, while talking to all of my "gay" male friends -- about 5 of us -- we started to discuss our relationships with our fathers. Because I grew up on the border of poverty, my father was hardly ever in my life. He was working two, sometimes three, jobs to keep the family afloat.

My friend Patrick was one of six kids. His father's attitude was "be seen and not heard". So Patrick never had time with his dad.

My friend Michael was from a Mormon family, one of eleven kids, and his father was too pre-occupied to have any meaningful relationship with him. When he did spend time with his kids, it was usually with the daughters only.

My friend Shawn was born to a single mom of three kids. He never had a "father", just a string of his mother's boyfriends.

My friend Rick and his mother were abandoned by his father when he was a toddler. His mom met his step-father and they had two children, but Rick was never treated very nice by his step-father and never developed a loving relationship with him.

My friend Ron was one of two boys. Ron's older brother was very popular and athletic and received most of his father's attention. Ron says that his father largely neglected him in favour of his brother.

We all came from different backgrounds; Caucasian, Fillipino, African American, Hispanic. We come from different economic levels -- upper/middle-class to impoverished. We have different faith backgrounds -- Jewish, Mormon, Baptist, Catholic.

But we all have one thing in common -- our quest to find masculine attention and affirmation.

Do I think this is the only thing that led us into homosexuality? No. There were likely many other contributing factors also. But I want people to know just how IMPORTANT it truly is to have a father-figure or strong male role-model in a boy's life.

"This is a mis-conception. I speak as a former homosexual, myself.

One day, while talking to all of my "gay" male friends -- about 5 of us -- we started to discuss our relationships with our fathers. "

I had a terrific relationship with my father. Still do.

So why I am as gay as can be?

"And while we should never discriminate against people due to birth defects, we certainly should not be celebrating those defects, nor promoting them; rather, like the March of Dimes, we should be seeking to prevent them."

Really? You are actually suggesting a little gay holocaust?

Really?

And you call yourself a Christian?

Sorry, but there was nothing "gay" (happy) about the homosexual lifestyle. I look at how many times I was cheated on, heart-broken, lied to and mistreated when I was part of that lifestyle...Homosexuals are all about "me-first" and whatever makes them happy for the moment.

All of my friends who have chosen to remain in the homosexual lifestyle are miserable -- even those who have partners now have "open relationships". It's really very sad and it makes me all-the-more happy I am no longer part of that community.

"Civil unions with absolutely the same rights by law - and I mean exactly the same as marriage rights - is much more likely."

One problem with that. International law.

International law doesn't recognize two sets of relationships - marriage and civil unions.

It recognizes marriage.

When a couple travels abroad they lose all their marital rights if they aren't a married couple.

I see no way to address that without giving gays full marriage rights.

I do wish, though, that gays would always use the term 'civil marriage', as that's exactly what it is. It isn't religious marriage. It's civil marriage. If gay people always used that term - civil marriage - it would make the distinction so much clearer.

Homosexuality is a "WOUND" inflicted on the child at a very young age. It is NOT normal and it has to be CURED.

The lack of an EMOTIONAL MALE BONDING given to a child contribute to gay/lesbian behavior. There are also other factors like EXPOSURE TO PERVERSION at a very young age.

Most gays don't remember the wound as they grow up coz it happened when they were still very young. They were like clays molded that way and it started at their very young age.

To others, it's a choice. A choice they made in their adulthood.

The male bonding must happen at the time when the child is at its very young age otherwise it could be too late.

"All of my friends who have chosen to remain in the homosexual lifestyle are miserable"

Maybe it's because they hung out with you.

As for being ex-gay..... how many out there would welcome an 'ex-gay' man marrying their sister?

No? Didn't think so.

apple92681 writes
'Sorry, but there was nothing "gay" (happy) about the homosexual lifestyle'

For you. However just because you're a rather misreble person you shouldn't project your failures on others.

'I look at how many times I was cheated on, heart-broken, lied to and mistreated'

That happens in straight relationships as well.

JudgeRoyBean writes
'I am a liberal-leaning compassionate person who is heterosexual. On the outside I should be for allowing gay couples to marry, but I am puzzeled as to why I do not'

Easy - you're an unAmerican bigot who doesn't believe in civil rights for anybody besides yourself.

Spider:

Welcome back. You gonna answer my questions now?

It is at his very young age when the child starts to "copy" his model. A "male character transfer", if you will. He is like a sponge absorbing those male traits.

If there's a male pervert in the house, he would absorb it too and would become gay in the process. Normally he won't remember the perversion done to him coz it happened at a very early age.

Point 1:

Being christian isn't supposed to be easy.

God created homosexuals to test christians.

You will be judged by how you treat homosexuals.

Point 2:

"Hey you 12 guys -- come with me. You're going to go everywhere with me, eat with me, sleep with me, pray with me, work with me, play with me.

"Were going to travel around the countryside and visit the baths everywhere we go.

"Love your fellow man. Love your brother. Love your neighbor as thyself. Love, love love. Love, love, love."

Who's the biggest homosexual in the bible? Jesus Christ! Why are you using the word of Jesus Christ to attack homosexuals?

What's the question Hillman?

Just an update. The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments concerning this issue, probably as early as March. But we must keep in mind that no religious person can marry anyone without state approval. Marriage is, after all, a legal state only given the status of a sacrament in modern times. Even in biblical times it was a state-controlled institution but the state was a theocracy. With the rise of nation-states and the separation of church and state, marriage became a sacrament.

There is, therefore, a difference between what the state sanctions and what religious bodies sanction. People are legally web if married by a judge, the Captain of a ship in international waters or by a minister/priest/imam/rabbi, etc. Marriage is a legal state governing property and paternity. Whether or not gay men and lesbians can marry same sex partners is for the state to determine, not religious bodies. The latter can simply choose not to recognize such marriages or perform them within their own institution.

c ya later guys

If we're going to pass laws to prohibit everything forbidden by Leviticus 17-26, the GLBT community is hardly going to be the only ones seriously pissed off. Butchers', farmers' and vintners' lives are all going to get a great deal more complicated.

Let's talk about the immigration debate in light of 19:33-34: "When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself."

Then there's always 19:29 "Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute". The ancient Hebrews were certainly enterprising people, weren't they?

Or 19:19 "You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials." Forget jackasses and crop rotations, we're all going to hell for cotton/polyester shirts.

Then there's my favorite, 20:20-21 "If a man lies with his uncle’s wife, he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall be subject to punishment; they shall die childless." So, if I have several kids before I nail my aunt, I'm basically immortal.

Or, better yet, how about we dump all the religious right's bigotry and just settle for Luke 6:37 "Judge not, and you shall not be judged: condemn not, and you shall not be condemned: forgive, and you shall be forgiven."

The simple fact is that all you self-proclaimed Christians are agents of the devil on this one. The angels weep for you, and God ponders his mistake in creating you.

HILLMAN (and APPLE), this is a life experience vs. life experience debate now, you've limited the progression of each other's understanding by subjective fiat.

Could it be, that parental roles play an INTERVENING but not FINAL factor in determining behavoir? After all, any kind of genetic disposition rarely neither DIRECTLY corresponds to nor justifies action. My genetic predisposition to need a source of protein does not cause me do have healthy diet nor would it excuse something like cannibalism. There is valid rational choice and self-interest involved.

I believe that in the nature(genes) and nurture(development/ socialization) debate, rational choice must also be a consideration. For APPLE it may have been a very rational decision to choose the path that he chose in both phases of his life and the same might be true for HILLMAN.

As an aspiring social scientist, my community talks about a hiearchy of needs, material and non-material needs that we all subconciously rank in our minds. Each person's own rational framework is informed by this hierarchy (or worldview if you will) but this hierarchy is in turn affected in extremely complicated ways by external and internal influences.

So, in some parts of Kenya it may be a very rational choice for a man to take more than one wife for more reasons than just his religion. But, because someone's rational framework may be internally rational, in our increasingly individualistic society it does not make it socially excusable. Terrorists of all stripes are the prime example, and our belief in institutions such as prison are testament to the idea that these rational frameworks can be adjusted. There has even been research that has come out lately suggesting that the prime motivation for terrorist action is not affective political motivation, but a sort of displaced desire for sincere and close knit affinity groups, things that terrorist networks provide.

Christians cannot legitimately suggest that people who think differently than them are idiots or irrational.

However, on the other side if it can be shown that a lot of human behavoir can be called rational, then that also means that not all rational behavior can be ethically excuseable in a society that desires the 'common good'.

So I guess in a liberal democracy we get to the point where you have to ask, where does my rational good affect yours?

My despair is that this how our 'age' has decided to rephrase the 'golden rule'. When we are talking about Christ, he suggested that we love others like we love ourselves. I believe he was taking as a given our own definitive rational and emotional self-interest. He seemed to be saying, "With the degree to which you love yourself, love others."

Sounds like spidermean2 had a "perversion done to him at a very young age." The guy is scared to death of gay folks. Me? I don't think gay people choose their persuasion any more than spidermean2 chooses to be an ignorant buffoon. He'd rather not be, but unfortunately....he just IS. Oh well...

Also, this is becoming a very western-centric debate. In Asia and parts of Europe, it is not uncommon for men to go to saunas together regularly without there being any sort of sexual attraction.

I always like to look at things from an economic perspective too just for the thought exercise. Wouldn't it be to business people's economic benifit to have as many sexualized categories of people as possible out there? If I can corner the market on the repressed-gamer-teen-market, then I can make more money in it than having to compete with the willfully-uninitiated-homeschooler.

fr spidermean2:

>...If there's a male pervert in the house, he would absorb it too and would become gay in the process. ...

Nobody "becomes" gay or lesbian. You are either BORN gay or straight.

Atlas:

To me the whole innate vs learned argument is a bit irrelevant.

I knew by the time I was 10 that I liked guys. It doesn't really matter if that was developed in the womb or on the playground.

I know I would be miserable pretending to be straight.

It's such a deeply ingrained part of who I am that the origination of it is pretty much irrelevant.

Gay people routinely face persecution and even death, yet they remain gay.

They wouldn't do that if it wasn't an integral part of who they are.

As for 'ex-gay', that's a bit of a farce. Every study shows that these 'ministries' are, by and large, a failure. First, they only test on people that are miserable and filled with religious guilt. Not exactly a scientific survey. Then they guilt them into denying the physical manifestation of their being gay.

And there are levels of sexuality. There truly are bisexuals out there. And I sure some of them can bury their feelings for the same sex enough to carry on a semblance of a straight life. I mean, if Tom Cruise can pretend.....

I'd ask again - how many of us would feel good about an 'ex-gay' man marrying our sister?

Since so many straight people do not seem to appreciate the sanctity of marriage, but use it only to give some kind of community sanction to what amounts to a succession of sexual affairs that the the friends and relatives must pay for with gifts, then maybe marriage should be revoked for straight people and reserved only for gay people, who might possibly do a better job of it. Of course, straight people could always opt for "civil unions."

Spidey:

A real man doesn't cut and run when the other side asks tough questions.

But, then, in a sense I don't blame you. There is no good answer to the question of why you cherry-pick the Bible to justify your hate, yet you won't allow others to use the Bible to justify slavery, a ban on divorce, etc.

I've posted on this topic for years now. Not once has someone been able to give a good answer for their cherry-picking. Not once. And I've debated people a lot better than you. I didn't really expect you to have an answer.

"Could it be, that parental roles play an INTERVENING but not FINAL factor in determining behavoir? After all, any kind of genetic disposition rarely neither DIRECTLY corresponds to nor justifies action."

Frankly, this point of view is trying to rationalize the notion that being a GLBT person is a 'sin' or 'disorder' in the first place.

The way things look, there is no, or at least no one 'gay gene,' ...rather it's a variation that occurs in utero as a response to various stressors, ...Genetics might possibly play a role in how likely a mother is to have *gay kids,* but something doesn't have to be *genetic* to be inborn and innate and run deeper than mere psychology or choice.

Most homophobes probably can't make that distinction, anyway, but just for completeness.

There is certainly *no* credible evidence that LBGT people are wrong about our experiences and that religious figures know better than we do what we're about. Frankly, I suspect that people who suspect gays are 'choosing' are conflicted bisexuals: and there's more of that out there than anyone admits: being bi doesn't mean you choose your orientation, either: it's just somewhat harder to figure out that you can't really shut off the responses that constitute attraction and bonding selectively, and be attracted to one sex while not the other.

Anyway, the notions that being queer is a 'problem' 'caused' by 'nurture,' or 'choice' come from discredited 'studies' from times when being LBGT was considered a mental illness, and the samples were taken from people who were in psychiatric treatment.

Any anecdotal correlation between parenting issues and people being gay is pretty much an artifact of that old sampling error. (actually, in the population at large, LBGT people are no more likely to be abused or anything than is anyone, anyway, and children of LBGT people are no more likely to be any orientation than anyone: they're as well-adjusted as anyone, actually, which isn't bad considering the hostility directed at them.)

There's a far simpler answer to any Freudian notion that, say, gay people have domineering mothers and distant fathers. In our society, mothers are largely responsible for socialization to sex roles, and when they give birth to gay kids, (or any kids) they are under extreme pressure to make sure they come out straight. Often this results in a big stressful and sometimes abusive struggle as they try to make the kid 'choose' to be other than they are.

With fathers and gay male kids, well, the culture also insists on one role for bonding activities, in cases where the child doesn't respond well to these things, the father often will withdraw or again become abusive.

All of this is much more simply-explained if you take queer people at our own word about our own experiences ...that it's part of our inborn nature, than it is to try and construct elaborate neurosis theories about 'what made you have this 'disorder.'

It's not a disorder.

It's people.

Since the premise of the article is that Christians are the people who oppose gay marriage and presumably secular science oriented types favor it, why is it that simple Darwinian analysis reveals that homosexuality is a trait that should have disappeared though selection a long time ago? God must have had some hand in preserving it.

There is no such thing as being "ex-gay." Being gay is more than same-sex attraction; it is a complex personality trait, or rather a collection of traits; same sex attraction is merely the single trait that Fundamentalist Born Again Chrstian Evangelicals, as well as Catholics and Mormons, become fixated on, and seek to control and stamp out.

This is elementary. Anyone who has been out of the house and gotten around even a little bit must surely know this. Homophobic people are so sheltered in the ways of life and the real world, that it is almost impossible to imagine how they even manage to get their groceries.

The world is fabulously varied and wondrous; but you will never notice it, nor even experience it, if you keep you nose buried in a Bible or other antiquated religious scripture.

This is really more than about gay rights; it is about profoundly naive, sheltered, and ignornat people trying to run the world and everyone else's lives. That is what is so galling to me about all these homophobic rants; these people are totoally and completely clueless on just about every aspect of life that has any meaning, including the meaning of Christianity, yet they dare to look down from a position of imagined supreriority on everyone else.

Again:

We know the lesbian side of the "mutual masturbation" affairs. Considering the roles each play, a sex change operation would allow the beauty/gift of reproduction to enter the couple's
lives???

And will sex-doll robots make homosexuality a mute issue?? Will a genetic test for homosexuality change the situation?? Result in a cure??

Bottom line however other than the "yuckiness" and unnatural nature of said unions, homosexual activities in general poses no threat to humankind's existence even though AIDs will forever haunt the homosexual male community.

I agree with Pagan Place; if a person says that they did not choose to be gay, then why wouldn't you believe him? How can a person who is not gay, know better than a person who is gay, what it is like to be gay, except by listening to a gay person say what it is like.

If you have it all mapped out in your mind what it is like to be gay, that is a theory; then you test it by asking gay people; if gay people contradict your theory with their explanations of their feelings, well, then, I guess your theory has failed.

How am I wrong?

There are plenty of gay men who had good fathers. And there are plenty of straight men who had no fathers or lousy fathers. However if Spiderman would like to make a formal study of this, then why not?

Frankly, too, if you look at the stereotypes, (everyone thinks they can identify an LBGT person)

...you'd think 'Intelligent Design' people would find it fairly interesting that in times of overpopulation and high environmental stress, the world's producing a lot of people inclined to non-reproductive bonding behavior, mediation, and a whole lot of *social* pursuits, wouldn't you?

Hillman,

Let me commend you on your clear and honest posts. I really respect your attitude to all this nonsense.

Spidey does not answer questions. Many of us have tried and tried. I finally gave up, and simply take pot-shots at him whenever he shows up. Shame on me....

OK, I am Christian - Episcopal - quite liberal, and straight. We have a gay bishop, and I have no problem with that. Now, for cherry-picking. It amuses me when a fundie claims to accept the whole bible literally, and then proceeds to cherry-pick it to death. Like Spidey. Well, I am far, far from a fundie, but I cherry-pick. This is because I consider that the core of Christianity is only in the Gospels. All else is explanation, supporting text, history, mythology, or nonsense.

" edbyronadams

"Since the premise of the article is that Christians are the people who oppose gay marriage and presumably secular science oriented types favor it, why is it that simple Darwinian analysis reveals that homosexuality is a trait that should have disappeared though selection a long time ago? God must have had some hand in preserving it."

This again falls prey to misconceptions that the isolated nuclear family competing with other isolated nuclear families is the natural order of things.

We share almost the exact genes as our siblings. It's a very valid evolutionary 'strategy' for a breeding pair to *produce* some non-reproductive 'helpers' who will help care for their nieces and nephews rather than making kids of their own to compete with them.

The group that produces some gay people has an advantage in child-rearing.

"We know the lesbian side of the "mutual masturbation" affairs. Considering the roles each play, a sex change operation would allow the beauty/gift of reproduction to enter the couple's
lives???"

Btw, now that you've said this a thousand times, Concerned Christian. Maybe I ought to point out that not all lesbian relationships are butch-femme, and sex changes don't give one functioning reproductive equipment. As if there weren't enough babies in the world already.

Paganplace, your "group selection" theory is fine if you take Sir Ockham out back and shoot him. Actually it one I hold but feel the social explanation for the survival of homosexuality is much more complex and less understood than the simple "helped raise offspring" one.

More in support of Pagan Places' comments:

The Catholic Church gets the bulk of publicity about their clergy being gay. You're always hearing about "gay priests."

My experience is as a Protestant. FYI, there are also alot of gay people in the Protestant clergy, many more than you would expect from the general population of gay people.

There is evidently something in homophobic religious practices that draws conflicted gay people to the clergy, possibly to atone for their "sin" of being gay.

For whatever reason, condemnation of homo-sexuality by gay clergy makes for high drama and high tension when these matters are discussed in the Conservative Protestant Churches, the Catholic Church, and the Mormon Church. I suspect that repressed gay clergy put themselves under a great deal of pressure to erradicate the "sin" of homosexuality from the world and that might account for some of the screwiness of this type of religion.

"There is evidently something in homophobic religious practices that draws conflicted gay people to the clergy, possibly to atone for their "sin" of being gay."

It's clear, there. I got to watch these abusive priests, (One was actually a converted Protestant) ....But there's certainly been in Catholic culture a general notion that 'Gays must be celibate and the only respectable place to be celibate without suffering the stigma of possibly being gay is the clergy.'

It's not like pederasty is more *common* in Catholic clergy, but the system really feeds back on itself and makes it particularly stinky.

Gay people are completely "normal" in every way. They are so "normal" that I can even say it without the quotation marks; gay people are completely normal in every way.

I guess that is the problem. Homophobic people have a difficult time getting their heads around this concept that gay people are normal people, as normal as straight people.

It is like having Barack Obama as President. I know that to many, many people, it will seem weirdly abnormal to have a black man as President. But you will see that in no time at all, it will seem normal.

That is the same way it would be if homophobic people would extend normal acceptance to gay people. Before you know it, in no time at all, in fact, gay people would not only "seem normal," they would actually be normal.

i find it interesting how pro-gay people like Hillman and Marced are so venomous in their personal attacks on people like me. They want to call me "miserable" when they haven't the slightest clue as to how I live. I never made a personal attack or judgement on them.

It seems that they are just angry because I have chosen not to be a part of the homosexual lifestyle anymore.

"Gay people are completely "normal" in every way. They are so "normal" that I can even say it without the quotation marks; gay people are completely normal in every way."

Well, as "normal" as anyone else, anyway.

But "normal" is not something that really exists. Everyone's got something freaky about them, ...maybe that's why they're so scared to admit people vary. :)

Edbyronadams asked a great question, not quoting exactly - why didn't the Darwinist's natural selective process eliminate the homosexuality trait some time ago?

Is it because the possible gay genetic trait is so basic - like having 5 fingers and toes? It won't be that many more years before most of the cumbersome research is complete and the scientific facts are out.

apple92681, yes, "reformed homosexuals" are liars, even though the evidence of history when 2500 years ago, homosexuality, we are told, was a norm among the Greeks and is rare now, there is no chance that choice is involved in sexual activity with persons of the same sex.

" apple92681

"i find it interesting how pro-gay people like Hillman and Marced are so venomous in their personal attacks on people like me. They want to call me "miserable" when they haven't the slightest clue as to how I live. I never made a personal attack or judgement on them."

Funny you should phrase it that way.

Considering what anti-gay-people people do and say to us all the time. Didn't see you chastising *them* on the horrible things they've said in this very thread.

Frankly, if you go out of our way to hurt LBGT people, or defend ignorance about us and obstruct our unalienable rights, or even consider us somehow representing the biggest 'sin' to be worried about right around now, well, whatever's in your life, it's clearly not enough.

ScottChallenger, but you can ask the same question about altruistic behaviors like risking your life to save another person.

apple92681 writes
'i find it interesting how pro-gay people like Hillman and Marced are so venomous in their personal attacks on people like me. They want to call me "miserable"'

Because YOU said how unhappy you were when you were dabbling on gay sex. You are also rather clueless, whining about 'betrayal' in the gay lifestyle, as if straights don't betray people. Personally you come across as rather a liar, but I wasn't going to say anything about that.

'when they haven't the slightest clue as to how I live'

You seem to have a joyless existance.

'It seems that they are just angry because'

No anger here, although as I said, you come across as a liar.

Edbyronadams - yes, but I still like the question you posed. Reflecting on an answer could cause some to think outside the box for once in their life.

You asked: Edbyronadams asked a great question, not quoting exactly - why didn't the Darwinist's natural selective process eliminate the homosexuality trait some time ago?

Because it's not a dominant trait and is therefore supportable by a larger society, much like "Why haven't redheads ceased to be?" when brunette and blonde are so much more prevalent. That doesn't make redheads evil...well, not all of them, ha, ha. If Adam was created by god in his image, and god is perfect, than why did he not create Adam's partner in that same image? And since he chose Eve, why so similar to Adam but for a few select differences? Why couldn't Eve look like another creature completely? Wouldn't Adam have been uncomfortable, not ever having known the female, to be presented with such an oddity? Who married Adam and Eve so that their copulating would be within the bounds of marriage? Other than the fact that neither existed, these are all pretty intriguing questions.

A little below, there's some stuff from me about how *I* think this shakes out evolutionarily: it's in fact an *advantage* for parents wanting to pass on their genes to make non-reproducing 'helpers' who will help make sure their nieces and nephews survive, ...instead of making such a big litter of kids to *compete with each other for limited resources and possibly cause no kids to survive.*

Remember humans are social primates. We raise kids in groups, or are supposed to, and *that's* our evolutionary advantage. Fewer, better-educated, socially-knit, cooperative kids.

Too long our *cultures* have pretended that only the 'breeding alphas' count, and everyone should either be one or fake it or be scorned.

And they wonder why the world's such a mess.

But diversity and flexibility are a *strength, for creatures such as we.* Monotheist religion scorns the idea, but there is no unitary model for how people are 'supposed to be.'

If you stop trying to think of things that way, it's a lot clearer. LBGT people aren't 'broken,' or 'superfluous,' we're actually part of the system. A useful part.

Gay people can, of course, hold their noses about the sex and breed just as well as anyone, come down to it.

But, really, people that are content to support *your* childrearing, straight brothers and sisters? Even be substitute parents for your grandchildren, after their biological parents get trampled by a yak or something? How's that a loss for your mother to have produced, as far as passing on *her* genes, in a world or forest of limited food resources?

No, there's no reason for the capacity to produce queers to have died out.

Frankly, having a bunch of bisexuals around probably came in pretty handy, too, If everyone were straight, our Paleolithic ancestors probably would have destroyed each other in brawls every time there was a gender imbalance. If you ever watch daytime talk shows. ;)

Just so we are clear it sounds like this is the consensus that we've reached so far:

1.) Heteros should be the only ones that question their identity.

2.) Ex-gay people are the lowest of the low and their opinions shouldn't be respected because they are ALL liars.

3.) Dominant/recessive genetic trait theory still applies to our arguments even though most on here seem to think that people acquire their sexual identity due to some sort of biochemistry in the womb and not from genetics. Can a mother's biochemistry fundamentally change the genetic make-up of the infant? Let alone pass on this new biochemical difference to another generation.

4.) We want Supreme Court Justices to get involved in deciding what is and isn't good science because it can't be a democratic determination. -Probably better than politicians, but it definitely isn't their discipline.

Frankly, I'd even go so far as to say that a component of *homophobia* is an instinct to make sure the people with the strongest breeding instincts and the most aggression end up being the ones who *do in fact breed,* (problematic as that may be in modern times) ...It's a sexual dominance thing about trying to make sure the 'straightest' are the ones who do in fact have the kids, and get the 'helpers' to follow.

Monolithic religious models of how humans are supposed to be, though, don't allow this. There is right or wrong, salvation or damnation, lord or slave, being 'proper' or being destroyed, all or nothing... And everyone ends up at *war* with their own instincts, as well as with those who they really *need* to be helping them.

Ever wonder why, despite all modern convenience, the nuclear family situation *still* notoriously pushes mothers to the limit, even with maternity leave, even with stay-at-home Moms, when there's a newborn in the house?

Answer: We weren't 'designed' (evolved) for it to *be* that way. You 'breeders,' (not using that as a slur, here) are supposed to have help.

Our help.

Atlas_hugged

Gay people don't have anything against straight people. They just do not want to be mistreated. So how come you try to twist up things to make it look like gay people are bullies, and straight people are the victims? Could anything be more untrue?

If homophobic people have intimidated some gay peopel into pretending that they are now straight, then, you can be their friend and they can marry your sister or your daughter. But don't continue to ostracize them after the great effort that they have gone through to get your homophobic approval.

Your problem with gay people is that they have found a voice. If they would only shut up and stay in their place, stay in the closet, and pretend to be "normal" then you would not have to make up lies about how gay people intimidate and bully you.

On this:

"3.) Dominant/recessive genetic trait theory still applies to our arguments even though most on here seem to think that people acquire their sexual identity due to some sort of biochemistry in the womb and not from genetics. Can a mother's biochemistry fundamentally change the genetic make-up of the infant? Let alone pass on this new biochemical difference to another generation."

It's simply not necessary for queerness to be *genetic* to explain all observation and experience. It is, however, necessary for it to be *inborn* to explain all observation and experience.

We can observe the mechanisms where sex characteristics and related brain development *do* occur in the womb, though. We can even disrupt it and pretty reliably produce gay lab animals.

Genetics are unnecessary in terms of gayness being an expressed genetic trait in gay individuals.

More plausibly, most *mothers and fathers* carry the capacity to produce born-gay kids under appropriate conditions. We all throw the dice.

Stuff like endocrine-disrupting chemicals or hormones produced by stress or let off by plastic, seem to add more dice that might come up queer, so to speak, in fact.

(And, you know, speaking of my idea of an evolutionary 'helper' role for queers, I'm thinking it's pretty amusing, cause the Van Halen song 'Hot For Teacher' was just playing, and, you know, it's pretty ironic that people are so dead-set against lesbians teaching high school. :) )

(I mean, hey, like anyone else with an IQ like mine wants the *job* of teaching science and literature to people who are thinking of nothing but their penis. Seems a logical arrangement to me. But hey.)

Sexual orientation is not something a person chooses, anymore than you choose your favorite pie, or your favorite vegetable. It all boils down to what you like and don't like.

Is being gay genetically determined? or hormonally determined? or the result of parental neglect or poor treatment? It would be interesting to know the answer, but it is not relevant to the question, do gay people choose to be gay?

Any silly moron should be able to know the answer to this question. And if not, then just ask a gay person. And if you don't believe the answer, then ask another gay person. They will all thell you that they did not choose it. People do not choose their sexual orientation because there is nothing to choose. Sexual response to stimulus is autonomic, something that just happens to our bodies, apart from our free-will to control it.

The adult person inherits sexual orientation by some means that is beyond individual or personal control. Beyond that, then, is the question, how should gay people be regarded?

It is the traditional religious position that gay people should be regarded as an "abomination" which is not very specific, but it usually meant to give a green light to general and even extreme mistreatment of gay people on religious grounds.

The real problem of society in dealing with gay people, which did not exist when the Constitution was written, is that gay people have found a voice; they are speaking up for their rights, and they are not going to back down until they get ALL of their rights.

This is the problem. Homophobic people are aghast that gay people have found a voice and are actually talking back. Homophobic people do not want to be cast as bigots; they have always been the good guys, defending society from "perversion." Now religious bigotry and homophobia against gay people is exposed, and it is not a pretty site.

The problem of gay marriage is not settled in California, and it s not going to be settled until gay marriage is legal and accepted in all 50 states. It might take one year or ten years or a hundred years, but that is how it is going to be.

Being gay is not a sin. Repeating this false satement does not make it true. Appealing to Jesus against the gays is futile because Jesus does not hate gays. Likewise, I am sure that such an appeal to God could have almost no meaning.

Gay people are normal. Gay people are good; they are as good as straight people. Denial of these facts does not change the facts that gay people are as good as straigt people.

It does no good to imagine gay sex, and then condemn people in general for it, because no one knows what kind of sex any particular person may engage in. And if you do not know, then how can you disapprove, without being extremely intrusive in the sex-lives of others.

And it does no good so show indivdual examplse of how bad gay people are. Gays in the military is bad? What about the example of Alexander the Great, and his male lover Hysphaistion? Alexander was the greatest conquorer that ever lived.

What about Erasmus, intellectual father of the Reformation? What about King James, whose name is attached to the most famous English translation of the Bible? What about Michaelangelo? I suppose all the homophobes would rather have the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel painted in shades of beige plaid?

"Sexual orientation is not something a person chooses, anymore than you choose your favorite pie, or your favorite vegetable. It all boils down to what you like and don't like."

It's rather more involved than 'like,' Daniel. You make it sound like a whimsy.

More like, 'You know that part of your consciousness of self and body that isn't directly involved in food and not-dying much?' You know, most of the rest? Kind of built around that from the get-go.'

Atlas:

Your four summations are false.

First, anyone that wants can question their sexuality. People do it every day.

But for the 'ex-gay' movement to suggest that a sizeable percentage of truly gay people can be guilted and electro-shocked into turning straight is a lie.

And the ex-gay movement is premised on that lie, plus a whole bunch of guilt.

Does it work for a small number? Probably. But the vast majority find it very harmful, as the end up still gay but filled with shame and self-loathing caused by the failed 'conversion'.

So, no, not all ex-gays are liars. But the movement itself is premised on misrepresentations at best.

'Genetic trait theory' doesn't apply because it's irrelevant.

Ditto with the Supreme Court 'deciding science'.

Even if sexuality were a casual choice, which it isn't, there are no moral or legal grounds for denying gay taxpaying Americans equality.

It really is that simple.

"i find it interesting how pro-gay people like Hillman and Marced are so venomous in their personal attacks on people like me. They want to call me "miserable""

Dude. You are the one that called yourself miserable. When you went on your tirade about how miserable you were as a gay person.

I mean, not to sound like we're *aliens* or something, but inasmuch as there really *is* a distinction between 'straight and queer,' it runs very deep and affects a *lot* from the day we're born... It's not some isolated thing you could change your preference about.

Inasmuch as we really *are* different at all.

Which in bigger schemes isn't as different as some think.

Thanks to Judgeroybean and apple92681 for their comments. This is about changing the historical definition of marriage. Why not change the definition of "red" or "up"? I watched a plane ascend "down" into the clouds against the backdrop of an otherwise clear "red" sky. Marriage is historically about sanctioning sex which might potentially lead to a new generation requiring parentage. Any sex outside of those sanctions was generally regarded as sin or some other term along those lines which described an action socially unacceptable. My longest running friendship is with a gay male who tells me that an exclusive relationship between two gay males is rare and short-lived. I see no need to force one type of relationship or understanding to fit the definition of another type of relationship which bears absolutely no resemblance to the original. And for what reason? Benefits? To make a statement?

Arminius:

Thank you.

I truly appreciate support from decent, grown-up straight folks.

I'm the son of Pentecostal preachers, so I can quote the Bible to back up pretty much anything you can dream up.

But what I don't do is us the Bible selectively to persecute other people. That to me is the height of being unChristlike.

I've never had someone satisfactorily explain why we MUST use Scripture to mistreat gay people but we don't have to use the same Scripture to defend slavery, abolish divorce, etc.

And I knew Spidey wouldn't be the first to answer.

I still don't think I understand this statement:

"It's simply not necessary for queerness to be *genetic* to explain all observation and experience. It is, however, necessary for it to be *inborn* to explain all observation and experience."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are saying that in the biochemical creative stuff that makes a person, there is this pretty powerful stuff in the margins outside of what DNA 'writes' about how a person is supposed to be?

I guess I've heard of things like mothers transferring mitochondria or digestive bacteria. I just don't understand what mechanism would explain both non-genetic inborn reformation and supposed generational succession. For such a dominantly manifested trait to be consistently preserved across generations there would have to be a pretty reliable and observable mechanism for SUCCESSION. Could you point me to a reference for research?

Also, how do fathers possess this capability to cause their kids to be 'born-gay' if it is hormonally (or something else) caused in utero?

"And for what reason? Benefits? To make a statement?"

Well, there's human dignity and equality, for starters.

Then there's the thousands of rights tied up in civil marriage. Everything from a spouse not having to testify against the other spouse to having your marriage recognized should you get in some crazy medical or legal trouble overseas.

The Human Rights Campaign and others have catalogued over a thousand civil and economic rights that are tied up in marriage and denied to gay people.

For me there's also a tax fairness issue. I pay taxes. I expect the rewards from that, including my military partner's military pension/survivorship benefits and everything else my taxes go to support.

OK, atlas:

""It's simply not necessary for queerness to be *genetic* to explain all observation and experience. It is, however, necessary for it to be *inborn* to explain all observation and experience.""

"Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are saying that in the biochemical creative stuff that makes a person, there is this pretty powerful stuff in the margins outside of what DNA 'writes' about how a person is supposed to be?"

Well, yes and no. It is not necessary, for people to be born queer, for queer people to carry a 'gene' that 'expresses' itself and that this gene ongoingly causes people to be queer.'

The uterine environment is known to shape sex characteristics and stuff about how our brains are made while we're in there, with a pretty delicate dance of hormones and triggers and this or that happening at a specific time.

All, or most mothers, at least, carry the genes which make them *capable* of tweaking this hormonal environment in ways that produce LBGT people. Or having it tweaked for them under certain conditions of stress or anything that changes the balance in there.

So it doesn't have to be a gene which is present or not present in gay people to make them gay. All of us can 'make' people straight or gay, and probably with pretty equal chances, if you account for conditions.

It's not to say it's *impossible* there is a set of 'gay genes,' ...just that it's not necessary for there to be to explain what we see.

You seem to be biased to treat genes like a 'book' that is the constant and ongoing 'authority' on what is or is not. This isn't what DNA does. It makes proteins. These do things. They do things to keep us alive, they also shape the structure of how we develop.

I said:
"Sexual orientation is not something a person chooses, anymore than you choose your favorite pie, or your favorite vegetable. It all boils down to what you like and don't like."

Pagam Place's reply to me:

"It's rather more involved than 'like,' Daniel. You make it sound like a whimsy."

I didn't mean to make it sound like that. Note that later I said that people do not choose their sexual orientation because there is really nothing to choose; how would you even make a choice?

At least when you are choosing a piece of pie, there is something concrete to work with. Sexual intimacies, on the other hand, just sort of happen don't they? I mean, like, "poof!" there you are sleeping with men or sleeping with women? Who makes a choice?

The whole argument that people choose their sexual orientation is mind-bogglingly assinine.

On this:

"Also, how do fathers possess this capability to cause their kids to be 'born-gay' if it is hormonally (or something else) caused in utero?"

Who said they *had* to? Frankly, the genes that allow a uterine environment to produce queer people are probably the same ones which make straight people under slightly different conditions. You're still thinking of us as an abberation, rather than part of the system.

The flexibility in the system, you could say, is built-in. DNA does not freak out. Just is. :)

"At least when you are choosing a piece of pie, there is something concrete to work with."

And who doesn't like pie?

I understood your point.

To those that think being gay is a casual choice I'd simply refer them to the countless gay people throughout history who were still gay after being harassed, beaten, sometimes tortured, etc.

It really is that simple. Doesn't matter if it's genetic or early childhood environment, or a combination of both.

Sexual identity is a deeply ingrained part of who you are.

I know you weren't trying to be mean, Daniel, just a poorly-chosen metaphor, there. :)

As for me, I've got to go take care of some stuff. I'm sure I've left a lot to talk about.

The fact is, when anti-gay people(or even a lot of well-intentioned people who feel educated) start trying to use half-scientific notions of how LBGT people shouldn't be evolutionarily-possible, the fact is they simply don't understand evolution, social groups, or how genetics *actually function.*

There's a lot involved. Can't draw authoritarian conclusions from a little piece of knowledge you don't understand.

Those who favor legitimizing gay marriage are attempting to change the cultural definition that has existed forever. That is just plain wrong. It is very disrespectful to co-opt someones cultural and/or religious beliefs.

Those of us who feel disrespected are going to fight back just like any other disrespected group would do. I might feel differently if the redefinition had any substantial purpose. But it does not. Gays have all the rights others do. They just want to shove it in the face of people they hate.

"This is about changing the historical definition of marriage."

Like: Women MUST marry men becuause they are chattle, inferior, and socially incapable of supporting themselves without them.

That historical definition of marriage?

Forgetthis

You are talking about changing the definition of the word "marriage" and then comparing it to changing the definiton of other words like "red" or "up."

Neither of your camparision words is very concrete; "red" is a description of a wave-length of light that impresses our human eye with a sensation of color. And "up" means the direction that is opposite the pull of gravity. To make your point, maybe you should have used more concrete words.

But, more to the point, the word "marriage" is a noun that does not describe any concrete thing, but is a legal or religious status that is purely imaginary. There are many such "things" in our lives to which we assign a psychological existence and then imagine the profound meaning in them.

People's religious beliefs, for example, come from a heritage that is provided to them by the previous generation, and what they may inherit at any given time in history, and at any given location upon the earth, is merely a setting, where the formation of an inner will comes into being, and operates to motivate their personalities; and this setting is very different from place to place and from epoch to epoch, and is based on many, many things that have only a virtual existence, or said another way, have no existence at all, other than as markers, and interpretive categorizations within our own minds.

I believe that there is an aesthetic of knowledge which some people seek, but which they may only occasionally glimpse but never fully realize, and that there is the contrasting hum-drum surface experience of everyday things, which we all come to know not very well, but "well enough," which includes church, and Bible-study, and different kinds of religious rituals and practices, and marriage, and yes, even praying to an unknowable God which is, yet somehow, imagined, in order to regard as the object of thought and contemplation, this hum-drum world of ours which we do not know well, with its multiplication of reflected images, through the eyes of millions, that make such complicated and cacophonous variations to everything that we perceive.

What is so hard to comprehend about changing the definition of marrigage, expanding its traditional meaning to include gay people?

Mike42

So what you are saying is that gay people bully straight people, and not the other way around?

In what ways have you observed this?

Mike42

I think that straight people should be forbidden to get married. They can have Civil Unions, and only gay people should be allowed to get married.

fr mike542:

>Those who favor legitimizing gay marriage are attempting to change the cultural definition that has existed forever. That is just plain wrong. It is very disrespectful to co-opt someones cultural and/or religious beliefs.

Those of us who feel disrespected are going to fight back just like any other disrespected group would do. I might feel differently if the redefinition had any substantial purpose. But it does not. Gays have all the rights others do. They just want to shove it in the face of people they hate.

Gee, how sad that you're so misinformed about GLBT's and their RIGHTS. We do NOT "have all the rights others do". Want to ride in the ambulance with your partner/spouse? Better be married, AND in a gay-friendly state. Want to be able to make medical decisions for your partner/spouse? Again, better be married AND in a gay-friendly state. In 33 states, GLBT's still can be fired, evicted, expelled, treated with incredible disrespect by law enforcement, doctors, dentists, etc, simply because they're GLBT.

We are not asking for "special" rights, as the rr is sooo fond of bleating and creebing about. All we want (AND DESERVE!!!)are equal rights under the law.

Are you all familiar with the fraternal birth order effect?

"Meta-analysis of aggregate data from 14 samples representing 10,143 male subjects shows that homosexuality in human males is predicted by higher numbers of older brothers, but not by higher numbers of older sisters, younger brothers, or younger sisters. The relation between number of older brothers and sexual orientation holds only for males. This phenomenon has therefore been called the fraternal birth order effect. Research on birth order, birth weight, and sexual orientation suggests that the developmental pathway to homosexuality initiated by older brothers operates during prenatal life. Calculations assuming a causal relation between older brothers and sexual orientation have estimated the proportion of homosexual men who owe their sexual orientation to fraternal birth order at 15% in one study and 29% in another. The maternal immune hypothesis proposes that the fraternal birth order effect reflects the progressive immunization of some mothers to male-specific antigens by each succeeding male fetus and the increasing effects of such immunization on sexual differentiation of the brain in each succeeding male fetus. There are at least three possible mechanisms by which the mother's immune response could influence the fetus: the transfer of anti-male antibodies across the placenta from the maternal into the fetal compartment, the transfer of maternal cytokines across the placenta, and maternal immune reactions affecting the placenta itself. This hypothesis is consistent with recent studies showing that the quantity of fetal cells that enter the maternal circulation is greater than previously thought, and that the number of male-specific proteins encoded by Y-chromosome genes is greater than previously thought."

forgetthis writes
'This is about changing the historical definition of marriage. Why not change the definition of "red" or "up"?'

1) Most words have more than on definition.
2) Marriage is a subjective term. What marriage meens to a Saudi is different from what marriage meens to a mormon or a Japanese person.

'Marriage is historically about sanctioning sex'

I doubt it. You have no idea what marriage meant to people 7000 years ago or 30,000 years ago. Heck, the Abraham who founded Judism/Christianity/Islam had sex with his slave(s). I don't think my wife would appreciate that definition of marriage.

'Any sex outside of those sanctions'

See Abraham, above - God said it was perfectly fine for him to have sex outside of marriage. Seems like you don't have a leg to stand on.

'My longest running friendship is with a gay male who tells me that an exclusive relationship between two gay males is rare and short-lived.'

Yeah, and I knew a Jewish girl who was money grubbing and I worked with a black guy who was lazy as all get out. I guess one person is a good sampling of a population? Are you nuts?

'I see no need to force'

Nobody's forcing you to marry somebody of your own sex. You seem to not understand very much.

'And for what reason? Benefits? To make a statement'

Equal justice under the law. It's called civil rights that we get from our constitution. If you don't like it there are plenty of other countries that don't have rights for gays. Maybe you'd be happier in Saudi Arabia or Iran or among the taliban.

"'This is about changing the historical definition of marriage."

Historical definitions of marriage in the traditions that claim to be against change now, used to 'define marriage' as how to own women and children as *property.* Love was very optional.

That 'definition' is already long gone.

And good riddance.

"'Marriage is historically about sanctioning sex'"

Also untrue.

Only in Abrahamic traditions, actually, does *sex* require 'sanction.'

Marriage customs in ancient Rome were *quite* restrictive and demanding. Just not about sex or who with. (apart from social class.) The entire point of marriage in Classical societies was in fact to ensure people did civic and familial duties, *not* because sex was regarded as a 'sin' that required special permission.