-
Obama’s Muslim Daddies
August 5, 2010 | 135 comments
-
Doing the Elders’ Work
May 7, 2010 | 99 comments
-
Blue Rage and Red Rage
April 19, 2010 | 40 comments
-
Why the Palestinians Don’t Want a State
March 5, 2010 | 145 comments
A Further Perspective
Against Gay Marriage
Would it help keep the fragile but necessary peace between men and women?
In the current argument over the question of gay marriage, both sides focus on their respective moral and even constitutional claims. But when the battle is pitched on those rather elevated and abstract grounds, the pro-heterosexual factions are at a big disadvantage, drowned out by the gay cohorts, who claim, not without justice, that their constitutional rights, for equal protection under the law, are being violated by any ban on same-sex marriage. But more than the civil rights of a deviant minority may be at stake: not only the matter of gay marriage, but the larger matter of marriage itself, and its place in the human scheme of things.
Heterosexual marriage is, after all, one of the most universal and enduring human institutions; it would not have spread so far nor endured so long had it not made an important contribution to societal and species survival. Thus far, these contributions and the fate of the marital institution itself under a gay regime have hardly been addressed. Before we warp marriage further, it is high time that they were.
Marriage serves many well-documented purposes. A less-studied function, but one that bears directly on the question of gay marriage, is this: heterosexual marriage helps to keep the fragile but necessary peace between men and women. There is no denying that a major fault line in human society has to do with the chronic and universal tensions between the males and females of our species. This breach has been documented, deplored, and even celebrated over the ages from the Athenian Lysistrata to Thurber’s “The War Between Men and Women.” It is the standard stuff of domestic comic strips, satires, and the explosive theme of contra-patriarchal feminist rhetoric and activism.
The inter-gender breach is ubiquitous across human societies as well as across human history. After all, boys and girls mature towards adulthood apart from each other, usually under guidance from peers and seniors of their own sex. They develop according to different guidelines, towards quite different outcomes, and towards the pursuit of quite different goals.
Given their druthers, men and women tend to look for sociability and even emotional intimacy within their own sex, rather than the other. This bias is most evident in pre-adolescents, before they are hit by the flood tide of sexual desire in the pubertal years. Before the heterosexual imperatives mash them together, boys and girls tend to be sublimated homo-erotics: they generally keep to their own gender, and they may develop crushes on same-sex play-mates, while openly belittling the opposite team.
This gap between men and women is also under-written by striking differences in the reproductive furnishings of the male and female body, in the hormonal endowments that accompany these structural differences and in the appetites, emotions and preferences that flow from these disparate chemistries. As a very rough generalization we can say that the female body and associated nature is designed to give and sustain life, while the male body and nature are formed to take life from prey, from enemy and even from sexual rivals. Women are from Venus, men are indeed from Mars.
But inter-sexual antipathy fades out, at least temporarily, during young adulthood, when men and women, now eagerly seeking mates and erotic partners, discover that the distinctive, defining features of the opposite sex, the same characteristics that once even repelled them, are in reality potent stimulants to passion: “Vive La Difference !!” What once repulsed them, now, under the sway of surgent Eros, joins the sexes.
But once mates are chosen, and after the phasing out of the honeymoon period, sexual activity tends to become routinized, and may lose some of its power to overcome intersexual tensions and breaches. Men talk sports with their buddies; women talk about kids with theirs. Some young couples might even separate at that point, and look for new partners to restimulate their sexual appetites. But usually, when the somatically inspired sexual bond weakens, the socially sponsored marital bond takes over to hold the heterosexual couple together. Marriage is after all a solemn contract, sworn to publicly before the Gods, before representatives of society, and before the extended families of the bride and groom. Confirmed with exchanges of property as well as sacred vows, the marriage contact is hard to break.
Most importantly, marriage is the usual setting for child-bearing and rearing, and the Parental Imperative brings another set of powerful bonding motives into play for both fathers and mothers, as well as powerful reasons, independent of sexual passion, for preserving their marriage. The parenting couple’s original sexual bond is reinforced by their shared love for and concern for the children who, in a most concrete way, replicate and personify, in their bodies, the parent’s physical union. Thus Parenthood, which mingles the maternal and paternal genetic inheritance in the child’s very flesh, transmutes the divisive aspects of gender, and once again bridging over the gulf between men and women, turns disparities into unities.
In short, heterosexual marriage acts to bring and hold the sexes together, despite the centrifugal forces that would (and often do) pull them apart — the same forces that would split society into chronically hostile, gendered camps.
But despite any superficial resemblances, in ritual and contractual language, to heterosexual unions, homosexual marriages have the opposite effect: they function to confirm, deepen and even celebrate the gender split, and import it from childhood into adulthood. Gay marriage perpetuates into later life the homoeroticism of the pre-pubertal boy and girl: men marry men; women marry women, and — except at Lesbi-Gay street demonstrations — rarely if ever the twain shall meet.
No life-way that splits men from women, and celebrates their separation, should be granted equal dignity with heterosexual marriage, which brings and binds them together.
So Let homosexuals have their special unions, and the civil rights that properly go with them; but we should not grant those unions the title and sacramental status of Marriage. The institution of marriage is already in enough trouble as it is, and — as indicated by falling birth-rates, single parenthood, and welfare dependency — it is weakest in those enlightened societies which also accredit gay marriage. We should not — in order to please a minority — mix a social pathogen and its antagonist into the same medicine, and continue to call it a cure. Americans are voting, across our states, and with good reason, to keep the two forms of association separate.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (331) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Gutmann
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/15/against-gay-marriage
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
ADVERTISEMENT
ADA| 6.15.10 @ 7:32AM
"[Marriage] is weakest in those enlightened societies which also accredit gay marriage."
Does it even matter that the most crucial, concluding assertion of this article is factually incorrect? States that have bans on same sex marriage have the highest divorce rate, teen pregnancy rate, the most unwed mothers, and the states which have marriage equality have the lowest.
The author offers no evidence as to how same sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage because there is none. The evidence actually shows the opposite, so the author relies on conjecture, speculation, opinion, and prejudice, hardly the stuff that will persuade thinking people to withhold rights from their fellow American citizens. Go, Spectator.
2Anglico| 6.15.10 @ 9:22AM
Wow, all a state has to do is allow Larry to marry Harry and teen pregnancy goes down? Maybe this is the answer to gun violence and car accidents too. If you think homosexual men marrying won't add to the divorce rate, you are the one engaging in conjecture.
Excuse me?| 11.10.10 @ 9:03PM
Legalizing homosexual marriage could add to the NUMBER of divorces, (more marriages, more divorces) but probably not the rate of heterosexual divorce, which I'm guessing is actually what you would have a problem with.
I mean, seriously. If gays can marry, straight people will suddenly decide to get divorced? That's not particularly logical.
Swampy | 5.3.11 @ 1:16PM
HEy you should probaly shut the fuck upk thanks bye
Anthony P.| 6.15.10 @ 9:42AM
This is specious. What evidence? I have not seen this documentation. Maine, which voted down gay marriage, also has one of the lowest rates of teen pregnancy and unwed motherhood in the US, as well as a relatively low divorce rate. Its experience shows that other policies can be used to good effect, but people draw the line at gay marriage.
John II| 6.15.10 @ 11:59PM
Specious is as specious does. Like the eugenics movement of old and the socialist movements of always, the homosexualist movement is built on a rickety foundation of lies and half-truths about the human condition--promoted by smug bumper-sticker argument and punctuated intermittently with hissy-fit violence.
Rich| 6.17.10 @ 5:56PM
Major Fail John. Nice try. I have yet to see a valid argument against same-sex marriage
Jason Beeley| 8.8.10 @ 3:00PM
Dang dude you sound pretty damn ignorant right now. The only valid argument you need is it is against Christ.
Kyle| 12.13.10 @ 2:27PM
Jason Beeley,
The only "valid" argument is it is against Christ? You're joking, I'm sure. You would have to be a complete crackhead to believe that Christ should have ANYTHING to do with this decision. It is you misinformed, right wing, illiterate, inbred, low class, blue-collar idiots that are ruining this country, not homosexuals; many of whom often advance much farther in society than you socially retarded, backward thinking hillbillies ever will. so, go read your pathetic excuse for a moral code: the bible, and continue to base every aspect of your worthless life on it. Have fun when you get to Revelations! You will undoubtedly be one of the neanderthals running to your local Wal-Mart to stock up on Spam and batteries. I would conclude with calling you a neo-nazi fascist, but that would be giving you far too much credit. Instead, have a nice life you uneducated disgrace to the human species.
Bob| 12.15.10 @ 11:08PM
Why is it that whenever a conservative makes a point that is disagreed with by the left, he is immediately called inbred? I can assure you that I am the product of a loving couple, married for life, that have absolutely no intertwining family trees. I also claim, here and now, to have no relatives of the neanderthal persuation. Conservatives that adhere to family values are called backwards, hillbillies or retarded because to do otherwise would be to admit they might be right on some small level.
I also object to your insensitive characterization of my religion -- something that most progressives would condemn if it were aimed at muslim or non-judeo-christians. If someone were to characterize the Koran in the same manner, they would -- and should -- be condemned for it. I only ask the same consideration from you.
Although I am not the author that you originally replied to, I am nontheless offended by your remarks. I intend to have a nice life if the Lord wills it. I also intend to abide by my principles and pray for you. It does sound like you need it.
Rob B.| 8.7.11 @ 9:58PM
Kyle, I could not have said it better myself! I believe you just became my new hero! Thank you for the support to the gay community,
Rob
Me| 11.18.12 @ 12:20PM
please grow up.... I think this comment says a lot about how intelligent you are...
Miss Alabama| 6.15.10 @ 10:27AM
Thank you, ADA. for your intelligent, incisive comments.
Gay marriage will have no negative impact on heterosexual marriage.
Here are the culprits that are destroying heterosexual marriage, and I deplore them: rampant divorce, unwed mothers raising childern they cannot afford, and teenage pregnancies. And everybody knows this, including the readers of this blog.
But, as usual, gay marriage has been made the bogeyman by an AmSpec contributor.
I support gay marriage, as do my husband and my three children and nearly all my friends, and we are convinced that in the end gay marriage will prevail. It will eventually prevail all the way down here in the deep, deep Southern state of Alabama!
Just as right-wingers tried to deny blacks their moral and constitutional claims, they are now attempting to do the same to gays.
Fifty years from now, your great grandchildren will look back on your bigoted anti-gay rhetoric with scorn.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 10:36AM
Yeah! So take that, you thilly thavage!
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 10:48AM
Well, everyone I know is for polygamy and marrying girls as young as 9. Just as right-wingers tried to deny blacks their moral and constitutional claims, they are now attempting to do the same to polygamists and child-brides. And someday your great grandchildren will look back on your bigoted anti-polygamy, anti-child bride rhetoric with scorn.
FTM| 6.16.10 @ 7:23PM
You know, you have that exactly assed backwards. It was the Democrat party that was in political power in the south during the Civil Rights movement. George Wallace, standing in the school house door, was a Democrat.
FYI| 7.27.10 @ 10:04PM
It's funny, really. Whenever it's something good the Republicans do, the Demos step up to take credit. I've heard most of them say they were "tired of being taxed" just like conservatives, yet the next sentence out of their mouth is that "taxes will fix everything, we just need the money to do something." As if they didn't have enough already.
Me| 11.18.12 @ 12:22PM
this comment is win ;)
Jordon R.| 6.15.10 @ 10:53AM
As a conservative Republican, I want you to know that Saturday, May 29th, I attended my brother's wedding to another man, and I served as best man.
Best man to a man marrying another man!
I am just happy that my brother has found a life partner, just as I have (although with a woman), and I wish him and his partner many years of happiness together.
By the way, my sons--ages 11 and 14--had no problem at all with a man marrying a man. They love their uncle and celebrated the union with the rest of us.
"No big deal," as they say.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 11:00AM
Eleven and 14-year olds need guidance and people with a firm grasp on why certain traditions are passed on. Seems like your failing at that, too. And, really, you were a "pretend best man" at a "pretend wedding".
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 11:24AM
And as the couple's whiskery jowls came together for the wedding smooch (insert heebie jeebie here), all attending grasped at their breasts and let out an audible "Ahhhhh!" The newly minted "Life Partners" were off for a weekend of ennamas and anal sex! Can I get an "Ahhhhh!"?
For the couples honeymoon, they will dress up as nuns with holes in the "appropriate" places and attend a Gay Rights parade in San Francisco, where they will simulate anal and oral sex on their AIDS Float in front of kids walking down the street (those future 11 and 14 year olds who will shrug and say "no big deal")
Then its off to the nearest Catholic Church to assault parishioners who are their simply to pray. Yes, it will be a wonderful honeymoon. Such a nice couple!
Chuckie D.| 6.15.10 @ 11:29AM
Eric Cartman,
Careful, man. Your vile hostility will cause your cancer cells to mutate at an even more alarming rate.
Try to put some love in your heart, you old, miserable misanthrope.
Let peace be with you, brother.
Sylvia| 6.15.10 @ 11:34AM
Chuckie D., you're wasting your breath on the senile and demented Eric Cartman.
His bad moods are often caused by him soiling his diapers. Hey, Eric! WalMarts got a sale on Depends! Betters stock up!
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 11:40AM
Thanks I've been waiting for that sale! Have you seen how expensive these things are? And now that my 14 month old is finally potty training, it cuts my expenses even more! Phew - my poop bills have been piling up (heh-heh. Get it? Piling up?).
So thank you Sylvia - you're a Dear! Can ya com by and help me load my scooter chair? You're a sweetie! Thanks! XOXO
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 12:08PM
No, I'll be fine.
dug| 6.15.10 @ 1:48PM
1. How do you know he is old?
2. How do you know he is miserable?
3. How do you know he is a misanthrope?
4. How do you know he has cancer cells (or is that merely a kind-hearted wish?)?
Not only was the post funny, it was more accurate than not. Remember: it's the MUSLIMS that tolerate no criticism. You proponents of tolerance are supposed to practice, not just preach.
Doug| 6.15.10 @ 1:49PM
(Note: response to chuckie"
1. How do you know he is old?
2. How do you know he is miserable?
3. How do you know he is a misanthrope?
4. How do you know he has cancer cells (or is that merely a kind-hearted wish?)?
Not only was the post funny, it was more accurate than not. Remember: it's the MUSLIMS that tolerate no criticism. You proponents of tolerance are supposed to practice, not just preach.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 2:57PM
Because they can not imagine anything else, Doug. We must be the "old" generation - on our way out the door LOL. They have to hide behind this to show all the young "hipster doofuses" that its only the oldsters - the ones against civil rights for blacks, the homophobes, the red necks - that could possibly think Gay Marriage is an oxymoron. You know, us bitter, old men will be gone soon, then we can all party. They are in for a big surprise LOL.
Occam's Tool| 6.15.10 @ 10:34PM
I think Sir Elton John's comments on civil unions versus marriage is most instructive, and, dare I say it---Conservative.
Marriage is done to raise kids.
MIckeyC| 6.16.10 @ 10:05AM
So, Occam, all those people who don't want or can't have kids shouldn't get married???
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 10:03AM
You spend a lot of time imagining what two guys do together or else you're just quoting from personal experience. LOL
Eric Cartman| 6.16.10 @ 12:23PM
Not really, Mickey. We just see what you Gays do on the News in your parades and read about your love of hamsters and watch you scream and stomp you little feet blaming others for AIDS and we figure it out! Its that simple - you guys aren't complicated. LOL
Excuse me? | 11.10.10 @ 9:08PM
I think a lot of gay couples would be pretty disgusted by your comments' sexual innuendos and descriptions of violence against "parishioners who are simply there to pray." For someone who wants to give 11 and 14 year olds firm and positive guidance, you sure are making a lot of offensive comments on a post that was simply expressing a accepting and peaceful attitude.
Jordon R., keep on keeping on.
Rob B.| 8.7.11 @ 10:10PM
You I agree that the way the LGBT community acts at pride is too over the top. But aside from that I think you are a complete ass and you should take a look at your pathetic life and worry about that not the lives of us homosexuals who just want to be happy and marry the person we love.
Doug| 6.15.10 @ 1:42PM
Cute, but don't count your chickens. Your belief that your "brother has found a life partner" is, most likely a delusion.
.
NO DOUBT you know that gay 'relationships' (by whatever name) are characterized by far more infidelity, far shorter duration, and far more intra-relationship violence than are heterosexual relationships.
.
Who knows? These are just statistics, and perhaps your brother will buck the odds. But his choice of lifestyle has placed the odds of a healthy, lasting, faithful and peaceful life seriously at risk.
A+ Progressive| 6.15.10 @ 2:24PM
"choice of lifestyle"?
Affectional orientation is NOT a choice. Just as you did not "choose" to be heterosexual, homosexuals do not choose their affectional orientation.
Doug| 6.15.10 @ 2:26PM
{{{{ S I G H }}}
Oh please.
DNC| 6.15.10 @ 11:15PM
"AFFECTIONAL ORIENTATION"???
That's a new one. It appears now if we can name something, it is legitimate.
One day you will see where "anything goes" and all- choices-are-morally equivalent will lead. And you will wonder why there are no morals, no internal restraints. I weep for my country for there is no wisdom that guides our hearts.
Chris Lieding| 6.16.10 @ 5:01AM
This is complete BULLSHIT! So Duggy you've lowed yourself to antigay propaganda and lies.
Although my personal experience isn't proof of anything I feel compeled to offer it up as an attempt to counter your claims:
I've been with my partner in love and harmony for over 24 years. We have many close friends who are also gay couples both male and female with loving supportive relationships. One couple has been together for over 45 years, another for over 20, another for 12 years, and if I included friends of friends and aquaintences my list could go on and on. Without the support of society, while suffering repression, discrimination and humiliation, these relationships somehow continue to endure. You can take your devisive sugar-coated hate-filled crap and blow it out that asshole you have for a brain.
Eric Cartman| 6.16.10 @ 12:31PM
Yeah, you sound sooooo oppressed! LOL Tell us about your struggle! Your brave struggle to have the freedom to stuff various animals and people up you keister! Tell us about your fight against those NAZI Black Church Ladies who voted for Prop 8! Tell us! Tell us! We're mesmerized!
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 11:53AM
Yea Doug, Rush Limbaugh's fourth traditional marriage proves just how "faithful" heterosexuals are. Most gay couples I know have been together far longer than the heterosexual ones and once marriage is available, I imagine it will increase. Actually it's heterosexual marriages that have the shortest life expectancy. I'm sure you've experienced that yourself.
Eric Cartman| 6.16.10 @ 12:33PM
WOW You're really jealous of Rush, aren't you? LOL. Why? Don't you people have that bull dyke Rachel Madcow?
Mr. Civility| 6.16.10 @ 2:27PM
Eric Cartman's rudeness and incivility undermine his credibility. He's an uncouth bully.
Ignore him.
He's a nonintity. From now on whenever I see his moniker, I will scroll through his purtrid blather without reading it.
He certainly does not represent the more educated, refined conservatives who are capable of civil discourse, and there are those of us who read this blog--me, for example.
FYI| 7.27.10 @ 10:09PM
You spelled "nonentity" wrong. I couldn't help but notice.
Rob B.| 8.7.11 @ 10:17PM
I have been with my partner for 12 years. Homosexual relationships are no different that hetero ones. I have been MARRIED to him for 3 years now. In the last six years my best friend has been married 3 times and has cheated on each one.... So think before you type you bigoted asshole
Me| 11.18.12 @ 12:27PM
shut up.. shut up...
Stephanie| 6.15.10 @ 11:29AM
"Just as right-wingers tried to deny blacks their moral and constitutional claims, they are now attempting to do the same to gays."
OH PA-LEESE! There is NO comparison what so ever.
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 12:52PM
Why not?
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 1:03PM
I know a couple of Black Church Ladies who will fill you in on the whole subject of "Why not?" They seem to have this silly notion that hundreds of years of slavery, disenfranchisement, racist laws and a heroic struggle against great odds led by people like the Reverend Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks were a bit more serious compared to Gays getting into a snit about wanting to marry. They seem to think it tarnishes the Black struggle to be compared to the "Gay Struggle" - whatever that is.
Chris Lieding| 6.16.10 @ 4:47AM
Christianity was forced on black slaves by their owners so they would accept their miserable lot in life as the "will of God" with the cynical promise that all their earthly suffering will be rewarded in heaven. This brought some hope to a brutalized and hopeless people. Religion has been used throughout history to repress, manipulate and control mankind. Religion's tactics are so incidious that it compels its victims to indoctrinate their own children and thereby perpetuates itself like a distructive virus.
bg45| 6.16.10 @ 9:42AM
Amen, brother. Tell it! Tell it!
These hateful Bible thumpers need to be brought down a notch or two, and by god, you know how to do it.
Eric Cartman| 6.16.10 @ 12:35PM
"Christianity was forced on black slaves by their owners so they would accept their miserable lot in life as the "will of God" with the cynical promise that all their earthly suffering will be rewarded in heaven blah, blah, blah blah, yada, yada, yada" LOL You're funny!
FYI| 7.27.10 @ 10:18PM
I just wanted to point out, it's not religion that can--how did you say it?--"repress, manipulate and control mankind"?
.
It's government. Think about it. Is it easier to raise your own organization of people, or is it easier to take over one that has existed for thousands of years?
.
Is it easier to walk around, telling the news of a religion no one knows and peacefully spreading it to all corners of the world (like Christianity), or is it easier to take an army and forcibly convert them to your will (like the Crusades or Islam)?
.
Think about it. Perhaps you were right and religion was forced on the slaves. Why did they do it? To keep the slaves. Why keep the slaves? Because the South's government (key word) relied on products produced on farms that have been cultivated and harvested by black slaves.
.
Conclusion: In order to keep the slaves "down for the count" so to speak, the South's government has encouraged them to look forward to the rewards in Heaven for their service.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 10:13AM
Eric, you might be interested to know that one of the first people to compare black civil rights to gay civil rights was Mrs. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was very outspoken on a number of occasions about it. While it's true that black people in this country were subjugated and discriminated against in this country for some 300 years, that's barely a drop in the bucket to the subjugation and prejudice against homosexuals in most civilizations throughout recorded history. To this day, homosexuals STILL do not have the right to marry and, due to that, any number of other rights. It is hard to make a comparison of 300 years versus thousands, but Mrs. King and many other black leaders knew that prejudice is prejudice and it's based on ignorance not matter who it's against.
Doug| 6.15.10 @ 1:53PM
TO: RCV
well, the most obvious reason is that gays are not a "race". Did you not realize that?
Further, gays are not being hung and burned alive, denied jobs, forced to sit in the back or use separate bathrooms, denied the right to vote, paid substandard wages, routinely raped by land owners, etc etc etc,
Did you not realize any of that either?
Gabarus | 6.15.10 @ 3:45PM
Actually, in many places around the world, gays are hung, tortured, sometimes set on fire, and often right in your beloved US of A, are denied both jobs, AND housing! But I guess you didn't "realize" any of that happens, because you didn't see it. I've never seen a zebra before, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 6:21PM
Really? Gays are "often" set on fire here in my "beloved US of A"? Are we talking about how "Flamers" dress, or actual fire? And they are being hanged "often"? Really? Because, knowing the screamers who make up the Gay Agenda, I'm pretty sure I would be hearing about Gays on Fire and Gay lynchings! I have to tell, I'm not hearing it. Maybe I should listen to more Gay media. Yeah, that's it. Because the regular media would NEVER report on Gay fire lynchings.
Gabarus | 6.16.10 @ 10:29AM
You are twisting my words. I never said such things were happening in the USA. I said they were happening, and they are, all over the world. The planet does not exist entirely within your red white and blue borders. I said that in the USA, gays are often denied employment and housing. And if you actually read my statement properly, you would see that.
Eric Cartman| 6.16.10 @ 12:43PM
Gabarus, denied employment and housing? Where? All the gays we know are gainfully employed and living rather well. I owned businesses and had gays in top positions. I also worked for a large restaurateur in Michigan and my supervisor was gay and had a pretty nice home. I don't know of a business owner who would not hire someone because they are gay. I 'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I can't see it being very prevalent. I'm in finance now and there are gays I work with in every firm. I just don't see it.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 11:13AM
Gee Eric, I see hate crimes against gays frequently in the newspaper. Maybe you should buy one occasionally and pretend to keep informed, that is, if you're not otherwise occupied thinking about what two guys are doing in bed. LOL
Eric Cartman| 6.16.10 @ 12:46PM
Oh, I know! Lynchings left and right! Saw a couple of guys hanging off a lamppost with "Gay" sign around their neck this morning! Saw another running out of a Starbucks being chased by a hooded KKK guy with a blowtorch! It's a regular orgy of death out there!
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 4:04PM
Well, being a Christian isn't a "race" either, but denying equal rights to people based on their religious beliefs would be just as pernicious as race discrimination. Being a woman wasn't a "race", but denying women the right to vote, paying them substandard wages, not allowing them to serve on juries or testify (all of which was once a reality) was also pernicious discrimination.
As civilization progresses, we come to realize that prejudices which our former society harbored and tolerated are unjustifiable and unacceptable. While that transition is happening, the great majority of people at first cling to their prejudices until they realize that they sky isn't falling when people they once looked down on are allowed full and equal rights. That happened over the centuries as religions came to tolerate free thought, as slavery was ended, as racial discrimination and segregation and apartheid were slowly brought to an end, as women achieved fuller equality with men.
And we are now in the early transition stages with respect to sexual orientation. We have eliminated much discrimination in the workplace and in housing; many in the religious world have come to embrace the fullness of God's creation and, in the more enlightened branches of Christianity and Judaism have begun to extend full equality. Civil unions and partner rights, which just ten years ago would have been unthinkable are now commonplace.
The same is happening and will happen with marriage. All but the most hardened of bigots are coming to realize that we heterosexuals who are married have no reason to feel threatened because gays and lesbians who want the same dignity and rights for their partnership are allowed to be wed. And, moreover, that whatever view one has of homosexual relations, we are all better off if society promotes a stable family unit where partners are committed to each other and care for each other.
We've come a long way in civilization and will continue to grow. Growth and change are always uncomfortable for some, particularly those who are insecure themselves.
bg45| 6.16.10 @ 10:06AM
RCV,
Excellent! How right you are!
We are evovling morally, but some of the reactionists on this blog want to cling to the biblical times of cruelty and superstition.
It's great to see that some conservatives are adopting progressive moral ideas.
FYI| 7.27.10 @ 10:25PM
I'm sorry. The "biblical times of cruelty and superstition"? Might we also remember the Spartans? They had male "apprentices" with the older men and were to live in barracks until they were 30, 40 years old. These apprenticeships consisted of "man-boy" love, which supposedly gave each other more of a yearning for bloodlust. Spartans didn't know about Christianity, they were three CENTURIES before Christ even appeared. And yet, they were the most violent, cruel, and war-mongering civilization to this day. And we hold them in high esteem for it.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 10:18AM
I guess you don't read the newspapers, Doug. Homosexuals are in fact being murdered today, burned alive, denied jobs, denied marriage etc. As a matter of fact, at the end of WWII, when the camps were liberated, everyone was assisted in getting home EXCEPT homosexuals who were forced to finish their Nazi imposed sentence in jail. Of course, most homosexuals didn't survive the camps as they were worked to death and even mistreated by the others in the camps. They were raped regularly and shot if they complained. You might want to spend sometime learning history before posting nonsense.
Eric Cartman| 6.16.10 @ 12:51PM
Yeah, NAZIs only killed Gays. Hitler was obsessed with gays. Oh wait a minute - many of the top Brownshirt NAZIs were, in fact, GAY! So I guess we can blame Gays for brining Hitler to power, can't we?
And no one was left in the camps, liar. That's why people laugh at your sorry ass - you lie! LOL Sorry, Mary, you're just being to catty this morning! HA!
sandy pendergrass| 6.15.10 @ 11:53AM
Mine won't. I've been teaching mine what the HOLY BIBLE says. We would rather upset the masses of immoral humanity, than to upset the creator of Heaven and earth.
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 12:54PM
I guess you also teach them not to sow two kinds of grain in the same field, wear cloth of different fabrics, not to mix dairy and meat, to ritually bathe, etc. All those laws are right there in Leviticus as well. Funny how Jesus said not one word about homosexuality, but lots about self-righteous people judging others.
Doug| 6.15.10 @ 1:55PM
Over and over, the same things.
.
We can't you actually read what you are critiquing, so your comment is based on real understanding? Everyone realizes The Gay Times has published a "Suggested Response" to Christians, but you MUST know that it is vacuous and specious.
.
You DO know that, don't you?
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 4:06PM
No.
J Rich | 6.15.10 @ 2:48PM
Jesus did say "Go and sin no more".
sandy| 6.17.10 @ 11:31AM
All of those laws are prior to the New Covenant, and therefore are not required by The Law as It Was Finished on the Cross by the Son of God! And yes I taught them all of that too...And the difference that between who, what when and where was spoken of in God's word. Self-righteous? No...and not perfect, forgiven!!!
shoelessmusic| 6.15.10 @ 2:33PM
I agree with you 100%, sandy pendergrass!
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 9:59AM
I hope you've actually been teaching them what the Holy Bible says and not what some half-witted fundamentalist preacher as told you. The Bible NEVER condemns homosexuality nor same sex marriage. The few verses used by those who don't know or care about what God intends, are part of the religious laws discarded thousands of years ago by Christians. I suggest you tell your children the truth before they find out for themselves and start to doubt everything you've told them.
sandy| 6.17.10 @ 11:45AM
MickeyC...The Holy Bible that I read...and I DO READ IT!...says that it an "Abomination!" to God... Try reading it for yourself sometime!!! 1 Corinthians 6:9 says homosexuals won't inherit the Kingdom of God, and it puts the in a group of really amoral other folks...you may not give a rip what God says, but I do! And you may make it tickle yours ears, and say things that make your points, It says clearly what it says, and it's not your job or mine to water it down, or use it to benefit us...as a matter of fact it would be to the benefit of all if we took it for what IT says, and not what we make out of it! Read about Sodom & Gamorah!
As for my kids - they get it better than you do obviously!
Mike| 6.15.10 @ 7:38PM
Miss Alabama Says:
Just as right-wingers tried to deny blacks their moral and constitutional claims, they are now attempting to do the same to gays.
Unfortunately for you it was actually the leftist southern democrats who did this. The Republican party was founded by the anti-slavery movement.
Funny how reality can ruin the dream
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 9:48AM
Growing up in Florida during the civil rights era, some of the most outspoken people for keeping segregation were staunch Republicans. Let's not re-write history to make a point.
bg45| 6.16.10 @ 10:19AM
Mike, you are preposterous.
The Civil Rights Movement was propelled by liberal Democrats who risked their lives to help poor Southern blacks achieve equality.
Conservative Republican rightwingers were the nigger haters.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 11:20AM
It's interesting how people forget that all the civil rights legislation happened under a Democratic president NOT a Republican.
John II| 6.16.10 @ 12:11AM
Actually--no. With any luck, they'll look back at your featherheaded inverted priggishness with mild amazement. With lots of luck, it may occur to them to quote Virgil: Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.
John II| 6.16.10 @ 12:16AM
Er . . . my comment was directed way back to Miss Alabama. Didn't notice how many had already responded.
bg45| 6.16.10 @ 12:28PM
John II, your pretentiousness is amusing, quoting Virgil, in Latin, no less.
Enougn pomposity from you to make me wanna puke.
Rich| 6.17.10 @ 5:57PM
Thank you Miss Alabama..We will prevail!
Jason Beeley| 8.8.10 @ 3:02PM
You and your stupid husband are full of that demon called Gay. If I did not know any better, I would think you were gay.
Joe Hellraiser| 6.15.10 @ 12:13PM
Let's all go out and kill a queer for Christ!
Better yet--let's all go out and kill two married queers for Christ!
Ted| 6.15.10 @ 12:15PM
Good idea, Joe
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 12:25PM
Good point, Joe! Ya know, the Liberal's new friends the Muslims (they both hate Israel) kill gays on a regular basis. Sort of weird, huh? I mean, you don't hear a peep from Gays or the Gay Loving Media when the Muslims kill gays for being, well, Gay. You have to get this news from the Christian News Station, Pat Robertson's channel. Weird, huh? Just sayin.
sslf22| 6.15.10 @ 4:04PM
E.C. you really must hate gay people. From your own comments it appears you can't get enough information about them...some sort of weird obsession. To answer your question, yes, these atrocities have been mentioned time and again in media outlets...especially by the gay media. I suggest you read some of their material instead of limiting yourself to those individuals and organizations you most closely align with in your anti-gay bantering (Pat Robertson et al). You might actually learn something and gain some compassion in the process.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 4:40PM
Would that be the same compassion Gays show for the Catholic Church and the parishioners attending Mass when they interrupt and dress like fools and yell and scream? Or the same compassion Gays show people who don't agree with their agenda when they blame Reagan for AIDS (yeah Reagan was out there shoving hamsters up Gay men's butts and having anal sex in bathhouses). When you hamster abusers act civil toward others, maybe people will act civil toward you. I get along with Gays in my personal life - its you whiny, cry baby "activists" that give the rest a bad name. Marriage is between a man and a woman to form families and raise children. That's the only question hear. If hospitals bar Gays from being with their loved ones in times of emergencies, change the hospital rules, not thousands of years of human social arraignment.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 9:54AM
Interesting that you bring up the pedophile (AKA RC) Church. How come you don't blame all the victims of molestation who interrupt masses??? How come you don't condemn the Westboro Baptist Church whose followers crash private funerals of gays? Your problems with homosexuality have little to do with marriage, that's obvious. If you don't like same sex marriage, DON'T have one, but keep your nose out of everyone else's business.
Richard A| 6.16.10 @ 10:47AM
Because the article isn't about predatory priests. And what is your point, anyway? Isn't sodomy a good thing? Or is it only good when not performed by Catholic priests?
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 11:08AM
Since I wasn't the first to bring up the RC church, I fail you understand your point. I was responding to another nonsensical post. The fact that you don't see a difference between two consenting adults having sex and someone molesting a child is rather creepy, Richard.
Eric Cartman| 6.16.10 @ 12:13PM
Well, all the snippy gays are out all mad they are about to lose in November. Meow, boys! LOL
Aaron Kline| 8.8.10 @ 3:06PM
I back you up a million%. God did not make two men or two women to marry. It is just not normal.
Aaron Kline| 8.8.10 @ 3:04PM
What compassion. I will not have compassion towards those who are against my God, and I do not blame Eric Cartman for his hate towards gays.
J Rich | 6.15.10 @ 2:51PM
No, "God said thou shall not kill".
Gabarus | 6.15.10 @ 3:47PM
Hmm.. Threats of violence? Wish I could say I was surprised.
poop| 11.1.10 @ 12:45PM
dude,suck it,gay marrige is were its at
bg45| 6.16.10 @ 12:31PM
Joe Hellaiser, you have encapsulated the unspoken thoughts of so many of the posters here: Eric Cartman, John II, etc., ad nauseum.
short n sweet| 6.17.10 @ 11:48AM
Wow! You have issues there Mr. Hellraiser!
Doug| 6.15.10 @ 1:37PM
Pure poppycock.
.
First, your assertion about morally correct states and divorce rate, teen pregnancy, etc. are not just unsupported - they are false and yet another lie from the pro-gay machine.
.
Secondly - even if what you said was true, you can't ascribe a cause and effect without first eliminating other factors. As a hypotehtical example, perhaps teen pregancy is higher because the morally correct states happen to be more heavily Catholic and thus less "birth-control" fluent.
.
You would LIKE to believe - and convince others - that gay is, at worst, no worse than hetero. But the facts simply do not support your belief.
Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 3:02PM
I agree ... I've often thought that what is the true threat to a heterosexual marriage is DIVORCE, not any other marriage or relationship. When those against gay marriage are as vociferous against DIVORCE, I might take their arguments seriously... otherwise it's a case of prejudice and hate against a group you don't like and don't care if they are denied equal protection of the law. Period.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 3:09PM
Oh, PurpleSchmuck , take your tiny weenie and go home.
Purpleguy--->>>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0506101tsa1.html
Putz.
Occam's Tool| 6.15.10 @ 10:39PM
The problem is, purpleguy, that when you cut down all of the trees of convention you leave a desert. And in that desert, nothing grows.
Tell me a single Western European country that has a replacement birth rate. Name one. (To help you out, it's 2.1 births per woman) I'll wait.
I've lived overseas in the British Commonwealth (not Canada), and the hopelessness of the people there, compared to Americans, is fantastic.
Marriage is a hopeful institution, and should be protected for children.
Chris Lieding| 6.16.10 @ 4:27AM
The world population is fast approaching seven billion and is projected by the United Nations to reach twelve billion in the next fifty years. If that comes to pass the world, at least a world fit for humanity, will begin to die. It will become a nightmare world of pollution, starvation, disease, war, suffering and the death of billions. I just don't see the "We need to save marriage for heteroes because there won't be enough babies" argument as having any meaningful foundation. This fearful projection makes me a bit glad I don't have grandchildren.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 10:24AM
, Occam, since many homosexuals have children, you are right in supporting marriage for their sake. After all, you wouldn't discriminate against a child just because you don't like his parents. That would prove that you don't care at all about children and are just using them as an excuse to further a bigoted cause.
Purpleguy| 6.17.10 @ 5:35PM
What is this obsession with my weenie (OMG - I haven't heard used since I was, what, 9 years old? ) Grow up and get a pair.
Freemanl| 8.8.10 @ 3:08PM
You need to grow a pair and not like gay men and women.
long slong| 11.1.10 @ 12:48PM
yo man, your wife cant handle this tiny weenie, so grab left hand an get to spankin!!
Chauncy| 6.15.10 @ 6:10PM
You won't find many commenters on here saying that divorce is a threat to marriage because so many of them are probably divorced themselves.
As usual, they want to point their finger at "gays" for destroying marriage. It's no longer Jews or niggers the right-wingers denigrate; it's gays that are "the problem."
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 10:26AM
Yes, like Rush Limbaugh and his FOURTH traditional marriage. Wonder how all the gays broke up the first three for him ? LOL
james.skora@yahoo.com| 6.16.10 @ 12:15PM
Meow! Phtt, phhtt! Got your panties in a twist?
Darragh| 6.15.10 @ 7:35AM
While I support the rights of gays for civil unions, I do not support gay marriage for the reasons outlined here. Reading Frank Rich's latest screed for gay marriage in the NYT the other day, as well as an article on the "Singularity" movement, which advocates the morphing of human beings into machines (I could hardly believe my eyes, but the comments seemed overwhelmingly in favor), I thought--we really are becoming the Culture of Death through hubris.
Kuesterman| 6.15.10 @ 12:11PM
Wake up! Wake up!
Gays are a small minority. And gay marriage is NOT a threat to traditional marriage.
COHABITATING and ILLIGITIMATE CHILDREN and DIVORCE. These are the ugly realities that are eroding marriage.
Let's be realistic here! For God's sake, give your bioted minds a little well-deserved rest.
I repeat:
COHABITATING and ILLIGITIMATE CHILDREN and D.I.V.O.R.C.E as Tammy Wynette sang, are the spoilers of marriage.
Get it?
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 12:29PM
Um, what? Can you repeat that? What are you getting at?
Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 3:04PM
Thank you for espousing even more what I have believed for a long time ... ignore the comments from any blockheads that can't see past their own bigotry and ignorance. It's a freedom and justice issue, and people on this site ought to get that without much explanation.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 3:10PM
See comment above, Schmuck.
Freemanl| 8.8.10 @ 3:09PM
What in the hell are you talking about?
Mystie| 6.15.10 @ 7:43AM
The push for gay marriage has never made much sense to me.
From a legal standpoint, civil marriage has many disadvantages. Indeed, the two major, immediate consequences of getting married are that (1) you have to pay a “marriage penalty” on your federal income taxes and (2) you’ve just granted your beloved a license to invoke the divorce statute if things don’t work out. The only major “benefits” of civil marriage require one of the spouses to die. Only then can the survivor enjoy the benefits of rules relating to spousal inheritance under state law and the Internal Revenue Code.
In addition, marriage has traditionally been associated with religious values and sexual restrictions. Being gay, it seems to me, is a rejection of both. So when a gay person states that he wants to get married, it sounds to me a lot like an atheist stating that he wants to be ordained a priest. Sorry, I just don’t buy it.
Joe Mustich, JP | 6.15.10 @ 7:49AM
As a justice of the peace I officiate for same-sex and opposite-sex marriages all the time.
These weddings are civil and non-religious and gaining in popularity.
Onward,
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.
And later this month, two women are getting married in an Episcopal Church here, where the minister will officiate for them, as will I.
Kathy L.| 6.15.10 @ 9:08AM
Now you begin to understand why people are leaving the Episcopal church in droves.
"Downward" might be a better description.
Stephanie| 6.15.10 @ 11:33AM
When looking for my spiritual home, I attended an Episcopal church and it was nothing but a place to see and be seen. Lovely old parish, beautiful music, but the message preached rang hollow. It looked to be all for show.
I ended up in the Presbyterian church.
Former PCUSA member| 6.15.10 @ 12:14PM
I hope it wasn't a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) church, Stephanie. I was a member for about a quarter-century until I could no longer take, nor bring about change in, its pro-abortion, anti-Israel, etc. etc. policies. The PCUSA denies that personal faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation, too (as stated in their Web site). Of course, some individual PCUSA churches still put the Bible above politically correctness, unlike PCUSA headquarters: The fish stinks from the head.
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 2:24PM
Sounds like the Christian Church Disciples of Christ. Used to be a church. Now is a political, social and enviromental activists club.
Occam's Tool| 6.15.10 @ 10:42PM
The Presbyterianazi church, I used to call it. Only the German American Bund, the KKK, The Nation of Islam is more antisemitic than the PCUSA. I'm glad you left and I wish you spiritual succor.
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 12:56PM
Well good for you.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 1:08PM
Meeeeooowwwww! Phtt, phtt!
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 10:31AM
Actually, Kathy, people aren't leaving the Episcopal Church in droves. There are number of malcontents who care little or nothing about the church or Christ and just their own prejudice. Of course those leaving the RC church are in far greater numbers which is why churches, schools and even Catholic hospitals are closing daily. Those who condemn others out of prejudice will indeed be on a downward path.
Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 3:12PM
Glad to hear it... and I'll bet no marriage in Connecticut is threatening anyone's marriage in the other 49 States. Any examples, anyone?
Klerck| 8.8.10 @ 3:10PM
And I bet you will get married to 5 different guys ya big puss.
Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 3:11PM
How '50's and stupid of you .. you obviously are a low-information troglodyte. There are some 1100 Federal laws that are available to the married couple that are not available to the unmarried couple. That includes inheritance laws, medical visitation laws, parental and property laws, and the list goes on and on and on.
By denying gay couples the right to enter into a legal relationship, you are relegating them to second class citizens, which I'm sure you don't mean to do, do you?
And, don't bother throwing 'the Bible says .. ' canard at this... until you are willing to offer your daughter to your visitors for their comfort, or putting your mother to death for wearing mixed fabric clothing - both listed in the Bible. So, if yo u want to follow the Bible strictly, do so. Otherwise shut up about any religious component.
This is is a freedom and justice issue where we should treat all of us equal under the law - we don't, and we should. Period.
Kthing| 8.8.10 @ 3:12PM
You sound freaking stupid. The Bible is the only and best reason you need to be against that nasty crap.
Joe Mustich, JP | 6.15.10 @ 7:43AM
I still can't figure out how same-sex marriage would have any detrimental effects on opposite-sex marriage, did inter-racial marriage hurt marriage? It's time for folks to just overcome their sexual phobias.
Onward to equality and fairness,
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.
I remember officiating at the wedding of two good friends, who said they hoped that their marriage was a good as my relationship with my spouse, and I remember thinking, gee, here they have been together for 3 years, yet I have been with my spouse for 25 and we can't get married yet.
Luckily CT passed a civil union law in 2005, and a marriage equality law in 2008. Kudos to CT for supporting marriage equality in the 21st century.
Jeff | 6.15.10 @ 8:09AM
This is definitely one area where I disagree. The article was short on facts and just plain inaccurate when it tried to bring them in.
"the marriage contract is hard to break" -- in what century? Divorce is easy in this country. Ask Liz Taylor. The divorce rate is 50% in the US. How can that be considered hard when 1 out of 2 does it?
There are absolutely no scientific studies to show that gays and lesbians do not get along. Show me one.
Recent studies have shown that lesbian couples have more well-adjusted children than opposite sex couples. This is not addressed in the article at all.
States that allow same-sex marriage have lower divorce rates than states with a DOMA-like law on the books. Look at MA and then look at OH. MA has a divorce rate of 2.0 per thousand. OH is 4.5 per thousand. Please show me research that proves otherwise to support your thesis.
Finally, Mystie -- replace the word "gay" with "adulterer". Adulterers are against religion (breaking 1 of the 10 commandments) and against sexual restrictions. However, do we ban the adulterer from marrying again? No, we do not. We let them do it again and again and again (Newt). Why are they treated differently? Get back to me when cheaters are banned from remarrying.
The fact is that no gay marriage ever hurt a "traditional" marriage. There are over 1000 federal benefits accorded to couples who are married. I fail to see why committed gay couples should not get the same.
Finally, this is happening. Demographics show that the 20-30 year olds are overwhelmingly in favor of all gay rights. Why stand on the wrong side of history? It didn't do much for George Wallce.
Jack Olson| 6.15.10 @ 8:40AM
The divorce rate is not 50%. That myth arises from misuse of statistics. In a typical year, there are half as many divorces as there are weddings therefore some people conclude that half of the marriages end in divorce. They overlook the fact that the USA has twice as many married adults as single ones. When the population which can get divorced is double the population which can get married, it is a fallacy to assume that half as many divorces as weddings means 50% of the married couples get divorced. It's closer to 25%.
corpus| 6.15.10 @ 10:04AM
"They overlook the fact that the USA has twice as many married adults as single ones."
You are overlooking the fact that people that are married may be on their second marriage or even third marriage.
A simple example:
John is currently on his second marriage. His first marriage ended in divorce. That means that 1 out of his 2 marriages ended in divorce - a 50% divorce rate.
The fact that he's currently married doesn't make any difference to the stats. The divorce rate is still 50%.
Jack Olson| 6.15.10 @ 12:13PM
Corpus, you define John's divorce rate as 50% since he was married twice and divorced once. And if you apply the same definition to his marriage rate, you will find his marriage rate is 200% since he was married twice.
It's fair to argue that the divorced often add to the marriage rate as well as the divorce rate since 80% of the divorced remarry. But, if one can argue that the institution of marriage is in trouble because there are 50% as many divorces as marriages, isn't the institution of divorce in worse trouble because 80% of divorces end in marriage?
JP| 6.15.10 @ 11:10AM
Actually, cohabitation dominates those couples under 40. You cannot get divorced if you are not married. The number of illegitmate children reflects this trend.
Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 3:15PM
So your point is what? It's only 1/2 as bad as we think? This figure doesn't change the underlying facts of the topic, does it?
Mystie| 6.15.10 @ 9:20AM
Actually, Jeff, I think BOTH gays and adulterers make (or would make) a mockery out of traditional marriage. And some churches (namely, the Catholic Church) do ban unrepentant adulterers from remarrying.
Further, you misunderstand my position on marriage in general. I think civil marriage should be abolished. Why any freedom loving individual would invite the government to stick its nose into his/her most intimate relationships is beyond me.
In my book, marriage ought to be a religious "rite", not a legal "right".
April| 6.15.10 @ 11:19AM
Mystie - it does not seem that you would be opposed to the providing legal benefits if they called it domestic partnership, so long as they don't call it marriage. Since legal marriage, as opposed to religious marriage, has nothing to do with G(g)od(s), and everything to do with rights (file joint taxes, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.)
Or are you saying that you think all individuals should file separate taxes, that you should have no right to your spouse's property, income, or retirement benefits. That when your spouse is ill you should not be allowed to visit him in the hospital since you are not of blood relation (assuming you do not have an incestuous relationship). And that you should not be able to have a joint medical insurance plan.
Either way, I'm glad to see that you are for legal equality. I don't think there are many in favor of, or believe they can change a religious institutions rules for enlisting or enrollment.
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 11:28AM
Mystie is wise.
shoelessmusic| 6.15.10 @ 2:31PM
Well said, Mystie.
Galen| 6.15.10 @ 8:20AM
A young lesbian nurse I know took a position in an Aids ward . She was shocked to discover the hostility expressed toward her because she was female. I know there are plenty of exceptions but I believe that Mr. Gutman is on to something.
Actually Gay marriage is the least. Our society is moving toward liscensing polymorphoous peversity. It is part of the infantilization of our world.
Kathy L.| 6.15.10 @ 9:09AM
Interesting! In my own experience I've found that the homosexual men I've known despise lesbians in general.
J.T.| 6.15.10 @ 10:45AM
Homosexual men despise lesbians?
This is an outright lie!
It is you, Galen and Kathy L., who despise homosexual men, and you are attempting to demonize them. Nothing surprising here.
Ted| 6.15.10 @ 11:22AM
Yes, homosexual men do tend to despise lesbians. Homosexuality is, in part, based on misogeny.
J.T.| 6.15.10 @ 11:37AM
Hilarious, Ted.
The misinformation emanating from the bigots on this site is mind-boggling.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 12:17PM
Well, I don't know about any of that, JT. But I know Lesbos HATE baseball, with all its references to pitchers and catchers, balls and bats (especially the 4 balls thing - secret code for two men?) . They serve peanuts and hot dogs at the park - no tacos! (well, traditionally).
So I can see where the Gay and Lesbos don't see eye to eye. Might explain things.
Erica and Fran| 6.15.10 @ 2:32PM
Eric Cartman,
Your stupid vulgarity is repellent. I just hope you are not as physically ugly as your hateful-geezer comments suggest.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 3:02PM
No, I'm a pretty good looking guy, really. And if you're not busy later, maybe you two would wanna play a couple innings. I could teach you the finer points of running the bases;-) I mean, I eat tacos.
Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 3:22PM
"with all its references to pitchers and catchers, balls and bats (especially the 4 balls thing - secret code for two men?) . They serve peanuts and hot dogs at the park" --- sounds to me you've thought this out pretty carefully .. and if you really are a pretty boy, well, you would be the center of attention at a gay party.
Maybe your own bat and balls would see some action - but I suspect your more interested in being the catcher than the pitcher, objectifying as you do.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 4:45PM
Don't get jealous, now, PurpleSchmuck! Just because you lack the equipment, don't covet other men's tools.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 10:34AM
You mean when you aren't thinking about what two guys are doing in bed, Eric. LOL
Eric Cartman| 6.16.10 @ 12:16PM
Isn't that how you define yourself, Mickey Boi? LOL
April| 6.15.10 @ 11:29AM
Kathy please let me know the age range? I see a bit more animosity in the community for men over 70, but none that were still in the oat sewing days during the 1980's or afterwards.
If you don't know any middle-aged or younger gays or lesbians that may help explain your comment.
April| 6.15.10 @ 11:25AM
Facinating. Since lesbians seemed to take the mantle as care givers during the AIDS crisis. May I ask when she received this award? It seems that if anything AIDS brought the lesbian and gay communities together. Lesbians took care of their fallen brethren when so many heterosexuals were unwilling.
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 12:58PM
My wife and I know many, many gay friends and couples who have lots of social interactions with heterosexuals. I have never sensed any hostility toward or isolation from the opposite sex among gays.
Petronius| 6.15.10 @ 3:13PM
Et tu Jerry Springer. The line will probably finally be drawn on this issue with pets. One cannot be both an owner and a spouse. Nor will the Humane Society put up with inter species sexuality. Or has someone found a way other mammals can take and keep vows?
The only purpose of the perverts in our midst who demand parity in the institution of marriage is to debase it's value to civilized people until there is none.
Becky| 6.15.10 @ 8:33AM
Gay marriage does not make sense to me either. I think it is inferior to even a bad heterosexual marriage because of the fact that a gay couple cannot procreate without heterosexual activitiy (artifical or sex to impregnate). The children of a gay union always include a third party as parent.
It does have an effect on heterosexual marriage in that it reduces parents to legal claimants, Parent A and Parent B, not mother and father.
I think a civil union separate from marriage is more appropriate. Gay marriage is only equal when there are no children, if marriage is to be based on the couple themselves and love is the common denominator.
It doesn't matter to me if popular opinion (especially those who are in their 2nd decade of a 7 decade existence) thinks it is ok. There are a lot of attitudes and beliefs that I do not share or appreciate about the younger generation.
Marriage is about forming kinship, which is already hard in the step family arrangement of easy divorce.
canuckistani| 6.15.10 @ 9:47AM
Why are we attempting to justify traditional marriage at the detriment of minority rights?
Not so long ago, women did not marry for the expressed reason they would lose property rights to their husbands. The laws were changed.
Not so long ago, polygamy was permitted in these United States. The laws were changed.
Not so long ago, divorce, even in cases of abuse, were near impossible to gain without forcing a woman to abandon rights. The laws were changed.
Not so long ago, it was impossible for infertile couples to have a biological child. Science changed, and laws were changed.
In the last 50 years, divorce rates rose and then peaked and are now falling as a direct result, some say, of women becoming emancipated from bad marriages and now making better decisions. Women get married older, women increasingly get married for companionship versus child legitimacy concerns and women make more decisions about their lives than ever before. Laws were changed, society continues.
As long as the rights of the individual are blended will civil rights and benefits of marriage, the state should not be determining who of its citizens get preference.
Either legalize gay marriage, or get the state out of marriage entirely. Unfortunately, as summarized above, the state must be involved to protect people from themselves.
Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 3:25PM
Ever wonder why God has put gay people on this planet? Since they don't reproduce, as you say, they are here for a reason. Maybe it's a test of your tolerance? Maybe it's a test of your Christian love and compassion?
However, since you are obviously of the older bigoted generation, it won't matter for long what you think ... but you will face your own judgement day, you can count on that.
aslanson| 6.15.10 @ 8:46AM
God is against "gay"marriage, and all "gayness"in all of its perverted forms: He calls it an abominable sin.
That old radical Satan is "gay" because he, too, rebels against what God has ordained.
Doestoevsky wrote that if there is no God, then everything is permitted.
The difference between liberals and Satan is only this: Satan knows there is a God, and he continues to rebel against his Creator. Liberals act as if they don't know.
Everything is NOT permitted.
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 11:32AM
Aslanson is wise.
Stephanie| 6.15.10 @ 11:43AM
And THAT is why they say there is no God.
So EVERYTHING will be permitted. Except of course, if you or I say we are against gay marriage, or interracial marriage etc. We will have to were the lable of Hate Speech.
Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 3:29PM
What a piece of bigoted garbage. Yes the Bible says "abomination" ... so Leviticus says eating shellfish is an abomination. And you should share your daughter with a visitor to be hospitable and your mother should be put to death for wearing mixed fabric of two different threads. Really? You want to follow the Bible - until you do strictly, keep your bigoted comments to yourself.
You won't be long in this world so it won't matter for long, but you will face your own judgement day.... Have a nice day!
Derek Leaberry| 6.15.10 @ 9:11AM
When "conservatives" at an alleged "conservative" web site can't even argue that homosexual "marriage" is not only laughable but a sign of degeneracy in the society, perhaps the whole conservative enterprise should be scuttled like Abby Sutherland's sailboat. Not even the perverts in ancient Greece and Rome would not consider the concept of homosexual "marriage". But now the radical egalitarians of both the left and the right have progressed to another world and turned their backs on Western Civilization.
Inevitably, the minority of Christians who believe in Western Civilization will have to form their own communities separated from the degenerate majority. This must include an abandonment of the official "conservative" movement (a movement that fails in conserving anything) and the Republican Party. Both are empty vessels.
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 11:38AM
Derek Leaberry is wise. Although I will comment that I don't think that this world will be around long enough for this seperation to occur.
Check this out:
The Apostle Paul writing to Timothy. 2 Timothy, 3rd chapter 1 -5...
" 1. This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3. Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4. Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."
Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 3:33PM
The issue for gay people is one of freedom and justice. As a conservative, are you telling me you don't believe in both?
As a Christian, you do know that Jesus never said anything against homosexuality, right? In your minority Christian view, which is dying by the way, your Christian values seem to be a little messed up, don't you agree? Your writing betrays your bigoted attitude. In another time you would have thought it was a terrible thing to abolish slavery - also supported in the Old Testament.
Ace| 6.15.10 @ 10:23AM
I agree Derek. There's nothing left in the present time worth "conserving". To be a conservative today is to only uphold the status quo of the liberal order that has slowly strangled the world since the Enlightenment. We need a radical traditionalism that focuses less on politics and more on rebuilding family and community as well as spitting in the face of politically correct taboos.
Also, for those who assume all young people support "gay" rights, there are a few of us (I'm 22) who see that the so called "right side of history" is nothing but a mad dash into suicidal and self destructive acceptence of every form of degeneracy in the name of Almighty Inclusiveness.
MickeyC| 6.15.10 @ 11:00AM
Mr. Gutmann obviously has personal issues with homosexuality and in a vain attempt to cover that up offers one of the more nonsensical constructs against same sex marriage. The problem for Mr. Gumann is he fails to show how same sex marriage will in anyway stop or even slow down opposite sex marriage. Unless he believes that the only reason people marry the opposite sex is because they have no choice and would much prefer a same sex marriage. Mr. Gumann's use of outdated psychological concepts rather proves he is best as "emeritus" and I'm sure the school knows that too. I would suggest that instead of thinking of reasons to stop a few people from getting married, that Mr. Gutmann's time be better spent working on his own issues with homosexuals.
Derek Leaberry| 6.15.10 @ 11:44AM
Every person in the history of mankind- from Churchill to Washington to Plato to Socrates to Julius Caesar to Charlesmagne to Shakespeare to Robert E. Lee and trillions of less important people in between- would not only not countenance homosexual "marriage", they would have thought anyone to think otherwise bizarre and anti-social. It is the left, and their camp followers on the modernist Frumite right, who are attempting to overthrow 7000 years of civilization and 2000 years of Christianity.
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 12:17PM
I have read all of Plato. Plato didn't come right out and say that an adult man having an "affair" with an underage boy was wrong. Plato did come out and say that is was the responsibility of a boys father to protect him from the unwanted attentions of letcherous men. Plato said that an adult man having an affair with a boy was tacky, in so many words.
I can't recall there being a mention made of an affair between adult men in anything that Plato wrote, any of the dialogs of Plato.
I will tell you that Spartan Hoplites, line grunts, were encouraged to love one another in that a soldier would rather die than to be humiliated by showing cowardace in the face of the enemy or any other such failing in front of a loved one. Spartan hoplites ate together, slept together, played together, groomed each other and fought together.
Xerxes sent spies into Greece ahead of his army. These spies encountered the Greeks at Thermoplye who were sitting around under trees oiling their skin, attending to weapons combing each others hair and the like. The spies asked what the Greeks were doing and the Greeks, Spartans, Phocians, Ionians and a couple other city states that I can't remember replied, "We want to look good when we die."
The attitude pretty much unnerved the Persians.
Derek Leaberry| 6.15.10 @ 12:34PM
I am not saying homosexuality didn't exist in ancient times. Emperor Trajan was especially fond of young men. King Edward II of England was a notorious homosexual who ended up on the wrong side of a red hot poker. But there was no homosexual "marriage" until certain deracinated Europeans and Americans made it up over the past two decades.
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 1:59PM
I'm not saying that sodomism didn't exist in history. I am saying that the Greeks weren't nearly as promiscous as they are sometimes made out to be.
Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 3:37PM
So, homosexuals have been with us for thousands of years ... if God didn't want them so badly, have you ever wondered why are they here? Perhaps their presence is His way of testing you. Did you pass, or did you fail.
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 5:12PM
Depends on how you define pass and fail. I don't think that we need a purge or a crusade or an inquisition. There aspects of human activity that I want to be involved in. There are aspects of human activity that I don't want to be involved in. Sodomism is an aspect of human activity that I don't want to be involved in. Please leave your homosexuality at the door.
I've made it clear that I don't care what you do with another consenting adult or barnyard animal in the privacy and comfort of your own home. Why is it that you will not restrain yourself when it comes to inflicting your perversions on me? I didn't and won't drag you off to church on Sunday morning. You may do and say as you please on your time someplace else. The trouble is that doing and saying as you please on your time someplace else isn't good enough. You live a life of filth and won't rest till the rest of the world lives a life of filth right alongside of you.
Absoloutely pitiful.
Purpleguy| 6.17.10 @ 5:30PM
Simple acceptance of someone different than you is all any gay person is asking for. They just want the same treatment as you would get.
In any case, your approval is not required nor desired for anything I do or do not do. Whether I am gay or not is not the issue. Simple acceptance of someone different than you is all any gay person is asking for. Can you not accept someone different from you? There are lots of different types out here, ya know.
"You may do and say as you please on your time someplace else." - I intend to, and you are not invited, so stop trying to invite yourself. Nobody asked you. In fact, nobody wants you. Why do you think anyone cares what your opinion is unless you have engaged in gay sex. Oh - is that it? You're ashamed of what you have done. You're being way to sensitive and antagonistic to only having an academic opinion on this.
But I'm sure many here want to explain to me, warn me, or scare me as to why an abortion is bad, whether from a religious foundation or otherwise. If you can tell me that I have the free right to my own body to have an abortion, then you have not inflicted your opinion on me.
Conversely, no one is asking you to marry a gay man. While you may want me NOT to have an abortion, because you think it wrong, I am not asking you to marry a gay man. You should just treat others as you would like to be treated.
Your last paragraph really says a lot about you - using words like filth and perversion are the tools of the bigot. "The trouble is that doing and saying as you please on your time someplace else isn't good enough." - If gays could marry openly, then you are wrong.
But since you, and many like you won't let gay people marry, for whatever small-minded, bigoted perverted "secret fear of being gay" reason, you are not following the immortal Golden Rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
I guess you failed God's test for you, huh Boobie?
FTM| 6.18.10 @ 4:19AM
You know, I don't know where you come up with some of the stuff that you come up with, really.
If Sodomites want to get married that's fine with me. Don't care. If Sodomites want all of the legal accomodations that hetrosexual married couples enjoy then that's fine with me too. If Sodomites want to run around holding hands and the like then great. Frankly I don't care.
Now, with all that said and I might be wrong but what I see going on here is that to the Sodomite community none of the afforementioned permissions are good enough. The Sodomite wants me to tell him that his behavior is acceptable to me and it isn't. Society at large may well accept the Sodomite but I don't. I don't want to be involved. When the Sodomites decide to have a parade or whatever then I'm going to go to my house, sit down and read a book. Nobody is going to get hurt, there aren't goint to be any signs waved, nothing of any of that sort.
Now, please explain to me how my not wanting to be present at let alone participate in any of the Sodomite's activities in any way, shape or form harms the Sodomite in any fashion at all? I call Sodomite behavior perverse. To tell you the truth I'm sure that there are things that I do that the Sodomite considers to be perverse.
I use the word "perverse" in the same sense of someone using the word "ignorant" to mean uneducated, no demeaning sense implied. Perhaps you object to my use of the word "Sodomite" instead of "Gay." I use the word Sodomite because it is more precice and is older in it's usage thatn the word "Gay." Besides that quite a few of the Sodomites that I know personally, not all but many, are anything but "Gay." These are people that are pretty much angry pretty much all the time at pretty much anything that comes along. Some of the Sodomites that I know, again not all, seem to be hyper activists, politically, socially, enviromentally and so on. Angry, not at all Gay.
In closing, In regards to the Golden Rule that you misrepresent in order to almost make your point, I don't see anything wrong here. I leave the Sodomite alone and the Sodomite leaves me alone. Who got hurt here?
Secondly, I suspect that you wouldn't know bigotry if a bigot were to walk up and snatch you right out of your shoes. Not intending to anger you or to contradict you but it seems to me that you are one of the more common type of liberal, the preacher at the church that I attend for example, that is tolerant of anything and everything that comes along with the exception of someone that doesn't agree with him.
Not to judge, but judging from what you've written here you know very little of God. That's OK by me, I'm not you and you may do as you please. From the intellectual side of the arguement though don't you think that you should maybe try just a little to get outside of the little liberal/progressive "if it feels good do it" box that you've made for yourself?
FTM| 6.18.10 @ 5:08AM
I had an idea, a thought occurred to me. In an attempt to perhaps provide some sort of context that we may share in order to arrive at some conclusion in this matter.
I work as a production support engineer in a tier I automotive plastic injection molding plant. As a matter of routine I troubleshoot malfunctioning equipment. By definition when a malfunction occurrs all bets are off, the machine is doing something that it's not supposed to do. Approach with extreme caution.
These machines are powered by high voltages/ampherages, compressed air and hydraulic systems all of which can kill you before you realize what happened. As a matter of routine I am very discriminating as to who I will let inside of a control panel with me. People that are impulsive or perhaps a little too cock-sure of themselves give me pause for concern.
Now, when these people that I don't like to work around show up, I go someplace else. If they want to get killed or mangled up that's OK by me, I don't want to get killed or mangled up. I've been doing this kind of work since 1986 and I still am in one piece and I'd like to keep it that way.
In regards to the Sodomites and what they do, I don't have a dog in any of their races. What they do doesn't interest me and so I go someplace else for two reasons. First, their behavior repells me. You like being around certain people and not others, same as me and same as most everybody else on this planet. I prefer not to be around these people when they are making a public display of their perversion. Second, when somebody does something that's provocitave, sooner or later someone is going to be provoked. I don't want to be around when some half-wit rednect decides to take a shot at these people with his turkey gun. I'm still all in one piece and I'd like awful well to keep it that way. I've been badly hurt before, it's no fun. When the potental exists to get badly hurt or killed outright either I'm the king and my word is the law or the situation is all yours and there is no middle of the road.
I heard a wise man say one time that the secret to living a long life was to not do anything to shorten it.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 9:35AM
You might want to read: Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by John Boswell. The concept of same sex unions is NOT a new one and not unknown in many cultures. The current whine against it is based on cultural prejudice and ignorance, nothing more.
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 11:48AM
I've written this before and I'll write this again. This is really simple folks, let the boys that want to marry boys marry boys. Let the girls that want to marry girls marry girls. Let the women that want to kill their unborn children kill their unborn children. In ten or fifteen years there won't be any more Democrats.
Honestly, what the sodomites decide to do in the privacy and comfort of their own homes is their business. It's not my place to say to anyone "No you may not" or "You must" anything. Now, if someone were to ask I will tell them my opinion, "If I were you I would..."
I think that the largest part of the rampant evil loose in this world arises when one person attempts to exert his or her will over another by force.
Now comes the rub, I do indeed draw the line at sodomites pushing their agenda at a public school. As I do not get to promote my agenda at school I don't think that sodomites should be allowed to promote theirs either. Places like this. I could care less is the sodomites get married, just not at my church. Go someplace else.
What the sodomites decide to do in public is their business too, found a newspaper. Publish a magazine. Establish sodomite only civic organizations and the like, I don't care. If you come to my house I'll ask exactly one time, counted on one finger, just one time that you leave then the screaming is going to start. Trust me on this one.
FTM | 6.15.10 @ 11:49AM
I forgot to add that I don't think that sodomites should be allowed to adopt children.
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 4:10PM
And I would hope that people like you aren't allowed to either.
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 5:24PM
And why is that? I have two children who are now both early adults. Both are master marksmen and know right from wrong and good from evil. I think that you're upset because I have prepared them to defend themselves from folks like you.
My kids can hunt and fish. My kids can problemsolve. My kids have not broken into a panic since they were little. You won't be able to get the kids to react from impulse.
My daughter and son both have or are paying their own way through college the hard way, no government grants or other publicly funded "freebies."
The kids know that "Thou shalt not steal" regardless of what you tell them. The kids will be OK for the rest of their days and their kids after them.
So what is it that you're bringing to the table other than a bunch of touchie-feelie good pie-in-the-sky bullshit that in the end all means nothing?
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 5:47PM
Great post, FTM. My kids are about the same (the 11-year old girl is quite the marksman). They baby is only a marksman at hitting Daddy in the head with her bottle - still, there is promise ;-)
If all Gays want is to be left alone, well, leave us alone, too. We'll get along fine. If not . . . .
Pampered Pooch| 6.15.10 @ 6:23PM
Eric Cartman,
As a long-time reader of AmSpec, I note that you are making one comment after another all day long.
You are an insufferable windbag, and since you have all this time on your hands I surmise that you are either unemployed or disabled.
And according to you, you--a bitter, spiteful, frustrated rightwinger-- have young children. How I pity those children.
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 6:47PM
And your point is? What are you doing to make the world a better place? How are you blooming where you are planted?
I'm convalescing after elbow surgury for the next two weeks and have nothing better to do than to poke fun at poor people such as yourself. You're damned frustrated at your sorry assed condition in life and are in a rage that nobody woill come lift you out of your poor wretched existance. Whats the matter, your government check hasn't come in yet? You pray to Obama and nothing happened? You're a joke.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 6:52PM
I have nothing to do today except research a finance paper for my MBA and bug people who have pen names such as Pampered Pooch - both of which can be accomplished sitting here at my desk. Pissing off the Left is a fave past-time:-) Now go be good, you silly.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 7:16PM
Oh, on top of that, I'm smoking a brisket and making my mothers potato salad recipe! Plus we are having asparagus like Alton Brown prepared last nite. Gunna try his microwave technique with a quick roast in the oven and possibly corn on the cob. But that's two starches. We'll see what the kids want.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 10:42AM
Gee and a gay couple I know who have been together for more than 30 years have two children, one a PhD in Micro-Biology and the other an attorney. Again, Eric, if you don't want a same sex marriage, don't have one, but keep you nose out of other people's lives. Do you spend time in bed thinking about what two guys are doing? It sure looks that way from your posts.Get some help Eric, before your wife figures it out (if she hasn't already).
Eric Cartman| 6.16.10 @ 11:27AM
Ya got me Mickey! Ya found me out! You're a regular Sam Spade! Oh, and I know a couple who are conservative Christians who are doctors and hold teaching positions at Rice and Baylor with 5 great kids all in major universities! Wanna meet and share pictures of our vacations, too?!
You're a putz .
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 10:40PM
I'm glad your two kids have turned out so well, as have my son and daughter, one of whom worked her way through Cornell and the other just starting at Michigan on full scholarship. And I have every confidence that, like my kids, your children will be a lot more accepting of others than so many in our generation were. One of the striking differences in polls of younger people is their acceptance of gays and rejection of the prejudices of their parents.
Vollowitz lives| 6.15.10 @ 11:36PM
This is Bob's stick. Give me a chart.
Vollowitz lives| 6.16.10 @ 12:07AM
Make that schtick. Bob is a crack up when he writes about his pretend kids. Cornell and Michigan. Wow. And gay tolerant. What a parent. What would a young person say? Bob is so gay.
FTM| 6.16.10 @ 5:56AM
I am tolerant of Sodomites. I don't crusade against these people, there are no burnings, torture or mass killing. Sodomites may do as they please, wherever they please, however often they please, it is of no concern of mine with the exception of three places. My Church, the publicly funded school (baby sitting center) that my children attend and in my home.
I will qualify the above by saying that when Sodomites are allowed to push their agenda in my church I will attend elsewhere. I'm pretty sure that there are a couple Sodomites that attend the Church that I attend and thats OK by me.
My children have both aged aout of the publically funded mass indoctrination/babysitting center but for so long as I am forced under threat of violence to fund this total waste of time I will object by whatever means available to me to a Sodomite agenda being taught.
Last but not least my home. My TV has an on/off button and I use it all the time. We don't watch much TV, I am currently reading Livy. After Livy I have Seutonius. The radio in my car has a mute button on the steering wheel which I use quite a bit. I'm a big boy and I can turn stuff off that I don't want to listen to.
The daughter likes to watch the Gilmore Girls and Some Cop/Lawyer/Crime show and "Touched by an Angel" all of which makes me want to gag. Hopefully she'll grow out of all this. I'd pay good money to see the Gilmore girls handcuffed to a concrete truck and driven off of maybe the Brooklyn Bridge or perhaps the Golden Gate.
I have an aunt and maybe a cousin that are Sodomites. The cousin is a former Marine. I get along fine with them, they do as they please, I have met their "friends" and the like, we get along fine. I don't want to hear about their relationships, as a matter of fact I don't want to hear about the Hetro folks little problems either, that's all their problem. So, like I said before, if you come to the house pushing a Sodomite agenda you get one chance to walk away standing up.
Now really, I don't see any of this as being a prejudice. I see it more as excercising a preference. You say tomato and I say tomahto and we all live happily ever after. Seems to me that you have an axe to grind.
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 11:58AM
By the bye, there's an openly gay man that works at the factory that I work at. I'm about the only production support guy that he'll call because the rest of the production support people shun this guy. I don't think that this is right but it is the situation that exists. This guy does his job and gets paid same as everybody else.
Then one day we had a new bunch of new hires come into the plant and there among the new hires was a former boyfriend of the original gay guy.
There were calls to the cops about the new gay guy stalking the old gay guy. There were compalints of workplace harassment ad nauseum. You dared not go to the men's room. You dared not go to the cafeteria for fear of witnessing or God Almighty forbid be caught in the midst of a full blown jilted sodomite snitt.
Finally the new gay guy quit, thank God.
We have men and women divorced from each other working together on the same shift at the plant that got along better than these two did.
Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 3:40PM
And, your point is ? Some people don't get along ... ?
FTM | 6.15.10 @ 5:29PM
The point is that the divorced hetrosexual couples don't have half the trouble that these two had.
Granted, this is the only case like this one that I've ever been witness to so I have no idea if this is the norm or not.
There is a divorced hetrosexual couple that works second shift but in different areas of the plant. In the odd situation that these two came in contact they were at least civil. The broke up sodomite couple on the other hand were calling the cops on each other and in the HR office three or four times a week. Stuff like that.
I don't like cops hanging around the factory. We got enough half-wit half dangerous knuckle-heads running around loose without adding a few more.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 9:40AM
You might want to see the movie, "War of the Roses" . Heterosexual breakups are just as bad if not worse than anything homosexuals can do. Judging all homosexual relations by one is just stupid.
FTM| 6.17.10 @ 11:49AM
OK MickyC, you asked for it.
First off if you read the post you will find the quote, "Granted, this is the only case like this one that I've ever been witness to so I have no idea if this is the norm or not." If you were a necktie, now would be the time to use it as an extraction device.
Second, this is a topic of conversation for grown-ups. While it is true that art imitates life it is also true that art does not replicate life. Basing an arguement on a real life topic based on a "hollyWierd" left wing cinematic tantrum is "just stupid."
Now go play.
Purpleguy| 6.17.10 @ 5:14PM
Have you ever been married? Ever been divorced? Are you gay? How bought been in a broken relationship? If the answer to any of these is NO, then you have no real experience, so why bring it up - unless you're just being bigoted and homophobic.
Saying that the worst you've ever seen is a gay couple just doesn't mean much in the scheme of all marriages and relationships, that's all. You cannot extrapolate to a whole population without statistical, not anecdotal, evidence, don't you agree?
FTM| 6.18.10 @ 5:44AM
Yes, I agree, didn't you read what I wrote? "Granted, this is the only case like this one that I've ever been witness to so I have no idea if this is the norm or not." Come on, give the kid a break already.
This is a statement in two parts first that the estranged hetrosexual couples get along better than the estranged Sodomite couples that I have personally witnessed. Not a judgement, not an assessment just a simple statement of fact based on my personal experience. Your personal experience may be different and there's nothing at all wrong with that.
The second part, suppose that you just got a new job, Oh thank God, and unbeknownst to you a former significant other worked there too. A kinda/sorta awkward situation but nothing that can't be overcome right? Only the next thing that you know the lady that answers the phone up fron calls you up and tells you that there are a couple thug cops in the lobby that want to talk to you. When you get to the cops they tell you that there has been a stalking charge filed against you and you enter into all that legal mess. Fortunately the cops excercise a little discernment and decide that you aren't an imminent threat to the former flame and they don't arrest you on the spot. Have you ever had a protective order filed againt you? Imagine the ramifications of a protective order down to the factory. You can't go into the bathroom because the other guy is in there and that sort of thing. Then the former flame decides that since the cop thing didn't work out right the former flame then begins to file formal hostile working environment complaints against you one after another after another and so on. From the looks of things this would be a bad, bad situation to be in regardless of your orientation. Then there was all the social stuff going on in the cafeteria and the like. The accusations of the one flame sabotaging the other flame there in the factory and the like. The final result of all this is turbulence and down to the factory turbulence is a bad, bad thing. The new hire Sodomite guy finally quit.
Now, I don't know about you but I think that using the legal system in such a way as to deny anybody an employment opportunity is wrong. Where I live you can get a protective order with a telephone, call the cops, make a few allegationds and badda bing-badda boom, protective order, swing by the cop shop and pick up the paper work. Using the workplace anti-discrimination rules in such a fashion to deny anyone an employment opportunity is wrong.
Truth be told, I think that had this been an estranged hetrosexual couple the cops and the HR people would have been better able to respond in a more equitable manner. By virtue that this was a Sobomite couple the system just up an collapsed.
How would you have liked to be in a situation like this one?
skip| 6.15.10 @ 12:38PM
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22
"Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters." Luke 11:21
"Jesus answered: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 12:49PM
Good point, Skip. Gay friends always say that Jesus never spoke to the Gay issue. I have to remind them that Jesus didn't come to demolish the Old Testament, but to teach it. He didn't come to rewrite the laws on sex, health, nutrition, food preparation, etc. The Torah is full of laws on how to live, prepare food, cleanliness, etc. (Not to mention the Top Ten) These laws were never in question with The Lord. People, however, have been dumbed down so its easier for them to slouch toward Gomorrah.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 9:45AM
Using misinterpretations of the Bible are the mainstay of the prejudice. People did it against Jews, Blacks gays etc. The Bible never condemns homosexual relationships so there was little reason for Jesus to do it. He did condmen hypocrites and divorce but that seems to be ignored by the so-called pious who wish to stop gays from getting married. Fact is neither God NOR the Bible condemn same sex marriage any more than they condemen opposite sex marriage.
skip| 6.16.10 @ 10:36AM
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" is not a condemnation in the Bible? Leviticus 18:22 is not part of the Bible? The definition of the word 'detestable': abominable; odius; abhorrable; deserving of scorn; offensive to the mind; morally repugnant. Is this too ambiguous? You are misinterpreting your opinion as having any intelligent or honest basis in fact.
skip| 6.16.10 @ 10:41AM
In the Ten Commandments found in Exodus 20, the fifth commandment settles the issue with finality: "Honor thy father and mother, or father and father, or mother and mother, as the case may be"
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 10:47AM
Skip, I realize you haven't ever read the Bible. but you do know that a woman wearing any clothing that a man would wear is also an abomination. And, of course, all the dozens of OTHER laws you ignore everyday. The laws in Leviticus were for religious purity, they are called purity laws. Using against homsoexuals shows beyond any doubt that you don't know or understand the Bible. My guess is, you only mention it when you can use against someone else. The old segregationists in the south did the same thing years ago, you're no different.
skip| 6.16.10 @ 12:22PM
The first time I completed reading every single word of the Bible was in 1973. You say reality is that I have not ever read it. In the interest of improving both my intelligence and improving my honesty so as to become an improved human being, can you relate to me the quantity and quality of your Bible reading? Try to keep it to words and concepts I can understand please.
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 1:01PM
Skip - I assume then that you follow all the proscriptions in Leviticus, right?
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 1:03PM
... and that you disagree vehemently with St. Paul's letter to the Hebrews, and his decision that Christians needn't undergo circumcision.
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 2:11PM
Tenth Chapter of the Book of Acts,
" 9. On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
10. And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11. And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12. Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."
That about takes care of the food preparation laws. The Apostle Paul also argued with the Jewish Christians in regards to the circumcision.
I don't presume that it would do any good to attmpt to have a discussion with you in that it appears that your mind is made up. Rave on.
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 3:06PM
Read Paul's Letter to the Hebrews about the necessisity for the Mosaic after Christ's fulfillment and come back and chat.
FTM | 6.15.10 @ 5:36PM
I have read Paul's letter in regards to the Mosaic law. The letter was regarding Hebrew behavior, not Gentile. That was what Paul was all about, incorporating Gentiles into what was then seen as a faction inside of Judaism. The Jews were of the opinion that Gentiles should subject themselves to the Mosaic code. Paul disagreed.
Now, your point is?
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 10:43PM
Paul's point was that all people are now redeemed to God through the sacrifice of Jesus, and it is faith in Him, not adherence to Mosaic law that brings salvation.
Vollowitz lives| 6.15.10 @ 11:37PM
Give some Aramaic.
FTM| 6.16.10 @ 6:15AM
You RCV are right. However my take was that Paul was saying to the Jews that if you guys want to keep the law then that's fine but you can't shove the Mosaic Code off onto the Gentiles. Paul then goes on to explain that Jesus' crucifixion was the final sacrifice for sin, that no further sacrifices were required and that the sins of Jews and Gentiles alike against the law were forgiven.
A caviat being that repentance exists. Repentance being the acknowledgement that one's former behavior was sinful and a decision was made to forego (imperfectly) the sinful behavior and to live a better life.
In a spirit of friendship I would suggest to you that your perspective is a hint Nicolatine. The Nicolatine heresy is discussed in the Book of Revelation. The Nicolatines taught that sin was forgiven by grace, that grace was a good thing and that there might be more grace in the world that it was the duty of the followers of Jesus to sin as often and as regularly as they could. The Nicolatine creed is roundly condemned in the Book of Revelation.
The Nicolatine Creed is/was one of over three hundred seperate creeds that sprang up between 30AD and perhaps 200 to 300 AD. These creeds were taught in different cities all over the known world at the time. The Greek based creeds were the most interesting discussing the spiritual nauure of Jesus, man or spirit. There were some who said that Jesus was a ghost because he was sin free and sin and the flesh are one in the same. Stuff like that. Eusebius discusses these creeds in great detail in his "Early History of the Church."
In Arabic the word "Bagdad" means "Garden of Dad." This Dad guy was an early Christian recluse that people went to see in order to recieve spiritual guidance. So many people went to see this Dad guy that the garden of Dad became a town and the rest is history. That's just one of many stories told by Eusebius.
RCV| 6.16.10 @ 12:00PM
FTM - Thanks very much for the thoughtful and measured response. I certainly don't subscribe to the Nicolatine Heresy. My quibble was simply over the applicability of Mosaic law to all of us in this post-resurrection day and age. The issue to me is how do we treat two human beings whom God created, who are genetically homosexual (long separate debate, but I'm convinced), who love and care for each other, and are committed to spending their lives together and caring for one another. I know people like that. My answer is, with dignity, respect and love. I could be wrong, but I think that's God's answer as well.
FTM| 6.16.10 @ 3:23PM
I wrote a response to this post but somehow or another I screwed something up and it all went away. I'll try again but I'm pressed for time.
Jesus taught that if you are guilty in one aspect of the law then you are guilty of the whole law. The book of the law, Leviticus, 20th chapter 13th verse says " 13. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
You can see plainly that not only is Sodomism a sin but a capital crime according to the law.
Now suppose that the Sodomite were to decide that Sodomism is a sin, repent and ask for forgiveness by the body and blood of Jesus, would the Sodomite be forgiven? Yes, of course. Suppose that the former Sodomite after a mighty effort fell off of the wagon and relapsed but then repented and asked for forgiveness would the Sodomite be forgiven? Yes of course or else I'm in big trouble with some of the stunts that I've pulled. Now suppose that the Sodomite feels some sort of conviction for his lifestyle and asks forgiveness with no intention of repenting. Is there forgiveness?
Remember that Jesus said that he came not to do away with the law but to fulfill every jot and every tittle.
Lastly, my concern with salvation is personal. I can only act to save myself. What you do is your business. If you ask I will answer to the best of my ability to the best of my knowledge. What you or the guy next door or the kids decide to be involved with is on their own heads. If a Sodomite wants to get married, OK by me. If a woman wants to murder her unborn child, not my problem. If you want to sow your field with two kinds of seed, go for it. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
The problem as I see it is twofold and is based on the same evil. First that spiritual people in a greater or lesser state of ignorance want to enforce their will on the Sodomite. Second that the Sodomite wants to exert his influence over all of society in every aspect. The common evil that I see is trying to force your will on another.
RCV| 6.16.10 @ 4:32PM
But as I've pointed out, Mosaic Law prohibits much. If what you say is true, then any of us who do not keep kosher and follow strictly all of the proscriptions in Leviticus are guilty of violating the whole Law. Paul's point is that Jesus's sacrifice redeemed us all; salvation is no longer through the Law, but through Him. We can argue about whether the Law ever bound anyone but the Jews, and whether Jews are still bound by the Law -- they obviously believe they are -- but unless Paul is wrong on his take, the proscriptions in Leviticus, which were part of God's covenant with Israel, are not our covenant with God. Christ is the New Covenant -- the New Testament, if you will.
RCV| 6.16.10 @ 4:38PM
I also respect your concern with your own personal salvation, rather than passing judgment on what others should do. Each of us has to work that out for himself or herself. As for gays and the state, here's my take on that. The state has decided to involve itself in marriage. It must treat its citizens with equal protection of the laws. The fact that your religious tenets teach you that sodomy is a sin is irrelevant. You can certainly try to exercise your civil rights in society by arguing for laws and by changing the Constitution. Gays have that right too. And them doing so is no more "exerting influence over society" than you seeking to argue that marriage should be restricted to men and women. Obviously, if particular churches believe that marriage between people of the same gender is a sin, they have ever right to restrict their religious rite to heterosexuals. Our state may not, however, establish religious rules for civil rights.
FTM| 6.16.10 @ 6:27PM
I agree with what you have written in regards to the state being involved in the rite of marriage. In my most humble opinion other than in keeping property rights straight and the like the state has no business attempting to regulate marriage at all. That goes for Sodomites marrying and the like. Like I said before, it's not any concern of mine.
The problem with the issue that I have is when the Sodomite couple comes to your church and ask to be married there. When the church responds "no" then the civil rights nonsense starts up, hate speech and discrimination accusations made. Stuff like that.
The church that I attend is a liberal church. Recently the question came up, do we ordain Sodomite ministers. My response when I was asked was an adamant "no." That's when the charges of bigotry and hate speech and discrimination came from the minority of people that were in favor.
It's a case where the Sodomite social activist wins regardless of the answer. If you allow ordanation of a Sodomite minister the Sodomites win. If you don't ordain Sodomite ministers then it's a civil rights smear job. I've read "Rules for Radicals" by Alinsky, I know how the game is played.
FTM| 6.16.10 @ 6:18PM
The Moasaic Code is not relevant to me, I am exempt from the Mosaic Code by salvation through the freewill gift of God to all minkind, the final sin sacrifice of Jesus. My take.
Now in the event that you should refuse to accept this salvation offered by God through Jesus then you are subject to the full weight of the Moasaic Code along with all the punishments contained therein. There is a passage, I'd have to research the passage regarding the holiness of a Gentile, apart from God somehow or another keeping the law and that this Gentile wold have higher honor than the Jew in failing to keep the law. Something to that effect anyway. Like I said, I'd have to research the passage.
The kosher laws were set aside, there's a post above that contains the passage in regards to a dream that Peter had. Peter saw in the dream all manner of unclean beast, bird and crawling thing and a voice said, "Rise Peter, kill and eat." Peter didn't want to because the creatures depicted were all unclean. The voice then said, "do not call unclean that which I have made clean."
Your assessment in regards to salvation through Jesus is spot on correct.
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 4:23PM
"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed; neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together."
Leviticus 19:19
"Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."
Leviticus 19:27
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 1:00PM
Thanks for speaking for God.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 1:05PM
You're welcome! Anything else I can do for ya?
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 2:20PM
Not speaking for God. I read in a book that I for one believe was written by God says to do certain things and not do other things. This sodomite thing being one of the "don't do" things.
It's not my place to rant and rave and condemn you to hell and all that. I've made it pretty plain that I don't care what the sodomites do so long as their activities don't effect me. Could care less.
What I don't understand is your unblinking acceptance of an activity that some people, apparently fewer and fewer all the time consider to be repulsive and ridicule a religous position that people, apparently fewer and fewer all the time used to consider to be virtuous.
RCV, 'ol buddy, you are one of the signs of the times. Woe to him that calls bad good and good bad.
Gabarus | 6.15.10 @ 4:14PM
Men wrote that book, men translated that book from many dead languages. Fallible men. Men with their own opinions and prejudices. If homosexuality is of such great importance, why did the word not even exist in any version up until roughly 150 years ago? You need to understand that attempting to take an ancient religious text as rote FACT, is a foolhardy thing to do. You haven't the first clue what the original texts said, unless you can A. Locate them, and B. Read them, which would require working linguistic skills in Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Ancient German, and I believe a few other languages I could be forgetting. Additionally, you would need to have access to ALL the texts, not merely the ones that are provided for you by Church leaders. Your bible is a volume that is edited, inaccurate, and incomplete. Please learn to take this into account.
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 5:48PM
"Practicing a form of godliness but denying the power thereof."
This God guy that can make a black hole run backwards can't preserve his word for the betterment of all of mankind. "Mankinds wisdom is folly to God."
I grew up in the company of people like you. I have an uncle that was the department chair of the Philosphy and Theology department of a very good liberal arts university. He's retired now. All of the preachers at the church that I attended when I was a kid were attending a liberal theological seminary.
The common denominator point between all this and your statement is all the same. Worship of the Almighty God is a speculative thing in that the Bible is a book of fairy tales written by a bunch of dead white guys. When you find a passage that affirms your perverse thought process then that passage is the word of God. When you are forced to acknowledge a passage that condemns your perverse thought process then it can be discounted because a hateful and hurtful dead white guy wrote that in when nobody was looking.
I totally reject your ideology. Please take that into account.
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 6:23PM
You know, you really hit a nerve.
What you've written is for the most part false and is exactly the kind of crap that is taught in liberal "Christian" seminaries.
The truth is this, the septuagint, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Arimaic and a couple other languages to Greek in seventy days by seventy Hebrew Scholars. This translation occurred as early as 200 AD and no later than 300 AD. Modern acedemics know Greek quite well. The fact that this translation occurred is a well documented historical fact.
This Septuagint translation includes books that are not included in the Old Testament, such as the book of Enoch and the Book of Mary and the apocryphia, all of which are extant today. I have a copy of the Book of Enoch and will one day get the Apocryphia and read it.
The New Testament was written in Greek and Latin, both languages are quite well known by modern scholars.
Proabably what you are confusing is what are considered to be heritical texts written by sects such as the Gnostics and folks like that. Theologies that were condemned in the New Testament such as the Nicolatine doctrine.
Please learn to take this into account.
Your theology, based on the assumption that you have one is hollow. You can't make up doctrine as you go along as much as you would like to. There are three possible logical outcomes represented here. First that Man wrote the Bible, there might not be a God. The second is that God wrote part of the Bible and man wrote the other part, this God guy is every bit as deceptive and perverse as this devil guy. I don't need the confusion. The third outcome is that God wrote the Bible and this God guy is exactly who he says he is.
Your apparent lack of education is obvious to a prepared mind. Either that or you are perfectly willing to sacrifice a true theology for your progressive agenda. One way or the other your condition is sad.
Gabarus | 6.16.10 @ 10:36AM
You misinterpret me. I look at scripture from all religions as an outsider looking in. I do not subscribe to any one faith, and I take an objective eye with all of them. Your defensiveness is telling. You reject any idea of the bible being anything but what you think it is, don't you think that's narrow? Do you believe everything church leaders tell you? Or do you draw your own conclusions. I'm not against worship, or religion, but what I am against is people who refuse to think, or to question. Faith is a very, very powerful thing, it can give great solace, wonderment, beauty. But blind faith, can be very, very dangerous. Blind faith can, and has, killed people. You can question the research I've done all you want, I'm not going to take offense to that the way you have. I'm no biblical scholar or expert, I just read whatever I can find from everyone, and draw my own conclusions. You can call them wrong if you wish, but the fact is, if only the people who profess so loudly to be Christians are the only people who see whatever heaven may be, I don't think I want to be there. It sounds like a terribly close minded and boring place.
FTM| 6.16.10 @ 3:05PM
No I don't see my perspective as being narrow.
I don't have any Church Leaders. The minister at the church that I attend is a liberal jackass that I ignore on a routine basis. My function as I see it is to offer an intelligent, researched, Bible based answer to a question in regards to a spiritual matter.
Apparently you haven't read near enough to make a statement of authority in regards to the origin of the scripture. You totally missed the Septuagint translation.
As far as being close minded and boring in heaven, I'd rather be the last one through the door into heaven that the first through the door into hell.
Now, as you can see plainly I do not advocate mistreating anyone. The Sodomite or any other person living a life of sin is free to do as they please, their life is not my problem. I don't understand the desperate push to inflict this perverse lifestyle on me. Go ahead and get married if you please, not my problem. Own property and anything else that you wish to do, I don't care.
The problem though is that this is apparently good enough. The Sodomite will not stop until he has insinuated himself into every aspect of human consciousness that can be invaded. The one thing that I will not do is to tell you, a Sodomite or anyone else that asks that Sodomism is not a sin and that to the Sodomite is intolerable.
RCV| 6.16.10 @ 4:52PM
FTM: Off-topic, but I'm curious what YOU mean when you say "God wrote the Bible." Obviously you can't mean that literally. The Bible is, on its face, a collection of diverse materials, some of which we have a pretty good idea of who authored - the Epistles, for instance. We have erotic poems/love songs (Song of Solomon), collections of sayings (Proverbs), histories, genealogies, and then we have the Gospels, which have authorship statements at the beginning of each, and which contradict one another on various episodes in Jesus's life. When you say "God wrote the Bible", do you mean God inspired the writer; that God literally wrote it but attributed it to someone else, or what? Just curious.
FTM| 6.16.10 @ 6:44PM
My belief, not to impose upon your own is that God is the author of the Bible written by way of inspired men. I realize that there are disparities in the text over time, my take on that is that God is perhaps making edits to the Bible. So there you go. Maybe that's too simplistic of an answer but it's the answer that I give.
Arthur C. Clark, a science fiction writer and inventor of the communication satellite said that a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. What else is God but a sufficiently advanced technology?
The first chapter of the Book of Genesis says, "and God said, Let there be light" there you go, the big bang that modern scientists talk about. We, the human race, know a lot about physics but we don't have a clue as to how to make a universal singularity run backwards. As a matter of fact the concept of the Higgs Boson, the God particle, was cooked up to explain how a black hole could be made to run backwards. Scientists have been searching for this Higgs Boson for forty or so years now and haven't even come close yet. The Higgs boson is one of the major thrusts behind the LHC (the Large Hadron Collider).
The Book of Genesis says that God made the world in six days. The Bible also says that a thousand years are as a day and a day is as a thousand years to God. God made the world in six days but I think that those days were millions of our years, the way that mankind rekons time, long.
Now, back to the question of who wrote the Bible, this God guy has pulled some amazing demonstrations of his power down through the ages. Do you really, really think that preserving a piddly 'ol book is all that big a deal? Do you really think that directing the attention of a mortal man to write thus and such is really all that hard to do?
RCV| 6.16.10 @ 7:06PM
Not at all. There are astonishing insights in the Bible that forsee what our human scientists have discovered millenia later. The conformity of the "let there be light" and the "Big Bang Theory" that you point out is one of the starkest; for me, the parallels of the story of creation and the scientific fact of evolution is another. What I have come to believe is that much of what is in the Bible are indeed divinely inspired writings that God revealed through certain men at different times in history. Other parts are historical traditions of the tribes of the Hebrews, telling the story of their people and passed down from generation to generation. Some things get garbled in transmission, like the two different stories of creation in Genesis. Some other parts of the Bible -- the Epistles, in particular -- have thoughts and ideas that may be inspired, but are what they purport to be: letters from Saint Paul and others. I do not attribute divinity or perfection to those writings. To me, to do so is blasphemous for Paul is just a human being; he is not Jesus; he is not perfect. And it is clear to me from the beginning to the end, that God (including God in his form as Jesus) speaks in parables to teach us lessons, not for us to take all stories literally.
RCV| 6.16.10 @ 7:09PM
PS - nice chatting with you.
FTM| 6.16.10 @ 8:23PM
You too.
Sadly I think that humanity is about to enter into a desperately bad time. Lots of folks not going to make it.
Happily though on the other end a thousand years of peace. Take a read at the 65th chapter of the Book of Isaiah the Prophet, Isaiah says that the man that dies at the age of one hundred years will be considered a mere youth.
Have you read anything in regards to the Human Genome Project? Folks working with human DNA have found what is suspected to be sections of DNA that appear to be viral in nature. Now, in the Old Testament we are told that Metheulseh lived to be nine hundred and seventy some years old. Moses lived eight hundred some odd years. Noah lived six hundred some years. Suppose, just suppose that a section of viral DNA causes aging in a human being. Suppose that people figure out how to eliminate the viral sections in human DNA. What all, what are the traits of unpollouted human DNA? One can only speculate.
Look up a guy named Garrett Lisi. Lisi has proposed a Grand Unified Field theory that if accurate will work in this reality and includes all four forces of nature, the strong and weak force, the electomagnetic force and gravity. If mankind can figure out how to manipulate matter on a quantum scale then pretty much anything that you can imagine is possible. You could turn gravity on or off at will. You could disassemble neutrons into quantum components and then reassemble them into electrons. Plug your computer into a tree, that sort of thing.
I believe that these innovations are coming, these and more and soon. These aspects of the human condition have been foretold. These are my ideas as to how they could come about. Perhaps they will come about by a different mechanism, who is to say. The thing is that in order to be around to enjoy these times you, me, we all need to stop this rebellion against God and try to acquaint ourselkves with God. We need to figure out how best to do the will of God here on this earth at this time.
Condeming each other to hell is counterproductive. My intention is to focus my attention on my salvation. What other people do is their business.
FTM| 6.17.10 @ 12:13PM
Take a read at the 6th chapter of the Book of Genesis, talk of there being giants loose in the word. Hybred human beings the offspring of human women and the "Sons of God" the Nephelem. By the bye "Nephelem" in Hebrew beans something to the effect of "Fallen Ones."
Take a look at the Book of Ezekiel. Wheels in the sky and the like.
We have what are called archeological anomolies, electrical batterys made thousands of years ago. To drive what one may ask.
Some may argue that there are contradictions in the Bible and that may be so but my question is do we understand the exact context that the supposed contradiction was written under? Are we sor sure sure that what we're reading is a contradiction?
Nick| 6.17.10 @ 11:20AM
FTM,
A slight correction.
The Septuagint, or LXX, was translated between the 3rd and 2nd centuries Before Christ.
It was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament.
FTM| 6.17.10 @ 12:07PM
Is that so? If that's the case then my appology for promoting misinformation. Hat's off to Nick for the correction.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 10:54AM
Don't know what book you're reading there, FTM but it sure isn't the Bible. The only purity laws were an accumulation of bits and pieces put together by man, not God. They are discarded regularly by Christians today EXCEPT when they want to condemn someone. If you actually do believe in God then you need to get His word striaght, you obviously haven't so far.
FTM| 6.16.10 @ 3:06PM
I wish that I had time to respond to your post but I don't perhaps later.
FTM| 6.16.10 @ 6:49PM
Hello MickeyC,
Pleased to meet you. Please read some of the posts above in that we've been over the topic. Plowed ground.
Thanks.
skip| 6.15.10 @ 1:37PM
God speaks to humans through His Word found in the Bible. The topic of this particular thread is homosexuality. Is the Bible ambiguous, explicit, or neither, on homosexuality? Are children hurt, helped, or neither by homosexuality? If morality is relative (defined by man) rather than absolute (defined by God) how can law be administered with any shread of justice?
Gabarus | 6.15.10 @ 4:23PM
To answer your questions; The bible is unclear to all who do not know the ancient languages it was written in. Children are neither harmed, nor helped by homosexuality. Contrasty, they may he either harmed, or helped, by peoples reactions to homosexuality, but the sexuality itself, is blameless. Morality IS relative, however, ethics, often are not. One can be an extremely ethical person in every facet of their life, yet still be considered "immoral" by someone of another belief system. Laws should be administered based on whether someones actions are causing tangible harm, in other words, your rights end, where my nose begins. If someone were to come at you with a knife, obviously, they are attempting to cause harm to you. If someone is seducing a child, they are causing harm to that child. If someone shoplifts a candy bar, they're harming the store and all the customers within it. If I'm holding hands with my boyfriend while walking down the street, or putting a ring on his finger, and taking vows that are sacred to us, and attempting to ensure long run legal protections for our relationship, I am harming nobody.
Your bible has no bearing on civil or criminal law, period.
skip| 6.15.10 @ 6:17PM
God is such a doddering, impotent old fool that language barriers prevent His message getting across through the Bible? Sociologists' studies convincingly show children face the least challenges and difficulties and are healthiest when both the father and mother are present. Since sexuality is blameless, pedophiles have to be treated the same as homosexuals, correct? The Bible states you are harming yourself. And your 'partner'.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 10:57AM
Skip, the Bible as you see it today was written down by men in a langusage YOU don't know. It has been translated and mistranslated for thousands of years. As a matter of fact, should you actually pick up a Bible someday, compare it to a different translation and you'll see the differences. According to a current study just out this month, the children of Lesbian couples do better socially and educationally then children of opposite sex couples. You really need to keep up with reality and give up the backward prejudices you seem to want to cling too. Finally the Bible never says that homosexuality is harming anyone. Do you just make up stuff as you go?
skip| 6.16.10 @ 12:29PM
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" Leviticus 18:22 Please provide me with your definition of detestable. Thank you.
Gabarus | 6.16.10 @ 10:57AM
Got any links to those studies to back that up? Please show your work. Nobody said anything about God being a doddering old fool, however, PLENTY of people who claim to speak for him VERY much are. The peer reviewed studies in existence, actually show that children do best in a family with two LOVING parents. Gender of the parents tends to be pretty meaningless. The studies you refer to, actually compare heterosexual couples to SINGLE parents, and of course, single parents are going to have a much more difficult time raising children. Gay people have nothing to do with single parents. As for your disgusting comparison with pedophilia, pedophilia is not a sexuality. In fact most pedophiles (Most of whom publicly are heterosexual, often church going, and often married with family) show no gender preference to the children they abuse. They are looking for a power trip, and are more attracted to the child because of their age, not their gender. So no, they do not have to be treated the same, in fact, its one of the few crimes I think I would actually support the Death penalty for. As for the bible, it says nothing about loving, committed homosexual relationships. Even if it did, the bible is not a medical or psychological textbook, and if it said I was harming myself, I would tend not to believe that, because my life has gotten much, much better, and my soul has gotten far, far richer since I fell in love and began sharing my life. You think God would want me to be miserably lonely my entire life? Or do you think he'd prefer I lie to a good woman, and attempt to get into a relationship that would never work, and ending up harming both her, and any potential children in the inevitable split/divorce?
skip| 6.16.10 @ 12:42PM
I think God wants everyone to refrain from sin. I also think God has defined what sin is. For instance, if one was born with a strong desire to take another one's possessions, I think God expects that one to refrain from doing it. If one was born with a strong desire to have physical relations with one who has not reached physical maturity, I think God expects that one to refrain from doing it. I think God does not want anyone to have sexual relations outside of holy matrimony. I do not think God would want you to lie to any woman, good or bad. I think God wants you to refrain from sinning.
skip| 6.16.10 @ 1:14PM
Would God rather have you miserably lonely for probably less than a century to be followed by indescribably awesome communal elation forever without end; or, have you superficially content for probably less than a century followed by indescribably agonizing despair for ever without end?
FTM| 6.16.10 @ 6:31AM
Gabarus,
You are almost right. Using your argurmrnt whatever it is that I do is OK as long as what I do has no negative effect on anyone else. I agree. I don't want to be around what I consider to be perversion, therefore I go elsewhere. What the Sodomites do that has no effect on me is their business. Seems to me however that you insist on forcing your mentality on me against my will. You violate your own ethos.
Your arguement in regards to the languages of the Bible being unclear is simple not true.
If you want to put a ring on your boyfriend's finger then good for you. Makes not a shread of difference to me one way or the other.
The problem is that apprently you can't resist tarring up my existence with your flawed and perverse ideology. You have to seek me out and force your agenda on me. You are the architypical liberal/progressive. As long as I am nodding my head in agreement with you when you're babbling your ideology then everything is as right as rain. As soon as I start asking questions then the barbed wire goes up, out come the guns and badges and folks start building crematoriums.
Gabarus | 6.16.10 @ 10:45AM
How exactly would I be forcing anything on you? I don't know you, I don't know where you live, we'd never recognize each other to see one another. If I marry my boyfriend, are suddenly forced to participate in the wedding? Do you feel it forces you to engage in gay sex? Do you think that merely by publicly showing that we are in love (No differently than any heterosexual would, no perversion necessary, any you percieve from handholding or a peck on the cheek is really your problem to deal with, not ours) that we will somehow encourage people to become one of us? What are we? Pied pipers? Come on. Honestly dude, I don't get your level of hostility, I never attempted to attack you, I merely offered some observational advice based on what you had said publicly. If you didn't want people to respond to that, you shouldn't have posted it. I then questioned you on a few points, and offered explanations as to why I ask these questions, as I said, you can take whatever you like from what I say, but I have zero hostility towards you, any hostility you detect, is directed at religious bodies (Not individuals), whom I find to be extremely unethical. I don't find you to be so, and I'd appreciate it if you'd cut back on the hostility towards me.
FTM| 6.16.10 @ 3:41PM
You are changing your arguements as fast as I shoot them down.
I do not care what the Sodomite does. Marriage, common property, whatever, not my business, none of my concern. The problem arises when the Sodomite begins to display his perversion. I don't do anything other than to leave and that isn't allowed.
You have openly and repeatedly commented about the condition of the the Christian religion and the Bible. Most of what you have written is simply and demonstrably wrong.
Your choice of language is offensive to me. "Please learn to take this into account."
I have no hostility toward you at all, otherwise I wouldn't take time to talk to you at all. You are articulate and appear to be above average in intelligence. If I thought that you were the common, run of the mill shitheel I wouldn't take time to even talk to you.
With all that said you are publishing some bad information that someone even less informed may take as undisputed truth were no one to dispute with you. What I have written is simple fact, the truth, demonstrable and provable. All you have to want to do is to know the truth.
Ben Gay| 6.15.10 @ 2:00PM
Homosexual men who agree with Mr. Gutmann are hard to find, because we are subjected to vitriol from the gay lobby as their version of "Uncle Tom."
I was born gay, and knew it by age ten. Virtually all of my sexual experiences up to age 21, were with other boys, or men.
Though my attraction to females was nowhere near what it was to my male counterparts, societal shame, and my desire to be "normal", contributed to my decision to engage in heterosexual relationships.
I don't think that's fair, to be forced to pretend you are someone you aren't.
As I enter my 6th decade on this rock, I have two daughters, and my fifth grandchild is cookin' as we speak.
I love my wife as much as any man could, probably more than most. We have had a wonderful sex life, and a terrific marriage.
But I am still a homosexual.
Because of the stigma, I'm writing under the pen name above, because I am a frequent poster on this site.
Everything Mr. Gutmann says is the truth. If homosexuality was normal, it would be able to create life.
It is not normal. I am not normal. I prefer sex with other men.
At my age I am no longer ashamed of that fact. My wife has had considerable health issues that prevent us from making love. I have never betrayed her, and I never will.
If God decides to take her before me, she will be the last woman I will have sex with. I will find a man like myself, and quietly persue a sexual relationship.
That being said, gay marriage is a canard. It is a means to legitimize what many gays see as their own shameful behavior. I was ashamed, so I know what I'm talking about. In all other aspects of my life, I am John Wayne. Nobody would believe I like being seduced by men.
In addition, ADA is full of statistical shit. I notice he produced nothing to corroberate his specious assertions. Most homosexuals just want to be left alone. A quick trip to an estate lawyer can solve all the legal issues that gays claim marriage will resolve.
There are some hospital visitation issues that the gay "community" claims to be civil rights issues, and there is some merit there.
There is nothing wrong with more tolerance, and it is happening in America.
It is cooler to be queer, than to be a conservative, and I am both!
My strong libertarian streaks says, I don't care what people do, as long as they don't try to read "heather has two mommies", to my 5 yr old grand daughter.
Being homosexual is not easy, and I hope my grandchildren are heterosexual, and happy.
I believe homosexuality is genetic as well as environment based, and the above average amount of gay men in my family is not a coincidence.
I don't wish it on anyone, but I do wish healthy sexual enjoyment on everyone, as long as it is adult oriented, and consensual.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 2:11PM
Well said, Ben. God bless you and may God look after your wife :-).
FTM| 6.15.10 @ 2:30PM
Same here Ben. A well said explanation of a well led life.
Gabarus | 6.15.10 @ 4:28PM
Just to note, I feel for the struggle you've endured in your life. But you should realize, you are not homosexual, you said specifically, you have some attraction to females, even if you prefer males. That would make you bisexual with a male preference, who also wanted a family. Another note, although many of the protections of Marriage *can* be obtained through going to a lawyer and having the appropriate contracts drawn up, this is a far more expensive, and time consuming option to simply obtaining a marriage license like any other couple, and they do not offer as solid protections, nor do they offer all the same rights. Many can be mimicked, but none can truly be copied, since those contracts can always be contested by third parties. Marriage contracts cannot.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 6:07PM
Garbarus, having a marriage license doesn't mean wills and other contracts cannot be contested by third parties. Wills are contested all the time. Although I can't speak for FTM, the reason I respect Ben is that he seems like an honorable guy who is Gay (or Bi, or however you are assigning him his sexual status. Me, if he says he is Gay, I'm fine with it). He has led a struggle throughout his life and when his beloved wife passes will seek to live the way he wants without demanding I like him or his sexuality (Although I do like what I read of him and his sexuality is none of my business). If someone sought to harm him because of his being Gay, he could count on me to defend him however it need be. That's because I respect him as a human being, not because he dressed up in a nun's habit and a fright-wig and demanded his rights by yelling at some priest during Mass. There is a big difference between a guy who happens to be Gay and the whiners and screamers who demand they be accepted.
See how that works?
Gabarus | 6.16.10 @ 10:26AM
Well, first, I would like to say I'm surprised with the level of reasonable tone within your response. Given some of the other responses I've read of yours on this site, it surprised me.
What you need to realize, is that nobody is trying to force any religious people to do anything. Hell, there are still churches in the deep south that refuse to marry interracial couples. Many would see such an act as a disgusting act of discrimination, but, it *is* their constitutional right to do so, and nobody has ever sought to strip them of that right (To my knowledge) and if they have, they were unsuccessful, fact is, you have one of the most powerful constitutions on the face of the earth for protecting your religious freedoms. All that's being asked for is legal recognition from a secular government. As to your response on wills and marriage licenses, legally, if someone marries and wishes their assets to go to their spouse, by default these assests are left to a legally married partner unless a will says otherwise. If you do not desire to leave your assetts to anyone but your betrothed, you do not require a will, and nobody can contest a marriage license that was legally issued. As for FTM, I was merely offering my observational slant, he can take from it whatever he desires.
Eric Cartman| 6.16.10 @ 11:20AM
Well, when I read the spirit and tone of Miss Alabama's letter, that sort set my tone. I tend to get snarky with snarky people. Your response to Ben was respectful and you laid out a god argument.
I understand that going to a lawyer for every little thing in a Gay relationship would be an unnecessary burden and we should try to lessen those burdens for Gays where we can. There will be arguments about certain aspects (like adaption). Those against these provisions are not against them because they hate gays - they actually may think society benefits more from traditional roles. GASP!
But for the most part, I think removing obstacles for gays to share more equally in their relationship is the right thing to do. I also happen to think that marriage - as it is defined now - serves a larger purpose than just tax benefits. There has to be a standard set. If gays are allowed to enter what is traditionally been defined as marriage, how can society tell polygamists or child- brides that they can't marry, also. What is the argument, that the 17 women wanting to marry a guy don't understand what they are doing? They are incompetent? They must bow to the power of the state? I don't see the difference.
King David had, what, 100 wives and 900 concubines? And this was before Viagra! Somewhere along the line it was settled that societies work better one-on-one. And for the most part, it has worked out. Smooth the obstacles, remove unnecessary restrictions? Absolutely. Overturn thousands of years of tradition and law? Really? There are unintended consequences to everything.
Radegunda| 6.15.10 @ 8:38PM
Ben Gay, thank you for your sincere and thoughtful commentary, which should go some way toward dispelling the ridiculous notion that being opposed to "gay marriage" is proof of bigotry toward gay people. But it probably won't, because the advocates of "gay marriage" know that their case depends heavily on the claim that only bigotry and religious zealotry stand in their way.
One of their arguments for "gay marriage" is that gay people are, by and large, born that way, and therefore the institution of marriage ought to accommodate their inborn nature. This argument falls apart when one considers that men, as is widely acknowledged, are by nature not monogamous. Why doesn't the institution of marriage accommodate the natural male preference to have many sexual partners? Because the fundamental purpose of marriage was never to sanctify the erotic inclinations of every individual. It has other purposes.
Meanwhile, exclusively heterosexual marriage does nothing to deny happy relationships to gay people. The goal of the activists is less to acquire something they lack, than to force a change in how everyone else regards the most fundamental and universal social institution. It is mostly an attack on "heteronormativity."
Hyhybt| 6.15.10 @ 2:50PM
A fascinating piece. Complete nonsense from top to bottom, but fascinating nonetheless. Amazing the lengths people will go to to pretend we're more different than we really are.
Toolbag| 6.15.10 @ 5:04PM
So some how if we allow Gays to marry we are all going to become homosexual. Very interesting. This will of course lead the world to become polarized into ManVs. Woman. Let the games begin. It seems to me that Homosexuallity has bee around a hell of a lot longer than marriage. Have faith that their divorce rates will mactch those of Hetero marriages soon enough. Also what about those family units that don't get married. Man and a woman have kids, never get married, and stay with each other the rest of their lives. Well since the government didn't sign off on it they are some how less legitimate and I'm sur eless happy. Marriage is a rediculous concept really. If these guys and girls love each other then leave them alone and let them be happy. It has no effect on you or society as a whole other than it offends you. Guess what you don't have the right to be offended.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 5:09PM
Have you ever noticed that when the Gay marriage issue (or Gay anything - Gay RVing, boating, Rodeo) comes up, the entire Gay Huff Po/MSNBC crowd shows up on this site and starts demanding we respect their wishes?! Ever notice that?
Then they pull out the LGBT handbook and start quoting inane statistics or bible quotations they think proves their point? Ever notice that?
Then they throw up the old "I can't visit my 'Life Partner' in the hospital" canard and you respond by saying, "So, change the hospital rules." and then they talk about inheritance law (like there is no such thing as a will)? Ever notice that?
Then they try to say there is discrimination towards Gays like there was towards Blacks, and then turn around and say that we are a minority because most people agree with them and that we're just old fuds about to die and the world would be better off when we do? And then you point out that they can't have it both ways and they call you another name? Ever notice that?
The real problem is that they are losing the debate and they know it. Most people just see them as whiny brats who demand everyone like them.
It's like when the AIDS (GRID?) epidemic reared its ugly head in Frisco. They started yelling and screaming and stomping their little feet that Reagan was at fault and not their shoving hamsters and anything else up their butts had anything to do with it. And when the epidemic didn't show up in heterosexuals here in the U.S. like they screamed it would, they point to Africa as an answer that it did? Ever notice that?
Funny how that happens, isn't it?
Hitch66| 6.16.10 @ 4:39PM
Shrill, malignant hysteria!
You are incapable of rational discussion, Cartman.
Some of you commenters are poisoned with hatred. Your vile opinions are monstrous.
Makes me ashamed--ASHAMED--to be included among you on this conservative blog.
Toolbag| 6.15.10 @ 5:15PM
But do really care about what they put up their butts? I personally don't want to know. I also feel like all the attention their getting is what makes them so in your face about it. Why do you think their is a Gay Pride parade. Its becaus they feel oppresses and now they are lashing out. If we left them alone to do their own thing we would find that in the end it doesn't affect us and they would be a lot less flamboyant.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 5:33PM
No, don't really care about what they put up their butts, until they start blaming others for their own problems, i.e. ""Its Reagan's fault I have AIDS, not my butt hamsters!"
And they own Frisco! So why are they still "flamboyant"? And how are they oppressed? Maybe I feel oppressed. Maybe I should start a "Married Heterosexuals Who Feel Oppressed Because The Wife Has Too Many Shoes and is Taking Up the Whole Closet Space with Her Stupid Shoes" Parade!
Nobody in this country is even remotely oppressed, yet the cry-baby Gays make out like they're Jews in NAZI Germany. Give me a break.
skip| 6.15.10 @ 6:31PM
Someone who has the correct intrepretation of right versus wrong yet can't convey this argument without a plethora of spelling and syntax errors might not have the requisite levels of either intelligence or honesty necessary to justify the opinions expressed such as a particular sin is okay since others sin in different ways.
Benett| 6.15.10 @ 7:55PM
Your closet being full of shoes is not an example of oppression; at least not on the scale that the LGBT community experiences it. It may be inconvenient that you cannot reach your ties and shirts. It is significantly more inconvenient (and hurtful) to be refused the 1,138 federal rights that a legally married couple receives in the USA.
Your unnecessarily lewd comments on homosexuals' sexual activities are irrelevant to this conversation. Having or not having AIDS (no matter how it was contracted) does not change the fact that each person in this country is promised simply by being a citizen. One of the documents that formed the USA is the Declaration of Independence. The beginning of the second paragraph reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." For a lot of people, Happiness includes marriage to the love of their life.
The LGBT community were treated likes Jews in Nazi Germany. They wore the pink triangle and suffered along-side them. Neither group are treated the same way (not to the same extent in any case) in the USA nowadays, but it is part of their pasts and should be remembered for what it is and not mentioned in passing to make them sound pathetic.
skip| 6.15.10 @ 8:52PM
'Created equal' does not mean anyone is equal in terms of morality, ethics, skills, talents, or abilities. As far as 'Created equal' goes, where is your outrage that this has been blatantly violated in this nation? Fifty million Americans, created equally, have had their unalienable right to life and liberty and pursuit of happiness taken from them by the act of being murdered. How about the document preventing any law from being enacted that prohibits the free exercise of religion? My constitutional rights are violated when I am coerced into hiring and renting to those individuals I do not trust because of their unholy, perverted, sexually deviant behavior. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It is not and cannot be anything other than what it is. Slavery is not liberty. Having your possessions forcibly taken from you is not charity. Implications on this topic at this site to the effect that there are far more 'important' matters to focus on seem hollow. The family unit is critical to health, wealth, success, and survival. God has defined what a family unit is. How many commentators on this site have stated their authority on this subject is superior to the Bible's authority on this subject? What if the Bible is correct and God has in fact made every single person immortal, existing for all eternity?
Eric Cartman| 6.16.10 @ 12:23AM
Well Bennett, as Liberals love reminding me, The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, so marriage is not a Constitutional issue (yet). But I appreciate you even bringing it up.
And I'm pretty sure the Gays that the NAZIs offered their hospitality to didn't refer to themselves as "The LGBT community." But I'm confused. Are you equating people who don't view Gay marriage as a right with NAZIs? Are Gays being gassed somewhere in the U.S. I haven't read about?
Look, the point here is that its a bit Drama to compare the Holocaust to Gays not being able to marry. No one is oppressed at all here - we actually are demanding "stupid rights"; The right to own a python or boa constrictor or lion, for crying out loud!
Lets get real. Not every little thing is a right. Marriage should be treated as a union between 1 man and 1 woman for the purpose of family and a stable society. You want civil unions and other so called "benefits" of marriage (like paying more in taxes) fine, they can be arraigned. In the mean time, stop the hysterics, would ya? Jeeze!
And by the way, when your "Gay Activists" blame innocent people for their AIDS and yell and scream at America that its "your fault" instead of accepting responsibility for their own actions, then it does matter to show how these activists work: Cry victimhood by a mean society and try to get what you want that way. So really, buck up and take responsibility - we would have more respect for ya.
JN | 6.15.10 @ 7:11PM
So the country is on the brink of economic and constitutional collapse...and Mr. Gutmann finds time to write an expose about 'gay marriage'. Is this what's really keeping him up at night? As a staff at a Medical Academy, couldn't he have written a piece on the criminality of Obamacare?
Something as rousing as say how a straight woman, Kathleen Sebellius has absolute power to destroy our healthcare?
As devout Republican and an ex-evangelical Christian...who happens to be gay, I'll be the first to say I can understand Mr. Gutmann's objections to what he deems oxymoronic. And while I do not agree with his supporting points, I can at least appreciate his (half-baked) attempt to frame his argument in an articulate manner.
I can't say the same of some of the commenters who graduated from the School of Anita Bryant.
If the full legal privileges of marriage can be granted in a parallel vehicle (civil unions), than do it already. There are just as many conservative gay couples, myself included who would be just fine without the 'marriage' label if such a legal concession was available. The truth is, opponents of gay marriage can't be honest about much they are even willing to budge on those rights, am I correct Eric? If I wasn't championing for gay marriage...but something like the right to visit my partner in the hospital... I bet you would find cause to object also.
Your 'hamster up the butt' slur is just about as endearing as the Leftist denigrating members of the 'Tea Party'.
Eric Cartman| 6.15.10 @ 7:26PM
To answer your question, JN, civil unions are fine - or two people being able to share whatever fruits of their labors produce. I really don't care who you decide to love or share your life with. Marriage, for its traditional purposes, should be defined and supported by the state as it has always been.
And it may shock you that I agree that there are WAY more important issues out there.
As for my hamster comment, it goes back to certain activities that Gays do that cause illnesses that Gay Activists have blamed others for. It's a real thing, unlike the gross labels Liberal Aholes have pinned on a large sector of our citizens. Now, I have to go make my asparagus.
Ben Gay| 6.15.10 @ 8:44PM
Eric Cartman, and toolbag's comments are widely accepted by the the (I hate this expression) "gay community."
The overwhelming majority of homosexuals are hard working red blooded, patriotic Americans, willing to fight and die to preserve the Constitution of the United States of America.
Unlike the radical gay activists, we are the same as you, including the fact that we pull the shades down in our bedroom at night, just like heterosexuals.
Eric Cartman| 6.16.10 @ 12:01AM
Thank you, Ben. People are the same, no matter their sexual nature. I understand marriage for some is a right, I just happen to think that some standard must be maintained or polygamy or child brides can not be successfully challenged, either. I mean, who's to tell someone who wants 5 wives (or husbands, although I don't think there is a woman crazy enough to want more than one) no?
Any roadblocks Gays may suffer in this area should be removed or smoothed to make civil unions and other aspects of marriage easier for Gays to obtain. Some issues will be tougher than others, but I have no problems making life easier for for all.
For many, marriage is just an institution with certain meanings that have grown through millenia. I pray all works out for you and your wife, Ben.
Yosemeti Sam| 6.16.10 @ 2:04AM
Actually, practitioners of sodomy are
instinctually comically repulsive - to more,
I would safely dare to venture, than oneself.
What is grotesque is the push for a singular coveted imprimatur from a straight society;
yet, in all this circus of PR slobbery, not a peep for the fates of - whatever percentage would add to their numbers - the scores of millions of aborted Homo sapiens.
In that light - clear hedonistic self-serving prima donnas.
Get a grip, Sodomites - and I don't mean with a penis.
Leviticus 18:22 OT
Romans 1:27 NT
Jeff| 6.16.10 @ 2:59AM
Gays want to take away non-gay's right to comment upon their behaviour.
This whole gay agenda and political correctness exercise is based upon the Left's mistaken belief that they have the right to be comfortable. When people criticize the Left's behaviour it makes them uncomfortable and they believe that their non-existent right to comfort has been violated. The only remedy for this violation of their "comfort rights" is to take away everyone else's right of free speech. This is the source of Political Correctness and campus speech codes,etc.
They want everyone not Left to shut up and stop making them uncomfortable.
pewestlake| 6.16.10 @ 3:13AM
Bottom line: the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage are bi-sexual conservative men who have frequent sexual encounters with other bi-sexual conservative men, including their friends, leaving them feeling spiritually bereft and filled with self-loathing. This very real phenomenon has been documented, reported and written about in books, including David Brock's "Blinded by the Right." And the sad reality is, absolutely EVERYONE knows it except them. You boys should man up and come out already. You know you want to, and the rest of us would rather you just got it over with so we could go back to, oh, I dunno, cleaning up all the freaking oil and teaching our kids to never be hypocrites like Ted Haggard. K? Thanks.
Jeff| 6.16.10 @ 3:25AM
This bugaboo accusation certainly comes up often so it must be true. Just like global warming.
The real issue is government recognition of a private agreement between however many people of whatever sex in whatever arrangment they want to make.
Govermnent should butt out of marriage altogether and just enforce private contracts entered into by freely consenting adults.
Ben Gay| 6.16.10 @ 3:20AM
Yosemeti:
I am a conservative, and abortion is akin to slavery. One day we will look back at the atrocity of killing unborn children, amazed that we allowed it, and continued to attempt to call ourselves "civilized."
But just so you know, not one homosexual man I have ever met, has ever had an abortion.
Get a grip indeed, sir.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 11:41AM
Ben, abortion won't stop just because their are laws against it. WE HAD laws against it and women still had abortions. The only thing that keeps abortion down is education. When we finally decide to teach our kids how NOT to get pregnant and all the alternatives available when you do, then abortion will decrease. The fact is, it will never go away. It has been around since the beginning of time and will always be with us.
Chris Lieding| 6.16.10 @ 3:32AM
Have I understood this article correctly? The only thing that attracts and bonds men and woman together is their mutual heterosexual orientation driven by a flood of hormones and a common interest in child rearing? The author said nothing about love, respect, admiration, affection, companionship or anything else that I think gives a human relationship value and meaning. What I gathered from this author is that he thinks boys and girls don't really like each other and that it is only biochemistry, the 'reptilial' brain, gonads, societal pressure, religious superstition and a legal institution that holds them together. (O.K. I forgot; they at least both love children.) What a pathetic pseudo-scientific flood of bilge water. I feel sorry for this guy's wife. It saddens me that such a well educated and articulate individual has perverted the workings of his mind with such a half-baked though eloquently expressed world view.
Chris Lieding| 6.16.10 @ 3:50AM
If I accept the authors premise that heterosexual men are 'killers' while woman are 'life givers' then I would venture to propose that for the sake of peace and civilization that the hetero men be killed (or at least caged) while the children be raised by woman and their gentle and loving gay male friends (belive it or not guys for the sake of humanity we gay men could manage to impregnate your scorned sisters...it's not that difficult and I dare say the foreplay would probably be more gratifying than she has been receiving from you w
Chris Lieding| 6.16.10 @ 4:01AM
O.K. the last was a bad joke. But I ment it to shine a light on the weak premise of the article. People aren't just biological machines nor are we the property of god or the state. I actually believe that millions of hetero men truely love their wives and girl friends. I am a gay man and I have the deepest love and affection for my closest female friend. It is not testosterone that defines our bond. Let us not allow anyone's narrow beliefs and attitudes limit humanity's capacity for love and the boundless joy that can be ours together in a peaceful, nurturing and tolerant society. We are all just 'babes in the woods'.
WAKE UP| 6.16.10 @ 5:19AM
There will be no HONEST debate on this topic until the cowardly word "gay" ( for so long hi-jacked by those who wish to blur reality), is restored to its proper place in the lexicon, and the word "homosexual" used where it should be used - which is, to describe people who are not heterosexual. Until then, the "debate" is not real.
Derek Leaberry| 6.16.10 @ 9:26AM
Exactly! Homosexuals have stolen the word gay for activities that aren't gay. Funny, I distinctly remember liberal Tom Braden 25 years ago condemning the homosexual expropiration of the word gay. Today Braden would be denounced by certain "conservatives" and Republicans for being intolerant or for being a homophobe.
Nick| 6.17.10 @ 10:38AM
This is why they should be called "homos."
They really don't like to be called homos.
Chucky| 6.16.10 @ 5:32AM
What I want to know, is when will I be able to marry my hamster? He told me he felt used being shoved up my butt all the time and wanted some security in life for all the dirty work he's doing.
MickeyC| 6.16.10 @ 11:46AM
Chucky, I totally support your desire to marry animals. I'm sure it's been a tradition in your family for generations. Judging from your posts, someone in your past had a close affair with an ass. I would suggest that you start fighting now to legitimize all those in your family and their furry friends.
Eric Cartman| 6.16.10 @ 12:54PM
You sound like a pro, Mickey! Please, tell us how its done.
danny| 11.9.10 @ 11:42AM
chucky you are a wierd man.
danny| 11.9.10 @ 11:43AM
chucky you are a wierd man.
danny| 11.9.10 @ 11:42AM
chucky you are a wierd man.
Don| 6.16.10 @ 4:04PM
Falling birth rates?
He doesn't mean falling birth rates,he means people he prefers as opposed to people he disapproves
61091| 6.17.10 @ 1:36AM
Aside from the biblical argument against homosexuality-nature itself testifies gainst it. The progation of the human species would fail if homosexuality was "normal" as it is being sold. Sex between two men may feel really good-everything that feels good is not acceptable or right. As for gay "marriage" / relationships I have had several gay friends over the years (all male) and all of them even if in long term partnerships were in "open" relationships. Free to have sex with other men when the spirit moved them , or a 3rd male was brought into the relationship to spice up the bed for a while. Because it IS all about the SEX. While there may be some life long monogamously committed gay male couples they are not the norm. Drug and alcohol abuse, "sex addiction", disease and unhappy lives are more common, at least among those I have known personally.
Jerome| 6.24.10 @ 7:16PM
For info on the dark unseen forces behind and related to the upcoming Fayetteville, Arkansas gay parade (featuring a brainwashed 10-year-old boy!), Google "Obama Supports Public Depravity," "Separation of Raunch and State" and "Government-Approved Illegals." Did Arkansas learn anything from its recent flood-related disaster? Which being has the final say about what goes on on His planet? Try guessing!
guo | 7.1.10 @ 5:19AM
www.wmvconverterformac.com
MattSmith| 7.24.10 @ 11:14PM
Good news! We all know that in just a few years gay marriage will be a non-issue. The old bigots are dying off. Every few months a new country opens it's doors to gay marriage. (Portugal and Argentina in the past few weeks) Your children will see anti gay marriages foes the same way they see George Wallace - backwards , foolish , redneck morons.
Mark Johnson| 8.6.10 @ 8:39AM
In summary: Marriage exists to help Alan Gutman keep his misogyny in check. Any other purpose is a threat to that goal, and must be forbidden.
Come on, Spectator. You can't do better than this?
Jason Beeley| 8.8.10 @ 2:58PM
Gay marriage is the sickest crap I have ever known. It is an abomination to Christ, and he hates it. It is also a demon spirit. So if you accept anything gay, you are accepting that demon called homosexual or lesbian.
John Iz zo| 8.12.10 @ 12:11AM
What amazes me about straight people ranting and raving about denying gays the right to marry is the following:
1. There is no equal outcry against all of the straight people divorcing ( especially after having children!)
2. There is no outcry against straight people engaging in oral sex and /or anal sex.
3. There is no outcry against straight teens engaging in immoral behavior ( Spring Break etc..)
4. There is no outcry against bisexual behavior. Apparently that's ok???
grave666| 9.22.10 @ 8:01PM
religion has nothing to with marriage.but it mean gay marriage is right. The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs.
iggypop| 10.31.10 @ 4:22PM
this comment thread is pathetic.
(and yes i know that by commenting on it i am indulging in it too)
16 year old.| 11.13.10 @ 8:17PM
wow. I am sixteen years old doing a paper over this and I know better then most of you.
you're arguing gets no where.
you fight for "gay rights"?
wow...
In case you did not know,
around the 1960's to '70s,
being gay was a mental illness.
it still should be.
how do you expect to procreate when you have a bunch of supposed-to-be role models that support something that won't even continue creation.
being gay is a choice.
there is NO biological gene that makes you gay.
and, if there is, the fact that some people have recovered from being gay shoots your theory to crap.
Pretty sure most gays are jsut straight up,
CONFUSED!
Ms. Know-Your-Shit| 11.19.10 @ 3:35AM
{wow. I am sixteen years old doing a paper over this and I know better then most of you.}
Excuse me 16 year old, before you start bragging about how smart you are, go back to the 6th grade and learn how to spell, it should be THAN not THEN.
FYI, in the 1960's black's didn't have the right to vote... so why don't you try educating yourself and hold your own views instead of your parents :)
Emily| 11.27.10 @ 3:47PM
I don't believe that it is someone's choice to be gay. Some people simply cannot help that they are gay. Gays have killed themselves over this because they are not accepted into society, or even there own homes. Some of them don't even want to be gay, but something in them can't help...so get it right...you're 16, so you're still a little naive.
Destinee | 12.22.10 @ 12:54PM
Iagree With you
16 YEAR OLD AGAIN,| 11.13.10 @ 8:20PM
BTW, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE!!!!
MARRAIGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
Louis Vttion handbags | 12.9.10 @ 12:41AM
he countenance of North Face Jackets Perdana Menteri pGFP saudara, dan teknologi inovatif While greater than the North Face the Dalaia tersusun jubah Outdoor kasut sepasang Dan, Polartec, LLC pemaju of Dan, Dan, North Face UK Akan pengeluar Polartec pemasar laid to my charge to be North Face mens given to Hari untuk mengetahui pengaruh Parfum: North Face Jacket Kishtwar ufti of Dan Tahun pada North Face Clothing.
90210bryan| 2.25.11 @ 7:24PM
Forgetting about emotional and religious reasons about why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed leaves 0 arguments on why it shouldn't be legal. Fact: Church and State must be kept seperate. Fact: Civil and Religous Marriage are not the same thing (civil marriage allows you to get married at a drive through in Vegas wearing sandles and a t-shirt while holy matrimony is much more complex) Fact: What gives opposing heterosexual couples the right to defend the sanctity of marriage when America is one of the countries with the highest divorce rate?
that dorsey| 6.27.11 @ 10:23PM
WE THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES NEED TO CHERISH OUR FREEDOMS, AND NOT WAIST TIME TURNING AGAINST THE BIBLE. AMERICA WAS BUILT BY GOD FEARING PEOPLE.
that dorsey| 6.27.11 @ 10:28PM
TODAY MEN DO NOT FEAR THE WRATH OF GOD, BUT THEY LOVE SIN OF SODOM.(ISAIAH 3:8,9).
that dorsey| 6.27.11 @ 10:35PM
A GAY MARRIAGE IS WHEN ONE MAN PRETENDS TO BE WOMAN- WHILE THE OTHER MAN GOES INTO THE FALSEWOMANS MANCAVE. NEW YORK CAN NOT PAY FOR THE CURRENT EPIDEMIC OF AIDS CASES AND SICKNESS GENERATED BY MOSTLY LOW INCOME- LOW EDUCATION- AND HARD TO EMPLOY LOVERS.
that dorsey| 6.27.11 @ 10:40PM
MOST TYPES OF FIDELITY ARE UNKNOWN TO SAME SEX LOVERS.
that dorsey| 6.27.11 @ 10:45PM
MATHEMATICALLY, IF WE BUNCHED UO ALL THE WHORES- PROSTITUTES-HOMOS,BISEXUALS,WHORE MONGERS,SEXUAL DEVIATES INTO A NUMBER, THEN THAT NUMBER WOULD EQUAL : MORE AIDS, MORE SICKNESS, MORE DESPAIR,AND LESS HOPE. THE TAXPAYERS WILL HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF ALL BILLS.
that dorsey| 6.27.11 @ 10:50PM
KEEP BOTH EYES ON THE ANTICHRIST, BECAUSE NEXT HE WILL TRY TO REPEAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWS TO PASS SADOMASOCHISM FREEDOMS.
that dorsey| 6.27.11 @ 10:50PM
KEEP BOTH EYES ON THE ANTICHRIST, BECAUSE NEXT HE WILL TRY TO REPEAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWS TO PASS SADOMASOCHISM FREEDOMS.
that dorsey| 6.27.11 @ 10:55PM
FINALLY,SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS A STERILE LIFE STYLE.GOD SAYS : "BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY AND REPLENISH THE EARTH" (GEN. 1:28).
that dorsey| 6.27.11 @ 10:58PM
I HOPE THE STATE OF MARYLAND AND ITS GOVENOR DOES NOT BRING BROWN SEX TO OUR STATE.
that dorsey| 6.30.11 @ 6:28PM
BROWN SEX MEANS POO POO