The Nation's Pulse
Divisive Unanimity
Same-sex marriage may be 0-31, but according to the media the public is divided.
On Tuesday, Maine’s voters opted by a 53 to 47 percent majority to reject a gay marriage law passed by their state legislature and signed by their governor in May. The result has been easily overlooked amidst Republican victories in New Jersey and Virginia, and the first Democrat elected to Congress from an upstate New York district in more than a century. It shouldn’t be.
Maine jumped off the New England gay marriage bandwagon driven by its parent state, Massachusetts, and subsequently ridden on by Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. Of greater significance, Maine refused to become the first state to give the ballot’s imprimatur to homosexual marriage. From Alaska to Florida, North Dakota to Louisiana, Hawaii to Maine, the states have spoken with a united voice on gay marriage: no.
That’s not the impression one gets from following the issue in
the media. The very definition of consensus, traditional marriage
is nevertheless couched in the language of controversy by loud
voices seeking to undermine it. In the lead up to the referendum
on gay marriage, ABC News called Maine’s vote the “latest battle
in the divisive fight over gay marriage.” Earlier this week, as
Portland, Maine readied to vote on gay marriage, KATU in
Portland, Oregon, reported: “One of the most divisive issues in
Oregon’s history may be coming back to voters as the state’s
largest gay-rights group kicked off their campaign Monday to
legalize same-sex marriage in the state.” Even Barack Obama, who
struck an ambiguous position on homosexual marriage as a
candidate, nevertheless called California’s Proposition 8
“divisive and discriminatory.”
If there is anything approaching a unifying issue in American
politics, it is marriage. Specifically, people want to preserve
it as an institution involving one man and one woman. Gay
marriage has been on the ballot in thirty-one states. Thirty one
states have rejected it.
The usual suspects — South Carolina, Mississippi, Utah — have rejected gay marriage through ballot questions. But so, too, have reliably Democratic states, such as Michigan, Hawaii, and California. In Colorado, 56 percent of voters rejected gay marriage; in Ohio, 62 percent; and Missouri, 71 percent. These states are bellwethers, not outliers. As tempting as it is for supporters of homosexual marriage to paint the opposition as extremists, opposition to gay marriage is mainstream. To chalk up the defeats to “hate” is to place that label on most Americans, which is itself a kind of hatred.
A similar disconnect from reality is at work in interpreting a string of defeats worthy of the Washington Generals as proof of the inevitability of gay marriage. Shenna Bellows, executive director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union, told the Boston Globe after Maine’s vote, “We are on the right side of history.” But history is not a prediction of the imagined future. It’s a chronicling of the experienced past. The past has always and everywhere rejected gay marriage when put to a popular vote in America. Just as the pitiful performance of gay marriage at the ballot box has supporters constructing an imaginary history, it has sympathizers eager to proclaim any sign of support for gay marriage in the present as a national reorientation on the issue. “That’s a big cultural change,” CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin explained on election night in reaction to early tallies that suggested a victory for homosexual marriage in Maine. “Every time voters have spoken — every time — they have rejected gay marriage. But this shows the country is changing.” To the contrary, the Maine vote demonstrated that unity, rather than division, continues as the status quo.
Certainly voters on both sides of the question are passionate about gay marriage. The intensity in Maine was so great that, despite no candidates for statewide or federal office on the ballot, sixty percent of the state’s registered electorate voted — a higher rate of participation than a dozen states exhibited in last year’s presidential race. And as the passions get stoked, the passionate can get ugly, as post-Proposition 8 events proved in California: an assault on a 69-year-old woman holding a cross, racial taunts issued against African Americans as a result of black opposition to gay marriage, and white powder sent to Mormon churches.
But can a measure that has passed in every state in which it has been put before the voters be called divisive? Not with a straight face. Thirty-one for thirty-one isn’t division. It’s unanimity.
About the Author
Daniel J. Flynn, the author of The War on Football: Saving America’s Game, blogs at www.flynnfiles.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (141) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Daniel J. Flynn
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/06/divisive-unanimity
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 6:18AM
College Frat Boy » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 6:27AM
Hairy Twinks » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 6:46AM
Gay Asian Hunks » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 11.6.09 @ 6:56AM
What should one expect. The girly-men at the national media can't stand for morality, oh no. Perversion is still perversion and the States are saying NO. Can't ever admit that, now can the media?
victor| 11.6.09 @ 9:34PM
The girly-men are so mad, they are spamming this article with their perversions. Pity that the management doesn't clean up this mess.
Margie| 11.7.09 @ 12:45PM
The spammers are called logophobes. And they're activitists.
Ask John II. :^) He invented 2 new words!
Alan Brooks| 11.9.09 @ 1:34AM
as everything related to sex, the gay marriage debate has become tedious.
It was interesting 40- 45 years ago, now it is as dull as a yellowed copy of an underground magazine from 1968.
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 6:59AM
Blogspot Blond Twinks » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 7:01AM
College Frat Boy » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 7:02AM
College Twinks » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 7:04AM
Amar Twink links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 7:07AM
Free Gay Twinks » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 7:10AM
College Frat Boys » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 7:15AM
Black Gay Hunks » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 7:17AM
Gay Sex vids » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 7:31AM
Boy Horny Straight » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 7:37AM
Blonde Twinks » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 7:49AM
Naked Guys » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 7:49AM
Naked Straight links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 7:53AM
Boy Twink » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 7:54AM
Horny Twink » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 8:01AM
Free Pics Twinks » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 8:02AM
Free Twink Pics » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 8:08AM
Free Twink Sex » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 8:12AM
Boy Gay Straight » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 8:23AM
Baywatch Hunks links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 8:29AM
Gay Hunks Wanking » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 8:32AM
Naked Twinks links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 8:40AM
Gay Hunk Videos » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 8:45AM
Cute Straight Boy » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 8:46AM
Boy College Straight » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Louis Jenkins| 11.6.09 @ 9:02AM
This is perhaps more interesting than the wins in NJ and Va. While those elections involved gib and jive, face time for candidates, promises, platforms, and, let's be honest, policies that are the most reasonable, the same sex marriage vote in a decidely left leaning state was about morality. In other words, candidates can be misleading and their words doubtful, but the same sex marriage issue is what it is. Can't put a spin on that.
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 9:46AM
Blowjob Twink » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 10:17AM
Gay Hunks Fucking » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 10:19AM
Frat Boy » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 10:29AM
Free Gay Twinks » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Sheryl| 11.6.09 @ 10:41AM
Can't somebody--ANYBODY--save us from a constant string of pingbacks, whatever they might be??! Please?
KyMouse| 11.6.09 @ 10:57AM
Agreed, Sheryl. The names of these "twinks" confirm some of my worst suspicions about this whole topic: "Gay Sex vids," "Black Gay Hunks," "Boy Horny Straight," "Gay Hunks Wanking," and others I won't even bother to type. So much for the claims that this topic isn't really about sex.
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 10:59AM
Free Pics Twinks » The American Spectator : Divisive Unanimity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
La Realidad| 11.6.09 @ 11:25AM
The people have spoken and we are not going the way of Europe or the Western world. One not need to just use the Truth to explain. Thousands of years of civilization and human development gives us reason why supporting marriage between one man and one woman need to remain intact and it's benefits to society. The act of homosexuality is unnatural from a biological and evolutionary viewpoint and should not be promoted or celebrated by any means. Wouldn't it be great if our society, culture, and media would actually promote and celebrate traditional marriage?! One can only pray and wish...
alyeska| 11.6.09 @ 2:21PM
...we are not going the way of Europe or the Western world.
wha????
markv| 11.6.09 @ 12:05PM
STOP THESE AWFUL PINGBACKS!!! Thanks so much for confirming the stereotype that all gay men are lecherous sex fiends! (not that we needed much help; when I see grown men in wigs and leather jockstraps prancing down 17th Street in Dupont Circle celebrating "pride" I almost become homophobic. Number 10 on the puke scale).
John II| 11.6.09 @ 2:10PM
The term "homophobic" is an etymologically nonsensical piece of illiteracy coined by politicized freaks afflicted with a condition that might best be called "logophobia."
There. I just coined a new term. You've all read it here first. Now run with it. Pingback homosexual activitists are all logophobes!
Margie| 11.6.09 @ 4:21PM
THAT was good!
Bydand76| 11.6.09 @ 9:57PM
Well I wish the "logophobe" would stop it?
So does that make me "logophobic"?
Sounds like something from Star Wars..
John II| 11.6.09 @ 11:50PM
No. If you object to pingback homosexual logophobes, you are at least anti-logophobic and possibly logophilic. Logophobia is the fear of rational reflection. Logophobes are afraid to think clearly, probably because they know deep down where such thinking will take them, so they make a lot of noise and throw indignant tantrums and demonstrate against normal logophilia and try to subvert the legal system into the service of logophobia.
The clumsy neologism "homophobia" could only mean fear of the same things. Etymologically it makes no sense. But logophobes don't care about making sense; the effort to do so assumes respect for community and social discourse, which are of no consequence to the narcissistic impulses of the logophobe.
Anyhow, if we keep discoursing on logophobia, the roving lexicographers may pick up on it, so that my busybody spellchecker will quit flagging it.
Ken (old Texican)| 11.6.09 @ 3:04PM
John II
That was funny as heck!
Thanks
John II| 11.6.09 @ 6:38PM
Ken and Margie: My pleasure. But don't forget, you have to start using my new word, or there's no point in my coining it.
By the way, I was going to jump in and repair the typo in "activitists," but it occurred to me that the word works pretty well as another coinage.
Let's see, the accent on "activist" is on the first syllable, but I guess the accent on "activitist" would be on the second syllable. So:
ACTIVITIST. n. a person who loves activism for its own sake, without reflection or sustained thought. See LOGOPHOBE.
Margie| 11.6.09 @ 10:07PM
Activitist and logophobic. Check! Wow. I'm learning new words after all these years. What fun!
Isn't there a way you can get these added to the Dictionary? Rush did that with the word Feminazi.
Liberal Reader and Toddard are both activitists. Of course spell check "doesn't recognize" the words. That red underlining you know.
TonyRaskoon| 11.6.09 @ 4:13PM
Stop the Pingbacks...we get it already. Gays want an affirmation that America will not give them in a secret ballot. Refusal to call the cohabitation arrangement between gays a marriage is not discrimination. It is a refusal to abandon sanity.
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 4:39PM
Help me! I can't stop posting!
12 Step Progromme| 11.6.09 @ 5:33PM
I think Obama has a Communist 12 step Progromme for you, Pingback.
Charlie Crist| 11.6.09 @ 7:33PM
Help I cant stop posting!!!!
Samuel Brier| 11.6.09 @ 7:49PM
Whoa Whoa Whoa stop the music.
Look I understand all of you are enjoying your 31st victory in Maine. But don't act like 31 for 31= unanimity among VOTERS. Many of these measures passed at a 53-47% clip- some were even closer.
No one is denying that you guys won. But they were squeakers. And if you think that will put traditional marriage on solid footing, than you are fooling yourselves.
CA easily passed Prop 61 to ban gay marriage at 61%. 8 years later, that number was 52%. And YOUNGER voters today overwhelmingly support gay marriage.
My point- enjoy your victory while you can. Gay marriage will soon be a part of life. It may take time, but it will make it eventually.
And let's not debate the merits of gay marriage v. traditional marriage because you (posters in favor of trad. marriage)
and I will not be able to agree.
Bydand76| 11.6.09 @ 9:32PM
Bullcrap!
Where is your source for stating that the "younger crowd" supports same sex marriage?
I would have to say that going O-31 every single time it has been put to a vote by the people is pretty much telling homosexuals to get lost.
Perhaps a discussion on traditional marriage is just what needs to happen because from where I stand, homosexuals and people who support that lifestyle just dont get it Mr Brier.
I have a question for you. Do you support Polygamy as well? Is it ok for homosexuals to engage in non-traditional marrige yet polygamy continue to be frowned upon?
The homesexual lifestyle is an abomination and anyone who supports it in any way shape or form will have to answer for it someday. Not my words either Mr Brier.
I suggest you take notice of what the majority has said via the ballot box and quit trying to trivialize a pretty clear message Mr Brier.
Margie| 11.6.09 @ 10:30PM
Traditional Marriage has been on solid footing since the beginning of Man's time earth. This sickness only started happening when a couple of psychiatrists who were homosexuals decided to change the psychiatric textbooks from it being a mental illness to it being an acceptable behavior.
Thank you, shrinks.
So there you have it. Did you know that, Samuel?
Do you know about Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible? Are you aware that God destroyed them because of their homosexual lifestyle and used it as an example and a warning to future generations? Did you know that Jesus in the New Testament said that close to the time of His return it would become like Sodom and Gomorrah again?
What we are witnessing now is that time period. The militant homosexuals act the same way they did back in the book of Genesis. By pushing it in the faces of people who do not wish to agree with them. It's the same behavior!
Don't you fear for your salvation? If you knew that God was going to destroy you and throw you into Hell, but all you had to do was change your mind about it (that is what repenting means), wouldn't you want to listen and spare yourself?
I don't know what your lifestyle is but this truth applies to us all.
Sam| 11.7.09 @ 4:10AM
Margie- I didn't use my real name ' Samuel Brier' to act high and mighty. My stupid computer automatically puts it in the post heading. Not very good internet safety so hopefully you all won't march up to my dorm room to deliver punishment for my sins!
But on a serious note, all of you endorse traditional marriage because you think its normal. Normal is relative- anything that exists largely unchanged over a long period of time can become normal. Views that blacks were inherently inferior was once normal. Christian influences on our country are normal because they've been here since the beginning.
My point: Norms can change. Just because something has always existed doesn't mean it's right or infallible or incapable of changing.
And be careful with those biblical passages. You'll find they are double-edged swords. God condemned Sodom and Gomorrah because they raped their guests and you have interpreted it to mean that God will damn homosexuals simply because they happened to rape male guests.
And when marriage equality is finally achieved, guess what? All of your lives are not going to change at all! No one is forcing anything on you and you will lose nothing by accepting them! If God really has a problem with homosexuals and gay marriage, he certainly has the resources to take care of it, according to your teachings!
John II| 11.7.09 @ 9:02AM
"Norms can change. Just because something has always existed doesn't mean it's right or infallible or incapable of changing."
Apart from the loose grammar (perhaps reflective of the loose thinking), I think Sam has provided several nice examples of pingback homosexual logophobia. Too many to refute one by one and still have time for anything else today, so allow me a warm-up exercise early this morning with a refutation of the keynote.
First, a bit of Bible-thumping, followed by a bit of theology. Imprimis (Romans 1:18-27):
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they know God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
And now for the rudimentary theological reflection on Paul's words. God does not damn anyone. The most conspicuous sin of them all--and the reason it gets first billing on the Decalogue's hit parade of no-no's--is idolatry. And the consequence of rejecting God and His ways as revealed in deep reflection on His creation is inevitably idolatry. We come into the world hardwired to worship, and if we decline to worship God fully, we unavoidably turn our worship elsewhere. The idols vary with the fashions of different eras (therein lies a kernel of truth in your observation that things change--but the change is more superficial than you seem to suppose), and the current fashion appears to be the ego as the idol of choice. But the basic pattern remains the same, for there is nothing new under the sun (cf. Ecclesiastes): we turn away from God and we worship something else, some aspect of God's creation, instead.
When we do so, we condemn ourselves to the state of separation from God and, meanwhile, to the various attendant consequences. God thus manifests His judgment on sin by giving us up to its consequences. Of course, He does what He can within the limits of the freedom He has given us to chase us down; to do so, He has gone so far as to become one of us in Christ. But He won't mess with our freedom.
That's the rudimentary theology of it all. To repeat, God does not damn us; we bring the consequences of sin upon ourselves. Homosexual inversion is indeed condemned in Scripture, both in the OT (Lev 18:22; 20:13: two passages that pingback homosexual logophobes are particularly wont to mock, irony being the only type of humor they seem capable of handling) and in the NT (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10--and of course the passage quoted at some length above).
The most fundamental trouble with "homosexual marriage" is that it is a contradiction in terms, but a proper demonstration of that contradiction would require more theology of a somewhat less fundamental character. And, as I've already pointed out, contradiction is of no concern to pingback homosexual logophobes.
Are you listening, lexicographers?
Sam| 11.7.09 @ 11:34AM
John II,
That's all really nice, but you didn't address my point about norms- other than my questionable grammar!
I like how you brought up the passage from Leviticus that clearly condemns homosexuality. I know you treat the Bible as the word/law of God, but try looking at it from a scholarly perspective:
There are other passages near this one that condemn, among other things, the consumption of shellfish. Now why would the bible condemn homosexuality and the consumption of shellfish?
It's quite practical actually. During those ancient times, people lived in tribal groups that were constantly worried about their survival. Since homosexual relationships don't produce children, they were a very real threat to the survival of the tribe. The same is true for eating shellfish. In those times, they did not have ovens/microwaves, meaning that allowing the tribe to eat raw shellfish would've been a threat to the tribe's well-being.
The bible is an incredible work- if you understand it in a historical context. Taking each passage literally prevents you from appreciating it as a reflection of its time and you may run into some trouble trying to adhere to some of the more ridiculous passages that involve selling your daughter into slavery!
Just something to think about. And Margie, I expect a response! Debating biblical passages is right up your alley so don't leave it to others who are less experienced than yourself!
Margie| 11.7.09 @ 1:18PM
Sam,
First,
I didn't at all think that you were trying to be "high & mighty" by using your full name. It happens.
Anyhow. I thank JohnII for his great response to you, and I really need not add a thing to it. Did you know that he's a professor, and he knows the Bible probably better than I do?
He 's right when he says that God condemns no one, and that by disobeying Him, we condemn ourselves. That is quite convicting. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says "He who believes in the Son has eternal Life. He who does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed the name of the only Son of God." That's it in a nutshell, Sam. I leave you with that verse to ponder.
Because you can come up with all kinds of justifications, in order to try to avoid God's truth, that being that sin is wrong in His eyes, and that you shouldn't (or anyone) partake in it, but it is to your own peril.
It isn't only homosexuality that is sin but that is the subject at hand.
In the meantime I will be about the business of "Sorting at my own Salvation with fear and trembling", because "our God is a consuming fire."
And "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
I want to keep my fear of God. Because without it I am lost. Do you fear God, Sam?
Margie| 11.7.09 @ 1:25PM
*should be "sorting OUT", not sorting AT."Margie
Sam| 11.7.09 @ 5:31PM
Margie,
I do not fear God. I'm not being arrogant- I just don't know about a lot of things. Is there a God? And if he exists, what is his nature?
I believe that some higher power beyond my understanding exists, but every religion has a different interpretation of this higher power.
To be honest, it doesn't really trouble me or affect my daily life.
Of course, there are many things I do fear. But they are worldly things. And I don't have all the answers and I never will. But I learn something new each day and I try to be a better person because of it.
I post and read at this website because my college is far too liberal for my taste. I want both sides of the story. If you can believe it, I am viewed as a conservative there!
Margie| 11.7.09 @ 8:05PM
Sam,
You're a young guy and I strongly encourage you to start getting your ducks in order now before it's too late.
I felt sad when I saw that you said you don't fear God. It's a really serious thing to say. How about if you reconsider that statement, and pray about it? You know, I used to question God too when I was your age. I actually decided to ask Him to reveal Himself to me one night, and if He did I promised to follow Him for the rest of my life. He answered my prayer. That was 35 years ago and He's never failed me yet!
I was dead serious when I asked Him though. I asked from my heart and I meant what I said about following Him for life.
It would be excellent for you to at least seriously consider doing that.
You ask if He's real. Well, you will have to ask Him then if you really don't know. In truth though, the creation reveals His very nature. The entire Universe reveals it. Human beings reveal his handi-work.
There is knowing about God, and then there is knowing God. You can actually know Him. If you are serious about wanting to know Him, then you will seek Him.
God is about relationships. Man is about religions. Not that religion is wrong, but according to the Bible it is a lot simpler than you think!
Please. Reconsider, Don't say you don't fear Him yet.
If you think you may not. Ask Him to put the fear of Him in your heart. He will do it, if you are serious.
John II| 11.7.09 @ 2:04PM
Interesting piece of verbal gymnastics. Smug too (despite which, I'm always glad to have "something to think about"), relying strictly on a rationalist optic, for which you provide no justification. But rationalism is not the same as rationality--and, indeed, it is rather a common form of logophobia. [Lex? Here, Lex!]
Anyhow, Scripture is indeed lush and complex, rather like life itself--but not "incredible." I often have to tell my students the obvious when we're spelunking through its strange network of caverns--the obvious point being that there are at least three ways of approaching the Bible:
1. The techie approach. This is the way of the deadpan scholar whose preoccupations are with historical context, comparative manuscript traditions, archaeological arcana--and, withal, things techie. The Anchor Bible series is pretty much reflective of this approach.
2. The literary approach. This is the way of the sensitive scholar whose preoccupation is with questions of dramatic interpretation (e.g., what exactly is happening in the awkward relation between Jacob and Esau?), psychological nuance (e.g., how does Job fall short in his concept of God?), moral significance (e.g., why does Joseph test his brothers so relentlessly?)--and, withal, things literary, including the colossal influence of the Bible on subsequent literature. Robert Alter's studies are reflective of a deliberate contemporary application of this very old approach.
3. The religious approach. This is the way of the believer who looks to Scripture as God's revelation of Himself to His creation beyond what unaided reason is capable of deducing. St. Augustine's lengthy and rather difficult treatise on "The Trinity" is reflective of this approach. A more recent example would be C.S. Lewis's stunning "Reflections on the Psalms."
I tell my students that no single one of these three approaches is sufficient to take on Scripture without distortion. At its best, the third approach subsumes the first two, drawing deeply from the insights thus supplied. But the third approach is frequently attempted without benefit of the first two and thus may become distortive as well.
At any rate, I tell my students under no uncertain terms that the approach I must perforce take in my own classes is the second, and is therefore necessarily distortive: they can't get the whole picture by restricting themselves to the literary approach. If they wish ever to get serious about Scripture, they will need all three approaches.
Of the three approaches, the first--the techie approach which you insist upon--is the least fruitful, despite its distinctive fascinations. Without the other two, it is heavy with the techie scholar's vain presumption of cognitive superiority over the text. It is, in short, logophobic.
Lex? Where the hell is that lexicographer! Lex! Here, Lex! Here, boy! Doesn't Lexie want a nice new word to add to his bone-collection? Lex!
Margie| 11.7.09 @ 4:41PM
John II,
I was scrolling around today... actually into the past and came across the article from a few weeks ago entitled "Revolt ob the Right." I saw that you had responded to my post to you and I left you another note there.
~M.
John II| 11.7.09 @ 5:36PM
Hi again, Margie. Thanks. I had to go way back to find that one. What a nice response to my response! I'm awed by your charm. I'm also glad I'm not on the receiving end of your intermittent broadsides (er--no pun; we he-men have to watch our language these days).
I agree that the posting is good exercise. Dr. Johnson remarks in Boswell that anyone who writes for any reason other than money is a blockhead. I think it's the only public comment he ever made that I sort of disagree with. (He was another dude who helped turn me into a conservative when I was still a kid.) Writing is good exercise for the brain stem and helps keep our thoughts more or less clear to ourselves. At least that's what I tell my students, and I try to practice what I preach.
Besides, there's an ulterior motive. I pretty much stopped writing "professionally" (I mean, in non-blockhead pursuit of extra money) when the practice threatened my family and my students--I mean, when I caught myself cutting corners in my duties as a dad and a teacher. So now I write unprofessionally in spare moments just to keep limbered up for retirement, when I hope to get back to writing professionally--I mean, making money to supplement a somewhat depleted retirement account, know-what-I-mean?
At which point, I shall no longer be a blockhead.
You're much too kind. Thanks again.
Margie| 11.8.09 @ 12:33PM
You're quite welcome.
BTW~ that specific day was the attack of the troll day. There is a certain person who takes different names and continues a specific assault. They repeat the same mantra. They accuse me of among other things of being a Liberal, an "astroturfer" troll, a RINO, a liar, no integrity, etc. They like to especially do it when I post in the blog sections. Anyhow.. when someone like that goes on the attack, I respond in kind.
BTW~ I can't stand political correctness, so you could even throw some blond jokes my way, just to give you an idea!
~M.
I think it is quite clear where I stand, and that I am none of the above.
victor| 11.7.09 @ 7:57PM
Dear Sam,
You said:
"There are other passages near this one that condemn, among other things, the consumption of shellfish. Now why would the bible condemn homosexuality and the consumption of shellfish?"
Because God made the Law for the Jews and He created things that were clean and things that were unclean.
Acts 10:13-15
"And there came a voice to him Rise Peter kill and eat
But Peter said Not so Lord for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean
And the voice spake unto him again __ the second time What God hath cleansed that call not you common"
God made the shellfish, which was unclean, clean, but He never made Homosexuality clean. It will always be unclean.
Romans 1:26-28
"26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."
BTW as Christians, we live as Jesus would want us to live, not by the Laws of the Old Testament.
victor| 11.7.09 @ 8:04PM
Dear Sam,
you said:
" Normal is relative- anything that exists largely unchanged over a long period of time can become normal."
So, something that is practiced for a long time, will be acceptable behavior?
Or do you believe in "Moral Relativism"?
That there is no Right or Wrong?
Or that what was Wrong once, is now somehow Right?
Homosexuality is something that will always be Wrong, you can never make it Right.
There are things that will always be wrong that will never be Right.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.6.09 @ 8:13PM
I draw a line!
If it hurts or smells funny...I ain't going there!
...put that on my Presidential 2012 bumper sticker!
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 8:21PM
Patriotic American Paper Flag Banner | eCheapPrice.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jeremiah| 11.6.09 @ 9:15PM
I think you have reached your high-water mark, Samuel. The leftist nostrums are being exposed across the board for what they are - an attack on the values and mores that made this country free and great.
I don't have any particular gripe with gays - except for those who attack, attack, attack and try to make their sexual orientation their identity, while trying to force an entire re-design on western civilization. I have a brother who is gay. He is the only friend of my childhood and I love him. But marriage and family formation is the cornerstone and the building blocks of a healthy society. It should and must have a priveleged place and laws that encourage that. Homosexuals are outliers on their sexuality. Many of us are outliers in some aspect of our lives. I have several myself. If we make that aberration the sum and substance of our entire identity we lose sight of the health of the whole body politic.
Yes, I believe active homosexuality is a sin. I know that probably offends you. I also believe my own battles with heterosexual encounters without benefit of marriage are also a sin. I don't see a significant difference between our sins. We struggle.
But even if people can't explain why, I suspect the Obama experience with the nature of left-wing philosophy and what it means in practice is giving a new vigor to ordinary people's embrace of traditional values and mores.
I say it neither in anger or in celebration, but I think you reached your high-water mark in Maine. Live quietly with your lover if you will, oppose real discrimination, not the imaginary sort, and get on with what I am sure is an otherwise productive and rewarding life. Society is not going to baptize your sexuality any more than it is (or should) my own old battles with promiscuity. Thank God.
Margie| 11.7.09 @ 1:22PM
Jeremiah. It is wonderful that you love your brother the way that you do. You sound like a kind soul. God bless you. I pray that one day soon he will be set free from that sin and know the love of God. He can save us from ALL sin.
The Bible says that "He waits to be gracious to you."
~M.
Pingback| 11.7.09 @ 6:58AM
Will American Eagle, Abercrombie, And/or Hollister Have Special Sales? | valuetips links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bob| 11.7.09 @ 9:14AM
When McCain lost the presidency, all I read on this board was to remember that almost half of the voters voted against Obama. But here, with the same spread, you call it a landslide. Well, almost half of Maine voters approved gay marriage. Being an older guy, I'm surprised the support was that high!!!
As usual, the vast majority of you right wing religious extremists are posting out of emotion and bigotry rather than using facts. Nate Silver did a mathematical analysis of the trend in voting for gay marriage and it is moving at the rate of about 2% per year towards approving it.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com.....riage.html
This analysis is NOT opinion, it is fact.
In addition, those of you who say that young people don't support gay marriage, should look at this Pew study:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_.....x?id=16224
As usual, we find the blogs at AmSpec to be fact free. As for me, I don't think that states should be involved with "marriage" -- that should be left to the churches. The states should only confer secular rights like civil unions -- i.e., giving legal rights to partners.
Gays are making a big mistake using the term "marriage". They should be going after civil unions on the slippery slope strategy.
As to Ken's homophobic remarks, my nose is usually posted at a different location than his during sex. Given that he seems to know the difference, I'm sure he speaks from experience....
John II| 11.7.09 @ 10:30AM
"Now, what I want is Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!"
Thus spake the eminent schoolmaster, Mr. Thomas Gradgrind, in the opening paragraph of Dickens's "Hard Times." Or was it his father, the eminent retired wholesale hardware merchant, Mr. Thomas Gradgrind, Sr., who founded the model school? Or was it Mr. McChoakumchild, another eminent teacher in Mr. Gradgrind's model school? I can never keep the characters straight in that novel.
Anyhow, Bob, you may perhaps have enough subtlety left in your aging heart to note the use of the term "principle" in Mr. Gradgrind's paean to Facts. And that's the point I tried to make to you many moons and postings ago, but to no avail. Once again, the worship of Facts is not itself factual; it is a metaphysical pose. Try as you might all your days to avoid philosophy, you spout it constantly. And I believe your philosophy is false, sir. Indeed I am certain it is false, notwithstanding the contradiction in its implicit articulation.
Furthermore, your callow use of the etymologically nonsensical term "homophobic" betrays you as a logophobe. Pingback homosexual logophobes are not the only types of logophobes. Nay. There is, for example, the entire Obama administration. And now there is Bob. A murrain on all logophobes!
Are you hearing this, lexicographers? Where are you? Here, Lex. Here, boy. I've got a new word for you!
Bob| 11.7.09 @ 11:10AM
You are right, John... who needs facts? Certainly AmSpec is a fact free zone just like Fox News and MSNBC. YOUR morality is not MY morality. The problem with extremists like you is that you want to have me live by YOUR morality. You want the government to stay out of your fiscal business, but you want the government to promote your religion. Is that consistent?
As for your etymology, it continues to place you in a fact free zone as most dictionaries support the use of "homophobic". But at least you are consistent in having a closed mind.
I don't judge the behavior of others as long as it doesn't directly affect me. You seem to place yourself as the "divine" judge. I thought in your religion it was God who did the judging. Hmmmm.... Are you?????? Naaahhh....
John II| 11.7.09 @ 11:44AM
Now that's more like it. No prim nonsense about Facts. Just simmering rage, wild accusations, and a straight shot for jugular. If you were here in person, I'd treat you to a straight shot of Knob Creek. I'll turn you into a philosopher yet!
But your response IS logophobic. Down with logophobia! Save the logophobes from themselves! Let not logophobia overwhelm the culture!
Lex? Here, Lex!
Bydand76| 11.8.09 @ 2:10AM
Knob Creek?
Well, well, well!
Now we have a debate! Makers Mark perhaps?
How about a 30 year old Tallisker?
John II| 11.8.09 @ 11:05AM
Well, Makers Mark is certainly bottled more handsomely, but I still rate it slightly below Knob Creek.
Tallisker! I wish. And don't be so snotty. Do you know what a teacher's salary looks like?
In a pinch, though, I'm okay with Jack Daniels.
Bydand76| 11.8.09 @ 1:08PM
I have to say that I am not a big fan of the Jack.
Knob Creek is an excellent choice!
Although I do not mean to imply that I am snotty OR snooty in any regard.
I just have a severe soft spot for a good single malt is all.
Glenlivet or Glenfiddich?
John II| 11.8.09 @ 4:18PM
Well--I'm partial to bourbon myself, which may be the redneck in me. I've never had a scotch that didn't put me in mind vaguely of country-club Republicans and pain-in-the-ass nouveau-riche on the links. On the other hand, I've never been able to complain about the taste when offered the stuff, and Glenfiddich ain't bad, if a bit out of my price range.
There's a trick to enhancing the flavor of a good scotch, by the way. Pour about two ounces into an 8-ounce tumbler (the squat kind, with the wider brim, whatever it's called); dampen your index finger under a faucet of running cold water, then allow exactly one drop (no more!) of the water to drip from your finger into the glass. Don't stir or shake--just let the drop of water course through the scotch for a few moments.
The effect is astonishing. But it only works for a single malt scotch. The requisite corn mash in bourbon is, of course, without subtlety, so you just have to take the stuff as it comes, so long as you take it at no lower a quality than Jack.
Truth be known, though, if I can admit it without drawing suspicions on my patriotism, my sure-enough favorite is Jameson's fearlessly triple-distilled Irish whiskey. That's out of my price range too, but one must sacrifice some things in life in order to secure other and better things. Damn.
KyMouse| 11.10.09 @ 2:50PM
Bydand76 and John II, you might want to visit www.kentuckypress.com. The University Press of Kentucky has published "The Kentucky Bourbon Cocktail Book," and the Web site has a 10-minute video/podcast about it. Thought you might like to check it out.
victor| 11.7.09 @ 7:47PM
Dear Bob,
It is not my Morality, it is God's Law.
I choose to live by that Law and you apparently choose not to.
Homophobic is a contrived word that was a neoligism only 30 years ago.
As far as behavior that doesn't "affect" you,
what sort are you talking about?
What about a man who beats his wife? Doesn't affect you, does it? Means its ok then.
What about a man who molests his children? Doesn't affect you, does it? Means its ok then.
What about a man who traffics in narcotics to school children? Doesn't affect you, does it? Means its ok then.
What about a man who counterfeits $100 bills? Doesn't affect you, does it? Means its ok then.
What about a man who calls Mustafa in Jordan about some "merchandise"? Doesn't affect you, does it? Means its ok then.
How far are you willing to go to excuse behavior that doesn't "affect" you?
As far as "judging" goes, we judge things every day. What Jesus said was:
John 7:24
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."
We must judge with a righteous mind and we cannot judge someone if we are guilty of the same thing.
Jesus will not judge according to appearances, but will judge according to the Truth.
Chris| 11.10.09 @ 3:48PM
Lame. Comparing Homosexuality to wife beating is like comparing fruits to a car. With homosexuality in modern times, the two parties consent to the acts and are usually of age, and in wife-beating/molesting/misc... there is no consent and they need not be of age. Let two grown-adults who love each other marry and be happy. Life is too short to keep them miserable for the rest of their lives. And as for the God-thing... Grow up, you aren't in sunday school anymore. You live the way God tells you to, and leave everyone else the hell alone, please. I'm getting really tired of Christians telling me and my friends how to live my/their life and worship.
Bydand76| 11.8.09 @ 4:50AM
Bob, Bob, Bob.
You cite a statistical report from one Nate Silver.
A former blogger on the DailyKos and you expect me to take this as proof of people supporting same-sex marriage?
Look at what he used for his data base?
"White evangelicals" c'mon Bob! Cant be any bias there, now can there Bob?
I will grant you that Mr Silver is a gifted mathmetician but you have to take into consideration how he acheived his data. A better statistical survery would be to study and attain his data from a large portion of society as a whole.
Covariance and statistical anomolies (like only one religious group)were not factored in to this study. He needs a better cross-section of society and a wider data pool in order to convince me.
The other source you cite is garbage!
A poll conducted of 15-25 yr olds results in an overwhelming probability that young people support same-sex marriage. Seriously?
Look at when the poll was taken
"The survey of 1,000 people between the ages of 15 and 25 was conducted November 17-24, 2003, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent.
I would like to bring your attention to the fact that this was conducted in 2003. It is by and large irrelevant now due to the fact that most of these kids are of age to vote now.
IF your premise was true and that young people should be tipping the balance then why arent we seeing results to support your claim.
BTW it is 2009 now.
Not only that but there is no listing how they got their data. It is flawed and I bet that if you were to see how the acheived the results, it might not be as impartial as they claim that study was.
The "Center for Democracy & Citizenship at the Council for Excellence in Government."
I smell a liberal Bob!
Richard Baker| 11.7.09 @ 11:31AM
Bob:
Are you in a snit? Your time of the month?
Bob| 11.7.09 @ 11:36AM
Dick,
"Are you in a snit?" -- Obviously, since I'm posting at AmSpec.
"Your time of the month?" -- Every day is my time of the month. Are you still getting hot flashes?
John II| 11.7.09 @ 1:05PM
Whoa. That kind of wit doesn't come from Facts, Bob. Tip of the hat, as Mencken used to say. And now back to my search for an honest lexicographer.
Richard Baker| 11.7.09 @ 12:46PM
Bob:
Your're such a cut-up. Vaudeville is in your future. -30-
Sam| 11.7.09 @ 1:09PM
Richard, if you're going to take Bob to task on a personal level, don't use your real name!
And stop sliding by the facts. Leave that to the men in Washington. Younger voters generally support gay marriage. Bob has given you a poll to back it up. There are other examples that illustrate this trend. You have not adequately addressed it because you can't.
victor| 11.7.09 @ 7:26PM
Puhleeeze!
Pew and Nate Silver are Flamin' Liberal outfits and in no way to be trusted. They are biased beyond belief.
Just because a large number of people believe a lie, does not make it true. Such as Tax Cuts cause deficits, AIDs is not a Homosexual disease and People cause Global warming.
Besides, younger voters are easily confused and mistake fiction for fact.
I was an easily confused young voter myself once, I voted for McGovern. And Carter. And Mondale. And Clinton. Okay the last one is a stretch, but I was still an easily confused Liberal voter.
Richard Baker| 11.7.09 @ 5:28PM
Sam:
Perversion is still perversion. Try to read the history of the world and you'll note that among many civilizations, rampant homosexuality is a precursor to the ultimate downfall of their societies. Don't give a rip for poll numbers. There are transcendant, or as Mr. Jefferson said, self-evident, truths regardless of statistics. Regarding my name, am proud of it. Nothing to hide. Anonymity allows knaves to feel brave. Besides, Bob's PMS is showing. Oops, did I say that?
Chris| 11.10.09 @ 3:35PM
Where in a history book does it say that might I ask? Was it when the Christians overthrew Rome? I think I remember exactly how naughty those Christians were. Or what about the Ottoman Empire? Persia? Former dynasties of China? Nope. I don't think I recall hearing about homosexuals ever gaining much prominance there. I believe it was all political discourse; too much taxing, and not a strong military as to what brought those powers down.
DaveS| 11.7.09 @ 6:41PM
I will step to the front of the pro-gay marriage line when someone rationally explains to me why one man's penis in another man's rectum is a behavior in which the state has an interest. The Texas sodomy law was struck down because the gays said it WAS NOT the state's interest to even know it was going on. So, we're supposed to be big-hearted, shut up about the core behavior, but grant something that they spent three decades disparaging before waking up to say there was $$$$ in gay marriage. Reconcile these, folks, and I'm your man.
victor| 11.7.09 @ 7:29PM
You're missing one other important facet of Texas v Lawrence.
It was all a lie, perpetrated by the ACLU,
Anti-Christian-Litigators-Union.
The whole case was and is a fraud and will come back to the Court.
DaveS| 11.7.09 @ 8:39PM
Yeah, it's a little like Jane Roe: a setup situation - but not, in LvT, with a stooge.
Bydand76| 11.8.09 @ 3:53AM
Bob & Sam,
I would like to clarify somethings here concerning this argument,
For one, as a conservative I could really care less what homosexuals do. It is not in my interest to give a damn h0w they live their lives. I do not have the slightest interest in mandating that their lifestyles are against any law on either the federal OR state level. The less goverment the better. This is not acceptance, it is purely my choice to segregate myself from a lifestyle that I consider to be in direct opposition to what I believe. If this makes me a homophobe/logophobe or whatever then fine. You can call me whatever name you like. It is irrelevant to me.
I live my life according the rules and morals that I believe are correct. I believe that the Great Architect and the universe have spoken pretty damn clearly on this subject. Homosexuality is abhorrent. Plain and simple, it is unnatural.
However, it is not my place (nor anyone else's) to tell other people how to live their lives and by that same token you do not have the ability to say that same-sex marriage is equal to marriage between a man and a woman. You are guilty of you own argument in the fact that you want to force someone elses lifestyle upon others!
Where I find the crux of the problem is how the pro-homosexual lobby has continually made this an issue when clearly people are not comfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. What gives them that right?
Bob likes to take this position of pointing out that the Conservative Christian is somehow motivating this debate. Sorry Bob ( and you seriously need to put your anti-christian bigotry away) but that has nothing to do with this.
It doesnt matter that Christians use their theology as a moral compass regarding same-sex marriage.
Why is it only the Christian who gets singled out for this debate with you two? Is it because the conservative Christian is oppossed to same-sex marriage on a moral ground or is it because it runs contrary to your own belief system? I can prove to you that the liberal Christian is pro same-sex marrige BECAUSE of their religion. You ignore this fact because you refuse to see your own bias there by falling into the same category that you two rail against.
The religious left in this country is just as vitrolic and loud on this subject as the religious right. Yet you single out the right in order to make your argument. Your hypocrisy is glaring and it stinks!
Please lose the religious bigotry already.
From what Christians believe. Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that you cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.
As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same as you would for any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he/she is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him/her the same dignity as anyone else with whom you come in contact. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially-acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.
Seems to me that this is exactly what is happening Bob and Sam.
BTW? There are just as many statistics showing young people are against same-sex marriage as there are showing them for it. When you can show me a non-objective study taken from a un-biased source, then you can begin to yammer on about facts. Until then please refrain from the continual non-sensical mantra of demanding facts. It is redundant to say the least.
Polling and statistics on the subject continue to show that the majority of people in the U.S. are AGAINST same-sex marriage. It is possible to split and cherry pick the data and extrapolate some type of meaning showing that perhaps some segment of the data will result in validating your desired results.Both sides of this argument are guilty of that. However, the plain simple FACT of the matter remains the same, Same-sex marriage is not the same as marriage between a man and a woman, no matter how hard you try and spin it.
Like saying that animals engage in homosexual behavior. Seriously? This is Liberal garbage! I have yet to see a chimpanzee march in a gay pride parade or a duck walk down the street dressed as an opposite gendered duck. Ridiculous!
Same-sex marriage is not wanted and is not sanctioned by the American People. 0-31 on the ballot and counting! Even in the most liberal of states it has not passed. That to me is prett convincing data Sam.
Do you find it strange though that if you replace civil unions in to the equation and your results are different. Funny how this does not make the proponents of same-sex marriage happy though. Could it be possible that there is some sort of social agenda at work here? Just a question that you need to ask yourself.
www.rasmussen.com has a good report on this if you would care to look at it.
Take it for what it is.
Pro Libertate!
Margie| 11.8.09 @ 11:37AM
Christians, if indeed they truly are Christians, do indeed love homosexuals, and what you said is correct! In fact they are all the more loved. Why? Because Christ died for those who are in the bondage of sin, and the homosexual is heavily in bondage. The more sin you are in, the most God's love can flood your heart and that person will turn and strengthen his brother.
The love that comes from God isn't like what we think love is. It doesn't have anything to do with being "nice". It means that you care enough to tell someone the truth, and see that they find their way to Heaven.
BTW~~ I'm not a member of the "Religious Right." I'm not even a member of a denominational church. I'm an individual who had plenty of the above mentioned love poured into my heart. That's all.
Margie| 11.8.09 @ 12:24PM
* I should say, IF God chooses to, He floods the heart of a person. It has nothing to do with us, or our own will, but is completely His doing.
~That's why it's called Amazing Grace.
Margie| 11.8.09 @ 12:11PM
Another thought. Why shouldn't homosexual "Marriage" be illegal? It's wrong. It isn't Marriage at all. Not according to the Bible. Everyone knows that.
The Libertarian or Liberal will try to say "You shouldn't try and legislate morality." But that's such a phony argument because our country is based on laws. Laws come from moral Biblical principles.
If the homosexual wants to practice the lifestyle, no one is stopping them. Only the power and love of God can do that when He chooses to so overwhelm a heart. But to try and make it legal and acceptable is mocking God.
Chris| 11.10.09 @ 3:15PM
Margie... You have to realize that the Bible is a collection of fairy tales written over 2,000 years ago by men who had no knowledge of germs, electricity, DNA, astronomy, physics, mathmatics, anatomy, and believed that the world was flat. If God hates homosexuals, why doesn't he kill all of them now? I see no bolt of lightning coming, no meteor, or no announcement of his presence. The US Constitution is a secular document; our nation was founded by people escaping religious persecution; I fail to see how all of this relates to God and United States law. You cannot use the Bible in any court to justify any argument - This nation is based on the Constitution, not the Bible or Quran. Besides if you truly follow the Bible, I would hope you don't support slavery, stoning sons/daughters for disobeying, killing nonbelievers, or not eating pig/shelfish because the Bible justifies all of those things too. This is why I'm deist - religion is the biggest mind-control device.
John II| 11.8.09 @ 5:18PM
There's another aspect to these numbers that I haven't seen any comment on yet. Consider the backdrop of this voting pattern. For almost two generations now, and with a brash intensity ballooning yearly, an idiotized pop culture together with a corrupted education system has been soaking all of us, young and old, in a false consciousness to the effect that there is no moral component whatever in human sexuality. It seems to me particularly amazing (and reassuring) that a majority of Americans have managed to be more or less unmoved by the relentless propaganda of the secularists and their chic enablers in the liberal churches and the degenerate political and legal systems.
I can't account for this resistance except to suppose that natural law (St. Paul's "law written on the heart") is far more resilient and insistent than I'm sometimes in the habit of supposing. That law can be obscured or mangled or distorted by a corrupt culture or a debased legal system or a severely troubled upbringing, but it cannot be destroyed. In fact, it seems to acquire a kind of special strength when it's most under attack.
And there's something else about the natural law. Its presence in our hearts is perhaps the one thing that saves us from what Chesterton called the degrading servitude of being children of our own times. Think of it: After almost two generations of relentless assault by lowly fad and fancy, a majority of Americans, young and old, still hold to something higher. I plumb reckon.
Bydand76| 11.8.09 @ 10:29PM
I also find it extremely interesting that the MSM never reports on this.
The numbers do bear out a interesting conflict for the proponents of SSM however.
If as Bob says that eventually same-sex marriages will be accepted by the mainstream societal conciousness ,then why hasn't it happened already? This debate has raged on for quite some time now. According to a poll he posted on here that was done in 2003! There should already be resulting figures proving his point.
The opposite is true though. Taking a look at the data suggests that perhaps the converse is true and support for SSM is waning greatly.
I wonder if the great Nate Silver would do a equation on that?
tft| 11.9.09 @ 12:02AM
Seeing as how most people fear "the other" it's not surprising that most people, not being homosexual, would fear homosexuality.
Also, since most people have had homosexual thoughts, those who have been taught by professors like John to fear god and gays simply live in fear. Especially those who are gay (it's not a choice).
And here you all are, perpetuating the fear.
Don't be afraid, my little believers! Gays won't hurt you or your hate!
John II| 11.9.09 @ 10:36AM
[With apologies to Earl Derr Biggers and 20th Century Fox . . .]
JIMMY CHAN: Pop! Oh Pop! POP!
CHARLIE CHAN: Please. Enough to wake humble parent from nap. No need to wake honorable ancestors.
JIMMY CHAN: Pop! Look at this! It's a message! Someone just threw it through the window wrapped around a rock.
CHARLIE CHAN: What is message? Please read while humble parent stretch old muscles.
JIMMY CHAN: Okay. . . . POP! It's for you! It's a hate letter accusing you of hate. That's really weird. Do you think it's a clue?
CHARLIE CHAN: Small clue, yes, but more evidence of logophobic epidemic spread by screwball culture. Confucius say, "Clear thinking always move ahead with glances behind. Logophobia always run in circles, like dog chasing tail." Number two son often out to lunch, but this time thinking like real detective.
JIMMY CHAN: Gee, Pop, thanks! Boy, a real clue! So whadda we do now?
CHARLIE CHAN: Confucius also say, "Patience and forebearance over time bring bullies to heel."
JIMMY CHAN: Gee, Pop. Who's Belize, and what does he have to do with it?
CHARLIE CHAN: Correction, please. Number two son out to lunch again? Just call repairman to get broken window replaced while humble parent finish nap.
JIMMY CHAN: Aw--gee, Pop. I wanted to help you on the case.
CHARLIE CHAN: Help better if number two son study more in expensive college paid for by humble parents.
JIMMY CHAN: Aw, gee, Pop . . .
Margie| 11.10.09 @ 2:38PM
Do you fear the Lake of Fire?
Chris| 11.10.09 @ 3:18PM
I do not fear what does not exist.
Chris| 11.10.09 @ 3:25PM
Homosexuality is documented in over 450+ species, to say it is unnatural is highly suspect. A civil right for a minority should never be decided by a majority. If that were the case, we should have had a popular vote on slavery and women's rights, but we didn't. As a concerned deist, I believe that religious nonsense is what will lead to the destruction of our nation. "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." (Susan B. Anthony)
Richard Baker| 11.8.09 @ 9:46AM
Bydand76:
The problem with these two mentioned above is that the reality of 31-0 bothers them not. As good liberals, "enlightened thought", which always seems to pursue societal destruction, is more important than reality. Question their ideas and suddenly the subject is changed. Mental slackness is their problem. The Restoration of America will occur despite the Haight-Ashbury view of reality. When you were deployed to Southwest Asia, bet you didn't know that you were fighting for the destruction of your country, or so it seems to liberals. FIDO.
Bydand76| 11.8.09 @ 10:33PM
Yes it is true,
On my current deployment I have come to the realization that liberals talk a great deal about supporting the military but in reality are quite content to let the men and women hang in the proverbial wind and die. Regardless of what they speak they are all wortongues!
A social agenda is more important to them than seeing a war to its conclusion.
It is, what it is unfortunatly,
As you said though Mr Baker! FIDO!
Pro Libertate!
Chris| 11.10.09 @ 2:57PM
Liberals care deeply for the military, and that is why they want to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding is unsustainable; It costs too much, and no taxpayer wants to foot the bill (Liberal or conservative). As a fiscally conservative, social liberal, I see that spending our money IN the United States is the best way to build the economy. Why we must fight and invest in a desert wasteland is beyond me. During much of the 19th Century, we maintained a low profile on international affairs, and I suggest we return to that policy - The United States should not act as the global police force, or its babysitter. It is not our place to get involved in other peoples' affairs; It is not about freedoms; It's about money, pure greed (that is why we are in Iraq), and that is why we must pull out before large corporations overpower the government, leading us into a world full of corporate warfare - a process that has already begun.
Donny| 11.9.09 @ 12:19PM
To: Samuel Brier:
Many of these measures passed at a 53-47% clip- some were even closer. "
Incorrect! 53-47 is the bottom range of winning marriage votes. Most have gained support ranging from 60-81 percent. As they say ... you can look it up
Chris| 11.10.09 @ 2:45PM
What an insult to civil rights in our nation; A true wiping the religious fundamentalists' ass with the US Constitution. Amendment 14 of the Constitution states that separate-but-equal is not fair. And FDR himself was quoted as saying, "The moment a mere numerical superiority by either states or voters in this country proceeds to ignore the needs and desires of the minority, and for their own selfish purpose or advancement, hamper or oppress that minority, or debar them in any way from equal privileges and equal rights -- that moment will mark the failure of our constitutional system." Congradulations voters of the 31 states who voted down same-sex mariage. Let's take women's rights away now, or African-Americans since we can revert these laws [as California's Prop-8 has shown]. The United States no longer exists; The Constitution has no merit anymore.
John II| 11.10.09 @ 4:52PM
Confucius also say, "Logophobia produce diarrhea of prose, with improper use of semicolon."
Richard Baker| 11.10.09 @ 8:20PM
Fags just can't stand that 31 states said no. Poor babies.
Trackback| 12.7.09 @ 1:25AM
credit repair ct, on credit repair ct, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.31.10 @ 1:46PM
Cascadia Quake Zone Gets Wired Up | AboutScienceNow.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.3.10 @ 9:18PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com
jeniffer| 4.24.10 @ 3:32AM
Buy Cheap SSL Certificate
SSL Certificate
Web Designer in London | 10.24.11 @ 3:04AM
thanks for sharing the such a good content.
SEO Services London | Search Engine Optimization service UK