The President of Paradox

posted by Laura Flanders on 05/28/2009 @ 06:00am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (186)

Subscribe Now

It will be an historic occasion when Sonia Sotomayor takes her seat. Assuming she's confirmed, she'll be the first woman of color and the first person from the Latino community to become a Supreme Court justice.

Announcing this, his first top court appointment, President Obama put it clearly enough: "When Sonia Sotomayor ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the highest court of the land, America will have taken another important step towards realizing the ideal that is etched above its entrance: Equal Justice under the law."

It's pretty simple and kind of stirring stuff. There aren't royals and non-royals, just human beings. And those two words: Equal and Justice.

Equal. Equality is indivisible. It either is or it isn't. We learned that, from among others, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.

Justice. Those blind, balancing scales -- they either balance or they're tilted. It's not rocket science.

It's hard not to be moved by Judge Sotomayor's story: from Puerto Rican parents in the Bronx to the highest court in the land. Just as the swearing-in of the first African American president inspired millions of Americans from all walks of life -- to wake up early and stand on a very frigid National Mall to watch his inauguration. So, people of all sorts feel good about the nomination of Sotomayor. As Obama said, it feels as if the nation's making progress.

But what a paradoxical day. At the very same time that one court was moving (possibly) towards an ideal; in another they were stepping back from it.

While the President was lifting up the nation's professed ideals in Washington, in California, justices approved discrimination against same sex -couples under the law, with only one dissent from the lone Democrat.

There aren't a lot of ways of going at this.

Separate isn't equal.

Justice is balanced or tilted.

If Barack Obama doesn't want to be remembered as the President of paradox, it's time he stood up and provided leadership. If you believe in those words etched above the Supreme Court entrance, Mr. President, stand up for all Americans to ascend those marble steps -- to marriage, to the court - Those words again are Equal Justice.

Laura Flanders is the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on Free Speech TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415) on cable (8 pm ET on Channel 67 in Manhattan and other cities) and online daily at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com.

Comments (186)

Ain't gonna happen. Triangulation does not allow it.

Breaking News: Obama is not the liberal Messiah.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2009 @ 06:11am
While we're concerning ourselves with silly shit like gay marriage, the rich are looting the treasury.

Wake up Laura!

Posted by bleedingheart at 05/28/2009 @ 06:35am
state should not sanction anything beyond civil unions anyway.

"marriage" is a religion laden term, and not the business of the state. "marriage" is some form of a "sacrament"...let churches decide who amongst their followers, is "married" or not. hell...they can issue proclamations and sealed holy documents to the persons in question all they want...

but for true believers of many denominations "marriage" is a holy sacrament between man and woman...and that's just that...

look - i'm not supporting such beliefs nor am i detracting from them. they exist. "CIVIL" unions supported by CIVIL authority..."SACRAMENT of marriage" sanctioned by CHURCH...

SURE, there will be those who could care less. they just "hate them fags" and there ain't a lot to do about that. like it or not, these folks will always be, and they have a right to their beliefs - like it or not.

nobody is obligated to "accept" anybody else's lifestyle or belief. people are obligated to follow the laws of the land. even homophobic religious types (and simple doctrinaire religious types) will often reflexively gag at altering "the sacred institution" might be ammenable to civil unions and EVEN might favor making "marriage" purely the concern of the church...

but unless i start hearing more support of something like this from those pushing for such...

i must wonder if some of the traditionalistas have a point about others pushing some kind of sinister "gay agenda" down their throats as surely as they try to push their religion down everyone else's throats...

now let me step back from the deep throat analogy and restate the solution to this silly dilemma...

CIVIL UNIONS SANCTIONED BY THE STATE

MARRIAGE SANCTIONED BY THE CHURCH

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 07:27am
Breaking News: Obama is not the liberal Messiah.----Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2009 @ 06:11am

He never was. Unless you were a dopey ditto-head who believed what Rush told you "the liberals believed" about him.

Or put it this way, for Ms Flanders and much of the "TN" staff (and many on the Left)...

Obama won by 10 million votes, not 30 million. It was a mandate for change, but not radical change. It was a vote for hope, not fantasy.

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 07:32am
I have to go with Mask on this one. Obama is batting about 700 or 800. There's no way he's going to make everyone happy all of the time. But he has made a few incremental changes in the right direction.

As Obama pointed out, turning things around with this country is like turning a huge ship around. It ain't gonna turn on a dime which translates to changes will take time and even those changes will be small.

Unfortunately, our political system is set up to stall any major changes that may be necessary and great powers are there to see to it that their interests will always come first....that's how these people get elected in the first place.

The only thing we've seen any real swift action on thus far has been bailing out wallstreet and the banks.....big surprise there.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/28/2009 @ 08:52am
While we're concerning ourselves with silly shit like gay marriage, the rich are looting the treasury. Posted by bleedingheart at 05/28/2009 @ 06:35am

The rich have been looting the treasury since Reagan, and arguably way before that. They have done so since Reagan with wild abandon. There is really nothing much left to loot. These bailouts and wars are just cleaning up the scraps on borrowed money and enslaving the American Taxpayer for generations to come.

There was nothing left of real value to loot. So now the current administration is partially re-inflating the last bubble in the hopes of squeezing out the last drop of fluid left in the corpse of what once was a powerhouse American economy.

I hate to be a realist in these times of Hope and Change, but we are doomed...

Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 09:01am
When Obama said "Yes We Can"! he wasn't talking about "We The People".

Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 09:09am
I believe Cabela's has some very durable tents for sale at currently reasonable prices. And there is most likely a good book available on Amazon for "Organizing, Building and Maintaining a Workable Tent City", while supplies last of course.

Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 09:15am
Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 09:01am

In the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka...

Lighten up, Francis.

I think the newest "bipartisan coalition" are the "We're doomed!" guys on the Right and the "We're doomed!" guys on the Left.

I'm old enough to remember the 70s and the LAST time "The End Was Nigh!" and the survivalists started stocking up on gold and (back then) C-rations....MREs now naturally. heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 09:16am
In the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka...

Lighten up, Francis.

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 09:16am

We don't want our newest and bestest buddy, Uncle Hulka mad at us now do we. LOL

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/28/2009 @ 09:21am
Obama won by 10 million votes, not 30 million. It was a mandate for change, but not radical change. It was a vote for hope, not fantasy.

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 07:32am | ignore this person | warn this person

Hmmm...........can you point me to a cite wherein Obama defined "Hope" as "a little change" or a "little change in course of direction."

Let us not confuse that Obama did indedd use "Hope" to win the election, and that his post election antics and betrayal of promises are not the reasons why "the majority" put him in office. You are confusing "inside information" of the political elite with the "fantasy" of the electorate that actually buys into and believes campaign promises.

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 09:29am
But we can rest assured that at least by voting for Obama instead of McCain we will have "affordable health insurance for all", "college education for those who qualify" and "green" energy (cowpies?) to power our new and improved tent cities of tommorrow! With McCain we probably would have had to find a way to utilize the garbage from the gated communities of the rich that are located a safe distance away from our little piece of paradise.

Sorry about the hyperbole.. I'm in a bit of a mood today for some reason.

Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 09:38am
Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 09:38am | ignore this person | warn this person

Riders On the Storm..................

'Into this house were born, Into this world were thrown'

No apologies necessary Chao --

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 09:46am
Like I've said, for a very long time......

President of Magic!

Posted by Happy at 05/28/2009 @ 09:54am
but unless i start hearing more support of something like this from those pushing for such...

i must wonder if some of the traditionalistas have a point about others pushing some kind of sinister "gay agenda" down their throats as surely as they try to push their religion down everyone else's throats...

now let me step back from the deep throat analogy and restate the solution to this silly dilemma...

CIVIL UNIONS SANCTIONED BY THE STATE

MARRIAGE SANCTIONED BY THE CHURCH

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 07:27am

Again, we are in agreement. I have been saying for years that many on the side of pro homosexual marriage do not really want just equality of status;

They want to see the religious notion of marriage destroyed.

If it was simply about equal rights, then making all relationship contracts in each state called a civil union would or should be acceptable to everyone (yes some religious conservatives would still balk, but without any real constitutional basis).

the homosexual movements that continue to push this acceptance of the term marriage or nothing else cannot reasonable be assumed to be anything other than an assault on the religious tradition of marriage.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 09:58am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlY9HFRNUHs

BO on "gay marriage" 2007.

Equal Protection and Equal Rights. Sounds good in theory.

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 10:08am
Posted by Happy at 05/28/2009 @ 09:54am

Who did you vote for Hap? I don't know if I ever took note of your contribution to our great Republic. If it was McCain then you are even more confused than the rest of us "lefties" that voted for Obama.

Unless of course you thought that a vote for McCain would have benefitted you personally. If I remember right didn't you have a lot of money invested in the stock market? Better sell whatever stock you have left now. This temporary re-inflation of the bubble wont last long. Have you seen the dollar index lately? I hope you are not investing in shorts, unless you are real talented. Have you taken note of the rise of silver and gold recently? They are rising even in the face of short term gains in the dollar index.

Maybe I will see you in the tent city neighbor. Then you can tell me the story of the big fish in the little pond..

Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 10:11am
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 09:58am | ignore this person | warn this person

i'm sure certain demonic imps are involved in a spiteful mockery of tradition and religion...

and i'm sure that good god fearing folk sometimes overimpute such on others.

it takes all types to make a world, eh? we'll never be able to please everybody, of course, but this is an instance where i actually believe a compromise might be happily acceptable by the vast majority of folks on either side of the issue...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 10:14am
They want to see the religious notion of marriage destroyed.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 09:58am | ignore this person | warn this person

Really?

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 10:14am
i actually believe a compromise might be happily acceptable by the vast majority of folks on either side of the issue...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 10:14am | ignore this person | warn this person

"compromise" = "discrmination"

separate but equal eh Ib....nice logic.

What's next?

If the shoe were on the other foot, I suspect that "compromise" would sound pretty appalling to you.

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 10:21am
Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 10:21am | ignore this person | warn this person

read more carefully. there is nothing seperate or equal about what i advocate.

i advocate civil unions sanctioned by the state for hetero and homosexuals.

i thought i was clear about that.

"marriage" is a religious concept IMO, and should not be sanctioned by a CIVIL state regardless.

if someone wants to be "married" let them find a religion that will "marry" them according to their beliefs.

seperate? if people wish to be seperate from others based upon their religious and personal beliefs, so what? should we FORCE all to be as one?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 10:27am
"compromise" = "discrmination"

separate but equal eh Ib....nice logic.

What's next?

If the shoe were on the other foot, I suspect that "compromise" would sound pretty appalling to you.

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 10:21am

Want to explain how it would be separate but equal if all states issued civil union contracts instead of marriage licenses?

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 10:28am
the homosexual movements that continue to push this acceptance of the term marriage or nothing else cannot reasonable be assumed to be anything other than an assault on the religious tradition of marriage.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 09:58am

I think the reason that Civil Unions are not acceptable to most gays is that it does not provide the same legal recognition, status and acceptance domestically or nationally as marriage. A civil union or domestic partnership in one state is not always recognized by another state or even at the federal level. Let alone another country. So the status is not equal. And the rights are not equal.

Here is my solution. Make marriage a church only ceremony. With no legal rights or status other than those afforded by the church itself. Make a law at the Federal level that all couples must establish a separate civil union contract for the purposes of a legal union that affords everyone the same legal status that marriage currently provides.

You shouldn't have a problem with that Larry. After all we do a certain separation of Chuch and State. This should be acceptable to you no?

Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 10:32am
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 10:27am | ignore this person | warn this person

So all couples (hetero and homo)joined together by the state would be classified as a "civil union" then? They would get a "civil union certificate" not a "marriage certificate"?

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 10:33am
i can't see much being done with so many idols and prophets...

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2009 @ 10:34am
Want to explain how it would be separate but equal if all states issued civil union contracts instead of marriage licenses?

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 10:28am | ignore this person | warn this person

Liv - I would be on board with this. Get rid of marriage certificates - and just issue "civil union certificates" with absolutely same rights.

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 10:37am
Here is my solution. Make marriage a church only ceremony. With no legal rights or status other than those afforded by the church itself. Make a law at the Federal level that all couples must establish a separate civil union contract for the purposes of a legal union that affords everyone the same legal status that marriage currently provides.

You shouldn't have a problem with that Larry. After all we do a certain separation of Chuch and State. This should be acceptable to you no?

Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 10:32am

That's what I've been saying here for several years.

No marriage certificates by states. All such licensed contracts would be civil unions in accordance with each states laws.

Marriages would return to the province of religious ceremonies only.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 10:41am
"the homosexual movements that continue to push this acceptance of the term marriage or nothing else cannot reasonable be assumed to be anything other than an assault on the religious tradition of marriage"

first, marriage isn't just a "religious tradition." the religious component of marriage is marginal.

it's a civil arrangement, and that is all. and the 'marriage' component is nothing but a glorified church wedding, complete with wurlitzers, flowers, booze.

homosexuals don't care about marriage, they care about equal rights. that is all.

if equal rights spell "marriage," then so be it.

Posted by darladoon at 05/28/2009 @ 10:43am
"That's what I've been saying here for several years"

you JUST said that homosexuals were "assaulting" marriage....so the above statement is only partially true

Posted by darladoon at 05/28/2009 @ 10:45am
antisocialist,

can you just admit that you are homophobic? you don't like the idea of men sticking their penises in other men.

the thought makes you extremely uncomfortable.

Posted by darladoon at 05/28/2009 @ 10:46am
"marriage" is a religion laden term, and not the business of the state. "marriage" is some form of a "sacrament"...let churches decide who amongst their followers, is "married" or not. hell...they can issue proclamations and sealed holy documents to the persons in question all they want...

CIVIL UNIONS SANCTIONED BY THE STATE

MARRIAGE SANCTIONED BY THE CHURCH

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 07:27am | ignore this person | warn this person

Okay - this sounds good. Now, what about "The Church." Say, a homosexual couple wants the blessing of God in a particular church. Since gays can't be 'married,' aren't you sanctioning discrimination?

Jeez...I thought I remember that white only and men only clubs were under siege on by those who wanted to join, but were denied on the basis of color or gender.

Is this the compromise you are talking about? Get rid of discrimination at state level, but allow it in the private sector? Seems like a half measure, a "compromise" in your parlance.

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 10:46am
BLEEDINGHEART is right! Wake up people . . . and Laura!

Posted by missionunaccomplished at 05/28/2009 @ 10:57am
seperate? if people wish to be seperate from others based upon their religious and personal beliefs, so what? should we FORCE all to be as one?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 10:27am | ignore this person | warn this person

What's your take on this case?

February 19, 2008 Barred From Men's-Only Event, Woman Sues Public Golf Club By MARCIA CHAMBERS NY Times

'Elaine Joyce, a champion amateur golfer, and her father were looking forward to a weekend tournament last May at the respected public course on Cape Cod where they hold full memberships. But their names were not listed when officials posted the tee times for the event at the Dennis Pines course.

Joyce's father, Pat, received a call from the club's head pro, Russell Champoux, who said the tournament was not open to women. It did not matter that Joyce would play from the men's tees. Or that she had won more than 20 club championships over the years. Or that she had captured the title in 2001 at an event for the state's top female club champions.

Joyce complained to the town, but over the next several months, Robert Canevazzi, the Dennis town administrator, did not budge. When Joyce filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in July, the club said its actions were not discriminatory. In a letter, Canevazzi told Joyce that the club would begin scheduling men's and women's fields in all tournaments in 2008, giving women more weekend play. The club's lawyer, Kristin Tyler Harris, reiterated the position. But women would not be permitted to play in men's tournaments.

On Friday, Joyce, 43, filed a federal lawsuit in United States District Court in Boston to challenge the town and the golf officials.

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 10:58am
civil union certificate" not a "marriage certificate"?

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 10:33am | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 10:46am | ignore this person | warn this person

first question - yes.

now we get into some murky waters after that. in terms of religion, if folks want to be seperate from each other, its their right and probably a good thing. if the religion is taking public money, its different, which is why i am opposed to obama's continued public support for faith based charity.

i voted for him, campaigned for him, support him, but i am still not his intellectual meat puppet.

in terms of privately owned companies, commerce is explicitly regulable by the government, and denial of opportunity goes beyond the right to privacy in my opinion. there is a legitimate role for the government in this area IMO.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 10:59am
February 19, 2008 Barred From Men's-Only Event, Woman Sues Public Golf Club By MARCIA CHAMBERS NY Times

Cite to above

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 10:59am
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 10:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

Equal protection just for the Commerce Clause?

What about tax exempt status of churches?

Do you consider that that is taking government money?

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 11:01am
Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 09:29am

Can you point to where he said "BIG Change"?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 11:04am
"marriage" is not soley religious term.

Corporations enter into "marriages".

Live together for 7-10 years in some places and you become "common law married" with zero religious involvement.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2009 @ 11:05am
Breaking News: Obama is not the liberal Messiah.----Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2009 @ 06:11am

He never was. Unless you were a dopey ditto-head who believed what Rush told you "the liberals believed" about him.-----Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 07:32am

Speak of the devil...

"Like I've said, for a very long time......

President of Magic!"-----Posted by Happy at 05/28/2009 @ 09:54am

LOL

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 11:06am
antisocialist-ibb-Marriage has never been considered to be just a religious matter and that is particularly true in America, as has been proven on here numerous times.The people that we consider to be the first Americans,the pilgrims,believed that marriage was a civil matter and not a religious matter and did not even send over a minister with the first bunch that came over here.We have no history or tradition where marriage is considered to be a strictly religious matter and it is pointless to keep making it up that we do.Many protestants dumped all of the Catholic sacraments and made marriage a civil matter while others kept marriage as a religious matter while others made it both a civil and religious matter.There is no history of marriage being a strictly a religious thing and the idea that gays are plotting to destroy what never existed is a bit off the wall..

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 11:08am
can you just admit that you are homophobic? you don't like the idea of men sticking their penises in other men.

the thought makes you extremely uncomfortable.

Posted by darladoon at 05/28/2009 @ 10:46am

Darla, get over yourself.

Following the dictates of my faith is not being afraid of someone. That is just a strawman that liberals and the homosexual community use instead of actual debate.

If you were to actually debate on an adult basis, you could aknowledge that most religions do not accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle, and then state that you disagree.

But instead, people like yourself attempt this canard of "homophobia".

What people do in their bedrooms is their business. that is not my argument. I have not ever stated nor suggested criminality of homosexual behavior. If society wants to legitimize or overlook certain kinds of deviant and otherwise immoral behavior as they do now with homosexuality, adultery, and fornication, they are certainly free to do so in this nation.

But I address the moral component which is separate from law. And as a pastor, I am accountable before G-d to address moral failings for what they are and not condone them.

I am as equally disgusted with someone who will not stop committing adultery as I am with those who persist in homosexual behavior.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 11:24am
'Protected Class Status for Gay "Sexual Orientations"Would Destroy the Foundation of Special Class Protections'

A public policy analysis by Tony Marco

Copyright Tony Marco, 1991-1994, all rights reserved

'Clearly, grant protected class status and special privileges solely on the basis of how a few people representing a concerted special interest choose to have (or merely say they desire to have) "divergent" sex, and the whole concept of special civil rights protections and their enforcement will become hopelessly compromised, meaningless -- in fact, destroyed.'

Isn't protected class status meant to protect rights of minority against usurpation of majority? Couldn't Mr. Marco's argument "a few people" be used as basis of denial of protected class status on the basis on skin color or "minority, in context of majority?

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 11:25am
Corporations enter into "marriages". Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2009 @ 11:05am

Then we should outlaw any corporation from calling itself a "marriage" unless of course lets say Chrysler and Fiat could reasonably go into a Church of their choice and tie the knot in a religious ceremony. Because then we would see how ridiculous it is in giving corporations the rights of "persons".

Then we could logically overturn the legal decisions that allowed this abomination. Such as ridiculous precedents like "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad". This might be more far reaching than a modest post could hope.

How would they consumate such a "marriage"? Hmmmm..

Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 11:27am
A constitutional challenge is being filed in Fed District Ct Boston v. certain DOMA denials of rights to single sex couples. How the Obama Justice Dept responds to that suit will soon reveal what Obama intends to do about single sex couples' rights.

Posted by sloper at 05/28/2009 @ 11:28am
How would they consumate such a "marriage"? Hmmmm.. Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 11:27am

And more importantly, how would such a union "Serve God"? :)

Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 11:29am
And to repeat the obvious, there remains the equality of treatment before the law for alleged terrorists and indefinite detainment proposed at supermax prisons.......

As for inspiration, my family is also Hispanic, arriving in the US from Argentina in the forties, also exceptionally poor, and not exactly greeted by the welcome wagon, and while most of us "made it" this American Dream stuff gets a bit thick. There is nothing about discrimination and poverty that necessarily serves to greater empathy, tolerance or inclusiveness. And while it is fine to see our leading meritocracy reflect more of our diversity, it does nothing for the increasing numbers whose living standards and opportunity shrink, and whose lives continue hard and mean. I'd rather hear about the dignity of these folk.

Charlie M.

Posted by cmsandia at 05/28/2009 @ 11:32am
Can you point to where he said "BIG Change"?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 11:04am | ignore this person | warn this person

Obama Launches Change.gov

'The Obama Administration will reflect an essential lesson from the success of the Obama campaign: that people united around a common purpose can achieve great things.'

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 11:34am
Boy howdy! Talk about a Weblog exploding into a supernova of it's constituent parts.

Now we are cooking on gas!

Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 11:40am
Cite to above

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 10:59am | ignore this person | warn this person Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 11:01am | ignore this person | warn this person

i am conflicted on this. i understand that social clubs are indeed important in terms of making contacts and such...

but am nonetheless uncomfortable with forcing people to associate with each other in their leisure time. ultimately don't believe the government has much say.

shall we force the integration of the KKK or the black panthers??? lol...

tax exemption of churches? mixed opinions. a hornet's nest best avoided for now, IMO.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 11:41am
I am as equally disgusted with someone who will not stop committing adultery as I am with those who persist in homosexual behavior.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 11:24am

Does serial marriage...more than two, none by widowhood, for someone under 60 say...count?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 11:57am
We have no history or tradition where marriage is considered to be a strictly religious matter and it is pointless to keep making it up that we do

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 11:08am | ignore this person | warn this person

despite the fact that you kind of contradict yourself with a previous statement ("the pilgrims, believed that marriage was a civil matter and not a religious matter") i understand and basically agree.

but perhaps its time to start re-defining concepts and setting new precedents to reflect new realities and avoid conflict...

i think my opinions offer a viable alternative and solution that may actually be acceptable to most of the people who dismount from their high horses long enough to think about it...

but perhaps some prefer conflict and really have axes to grind...in fact some most certainly do...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 11:58am
Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 11:34am

Depends on how you define "great", doesn't it, OV?

Lotta people would define getting stem-cell research money flowing as "great"....you would ONLY define things like a 90% nuclear arms cut or cutting off aid to Israel as "great"....right?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 11:58am
tax exemption of churches? mixed opinions. a hornet's nest best avoided for now, IMO.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 11:41am

A church is in the business of selling the snake oil of faith, philosophy and redemption. This is apparently a valuable commodity. So a church is no different than any other business. It has an income. It provides a service. So it's tax status it has should be no different than any other service oriented business. That is only fair and rational.

If a "church" provides a portion of it's income for use in a charitable manner then it should be allowed tax exemtions for charitable contributions. Nothing more, nothing less. IMHO.

Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 12:07pm
How would they consumate such a "marriage"? Hmmmm..

Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 11:27am

Usually it be the customer that get's "intercoursed".

---

I am as equally disgusted with someone who will not stop committing adultery as I am with those who persist in homosexual behavior.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 11:24am

So, get your stones and torches out and do what the Good Book tells you to do. Let's see how far your crowd gets.

Or shut the f up.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2009 @ 12:09pm
If I were to open a shop that supplied services like life counseling, horoscopes, palm readings or phrenology as a service to the community. I would be expected to pay my taxes like everyone else. If I took a portion of those profits and gave back to the community in the form of a foodbank, drug rehab or housing for the homeless then I would expect that I should recieve a tax credit for those expenditures.

Sound reasonable to me.

How is a "church" any different?

Posted by chaoszen at 05/28/2009 @ 12:17pm
ibb-How did I contradict myself when I stated that the pilgrims did not believe that marriage was a religious matter?I was using that to show that the next statement was correct and that we have no history of marriage being a strictly religious thing.Some who came here did believe that marriage was a strictly a religious thing,like the Catholics so I could not exclude them even though they were not the primary settlers..We humans have been calling people married who have made some sort of commitment to one another and we have done that regardless of what type of ceremony that they had and have even referred to people as married who never had any ceremony and we are not,now,going to suddenly start to call couples different things based upon what kind of ceremony they had just because a certain group wants us to.It is pointless to seek solutions that will never happen.The anti gay marriage people consider marriages performed in other religions to be valid even though most of them believe that the devil influences those religions.If they are willing to accept marriages that they believe that the devil presides over then can accept gay marriage.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 12:31pm
Does serial marriage...more than two, none by widowhood, for someone under 60 say...count?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 11:57am

Mask, why do you attempt to revisit questions we have discussed previously at length?

However, as I answered previously, there are exceptions for adultery that allows someone to remarry without any personal guilt.

there is also the knowledge that mankind is imperfect and that if someone acknowledges their personal responsibility and failings in the dissolution of a previous marriage, and asks G-d for forgiveness, He will honor the new marriage.'

that is not His perfect plan for people, but He works through our imperfections and brings us into an understanding of our failings in life, including marriages. Sometimes we are able to restore what we have broken and sometimes we cannot.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:33pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:33pm

Okay, so you (or God...same diff) is NOT disgusted by somebody who marries lots of different people...just if they SLEEP with lots of different people without marrying them.

Right?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 12:40pm
The culture wars go on unabated..

Posted by CPT at 05/28/2009 @ 12:45pm
We humans have been calling people married who have made some sort of commitment to one another and we have done that regardless of what type of ceremony that they had and have even referred to people as married who never had any ceremony and we are not,now,going to suddenly start to call couples different things based upon what kind of ceremony they had just because a certain group wants us to.It is pointless to seek solutions that will never happen

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 12:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

i don't see the big problem. even LARRY is amenable to my idea.

most of the commitments of which you spoke in history were indeed some combination of civil ans ecclesiastic in nature, but things DO change sometimes, you know...

certainly anybody can call themselves anything or define their relationaships as they wish regardless of the piece of paper they have...but "civil union" is a secular concept.

i could care less what a couple chooses to call themselves nor which religion they choose to get married under, if they choose to do so at all.

to the state, "civil union" is all that matters. in effect, LEGALLY and obligationally speaking my concept of "civil union" is indistinguishable from current concept of marriage except that anything holy or gender specific is removed.

but understand that although there are indeed some "fag hatin'" bigots in the "marriage is between a man and a woman" camp, there are also those who simply consider "marriage" to be a holy union, blah blah blah...

for me words is words and do have meaning, but i understand some folks impute different meanings onto words than do i.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 12:57pm
ibb-I have no problem with people who believe that marriage is a holy union.My paternal grandparents believed that it was and refused to get the state issued license and just had what the minister wrote in their Bible,but they still called people who got joined by a judge married, something that most humans have always done.Marriage has never been considered by all to be just a religious thing and that is not going to change and we are not going to start to call people different things depending what kind of ceremony they had.For the most part,we have no idea what kind of ceremony most people that we call married even had and do not run around asking so we can separate one group from another.If you do not want your marriage to be considered to be a civil union and only a religious union then do not get the state license and separate yourself from others and call them something else,but do not be surprised when society does not start to call these others something different and continues to call all married..

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 1:14pm
Okay, so you (or God...same diff) is NOT disgusted by somebody who marries lots of different people...just if they SLEEP with lots of different people without marrying them.

Right?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 12:40pm

that's not what I said at all. What kind of mind draws conclusions like that?

Having sex outside of marriage is wrong. marrying lots of people without recognizing and changing your behavior is wrong in G-d's sight.

As I said, the person needs to acknowledge that their behavior was wrong and then commit to the marriage they are in.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:21pm
and separate yourself from others and call them something else,but do not be surprised when society does not start to call these others something different and continues to call all married..

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 1:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

no problemo. as long as the law calls it a "civil union", people can call it a "steaming pile" for all i care...

and some do already!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 1:26pm
"...marrying lots of people without recognizing and changing your behavior is wrong in G-d's sight.

As I said, the person needs to acknowledge that their behavior was wrong and then commit to the marriage they are in."----Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:21pm

So are you "equally disgusted" by THAT kind of behavior, as you are of adultery and homosexual sex?

(Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 11:24am)

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 1:31pm
Depends on how you define "great", doesn't it, OV?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 11:58am | ignore this person | warn this person

Well of course Maskie.

But semantically, "change" versus CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN and a website on the subject.

How would your typical voter interpret this?

Not all folks read between the lines as you do. The fact that the media is discussing his flip flopping and reversal of course on many issues I think is supportive of my premise that he portrayed himself as agent of change to get elected. All the candidates as I recall jumped on that bandwagon because it was BO was so successful with it. Surely, voters would be justified in doubting the sincerity of a Clinton or McCain who had a proven track record of catering to the status quo - but what of Obama. New kid on the block. The "Messiah" to some. Large campaign rallies don't imply that this guy was peddling stuff like - I think I might change Bush's policy on stem cell research.

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 1:34pm
ibb-States issue something they call a marriage license,but that license only has meaning if you want something from the state or federal govt or if you get a divorce..The only thing that I have ever used my state issued licenses for is to get my wives my retired military benefits and to get more money from the veterans administration.Had I not been a disabled veteran then I would have had no use for the license and all it got me was screwed when I got divorced.I would have been far better off without the license.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 1:36pm
I would have been far better off without the license.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 1:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

tell me about it, brother.

by the way, are we in disagreement and if so, how?

lol...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 1:42pm
tax exemption of churches? mixed opinions. a hornet's nest best avoided for now, IMO.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 11:41am | ignore this person | warn this person

I like Chao's take on exemptions for churches - make it charitable deductions based.

Yeah - the issue of discrimination and protected status in the private sector is really, really tough. Someone's gain is another's loss. But, it isn't cost/benefit analysis - nor should it be based on the will of the majority. It is what our constitution guarantees us - all of us.

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 1:43pm
ibb-It seems that we,pretty much,agree and I'm just enjoying the exchange.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 1:47pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 1:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

me too --------------------

It is what our constitution guarantees us - all of us.

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 1:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

aye but there's the rub...what exactly does the constitution guarantee? devil's always lurking in the details...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 2:04pm
The truth about gay marriage is that there are 18,000 gay couples in California that are legally married and others who are legally married in other states and once you let the cat out of the bag then you will never get it to go back in.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 2:22pm
"but what of Obama. New kid on the block. The "Messiah" to some."----Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 1:34pm

OV, did you just "out" yourself as a poser?

Who but guys on the RIGHT have ever said that "some" think Obama is a "Messiah"?!?!???

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 2:36pm
In Australian Law marriage is defined as below. But it clearly is referring to "Christian marriage" which is monogamous. To be consistent those who think a Christian marriage form should be available to same sex partners, as a civil right, should also allow, say, non-Christian polygamous marriage etc.

Christian marriage always has in view, as the norm, the production of children. That's one reason the state wants a say in marriage and makes and gets involved in family law.

The Commonwealth's power with respect to marriage comes from s. 51(xxi) of the Constitution. Section 51(xxi) states:

The Parliament shall ... have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: - Marriage.

The effect of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cwlth) and section 109 of the Constitution is that the Commonwealth has exclusive jurisdiction over the formation of marriages in Australia (i.e. there is no room for States to legislate).

What is meant by the term 'marriage' in section 51 (xxi)?

The descriptions of the term 'marriage' used in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) (s. 43(a)) and the Marriage Act 1961 (ss. 46(1) and 69(2)) are based on the definition in the 19th century English case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee,(2) namely, a formal, monogamous and heterosexual union.

1991

Brennan J., in The Queen v. L was of the opinion:

"In Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee, Lord Penzance defined marriage as 'the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others' and that definition has been followed in this country and by this Court."

Justice Windeyer (1962) cited the opinion:

"..and that therefore the legislative power does not extend to marriages that differ essentially from the monogamous marriage of Christianity."

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/28/2009 @ 2:44pm
Christian marriage always has in view, as the norm, the production of children.-----Posted by lrjones4 at 05/28/2009 @ 2:44pm

So what do the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Confucian, etc. marriages in Australia produce....platypuses?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 2:57pm
Though the US Federal government does not have the same powers the Australian constitution gives the national government both countries have a similar legal system in which the following Australian High Court opinion has some common validity:

"The nature and incidents of the legal institution which the Constitution recognises as 'marriage' ... are ascertained not by reference to laws enacted in purported pursuance of the power but by reference to the customs of our society, especially when they are reflected in the common law, which show the content of the power as it was conferred. "

(Justice Brennan, (1986) in Fisher v. Fisher).

One can see where Ibbie and Liberty are heading but is not "civil marriage" in the US also implicitly "Christian marriage' based on the religious heritage and custom of the US?

Remember Australia is a much more secular country than the US yet it bows, in its legal underpinnings for marriage, to custom.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/28/2009 @ 3:05pm
lrjones-America has no history or custom where marriage is defined in the way you describe.The fact that we had Mormons, native Americans and others practicing polygamy,people just shaking up and calling themselves married,marriage brokers performing ceremonies,mail order brides,etc gave us a rather loose definition of marriage.Of course,even if that was our custom, that would be irrelevant when it comes to laws in countries like America.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 3:19pm
So what do the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Confucian, etc. marriages in Australia produce....platypuses?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 2:57pm

The norm in Australian law based on custom and precedent is " Christian marriage" which is defined as monogamous and also about providing a suitable breeding environment, not sure about platypuses, but breeding certainly. That is why the state likes to get involved. It has every reason to do so as it tends to abhor bastards, particularly those the state has to more fully support. Even in a welfare state. So as always there are financial aspects to government policy.

I was more interested in thinking about the proposal to distinguish between "civil unions" and "church marriages". My thinking is that it may be hard to unpack them for the rather obvious reason that at this juncture in history, both are essentially "Christian" in character. Or one and the same thing, at least implicitly, in most Western countries.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/28/2009 @ 3:22pm
lrjones-We humans do not pair up because we believe in Christian marriages nor are marriages Christian in character.I have never noticed the difference between a marriage between two Christians or two atheists or two anyone else.We humans pair up because it is in our nature to do so and not because of religion.Some people in some religions decided to make that natural coupling up part of the religion and came up with a ceremony while some horny men in some religions decided that they could marry lots of women,but most have found that that does not work out so well.Christians are not the first to restrict marriage to just two people.Many cultures and religions did that prior to Christianity.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 3:33pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 05/28/2009 @ 3:22pm

Again, how are Jewish marriages defined? How about Hindu marriages?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 3:43pm
lrjones-In America you can have more than one husband or wife if you view marriage as strictly a religious thing and only have a religious ceremony with those husbands or wives.In your mind you are married to all of them because your religion says that you are and you will not care if the state will not give a license for all of them because you view marriage as a strictly religious matter,anyway..

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 3:50pm
Does serial marriage...more than two, none by widowhood, for someone under 60 say...count?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 11:57am | ignore this person | warn this person

Zsa Zsa, perhaps?

Or was it Eva.

I forget.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/28/2009 @ 4:01pm
So what do the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Confucian, etc. marriages in Australia produce....platypuses?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 2:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Little, tiny, helpless platypuses.

Or is it platypi?

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/28/2009 @ 4:06pm
Go Red Wings.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/28/2009 @ 4:07pm
Who but guys on the RIGHT have ever said that "some" think Obama is a "Messiah"?!?!???

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 2:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Figuratively Maskie - just like your definition of "change," in meaning something different from Bush, but not a change from Washington party politics as usual.

Golly, I do remember some TV shots of BO supporters in Chicago on election night with tears streaming down their faces, and utterances of hallelujah - "he has come."

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 4:11pm
By disingenuously using religion as his SOLE reason for denying ‘fundamental' civil rights to one class of his fellow-Americans Barack Obama has betrayed his oath of office (not once but twice for he violates the 1st amendment for the purpose of denying rights guaranteed under the 14th), he has betrayed his heritage, and, most of all, he has betrayed the fundamental principal of equal protection he taught as a professor of law. This dynamic is a no brainer that should not escape one of his first year law students.

See "Untangling Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo' by John P. Mortimer at http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=guest_op&article=73

For a complete analysis of the issue see the authors Salon.com blog at http://open.salon.com/blog/john_mortimer_esq

Posted by Arouete at 05/28/2009 @ 6:11pm
"he has come."

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 4:11pm

You do???

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 6:33pm
Again, how are Jewish marriages defined? How about Hindu marriages?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 3:43pm

Mask I don't want to make you lazy so you can google it up, but let me give you an engineer's perspective on one aspect of Christian marriage.

When two metal parts (round pegs in round holes) are joined together to make a permanent joining, the outer part is made one or two thousandths of an inch per inch of diameter smaller than the "peg". It is then heated until the peg can be slid into it and when it all cools down it we never come apart.

Now guess what old timers call that process? You guessed it, the parts were married.

This is what Jesus (that's where the Christian context arises, comes from his second name) said about marriage:

'That's why a man will leave his father and mother and will remain united with his wife, and the two will be one". That's interesting Mask because in Matthew 19.5 he is quoting from Genesis 2.24. So that may be a starting point for you to think about how close Jewish marriage these days is to its origins.

The fact remains that the marriage model we Westerners are most familiar with in law and culture is the Christian one whether the ceremony is performed in a registry office, in a garden, on the top of the Empire State or in a church etc or whether there is no ceremony or signing of government certificates at all. We refer to that as De facto marriage.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/28/2009 @ 6:39pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 05/28/2009 @ 6:39pm |

Okay, LR....but YOU said "Christian marriage"...not "Judeo-Christian marriage"....so YOU left out Jews.

And again, how is a "Christian marriage" different from a Muslim marriage...specifically?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 6:54pm
Posted by Arouete at 05/28/2009 @ 6:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Nice read. Eloquently stated. Mumbo Jumbo indeed. This is a guy that went to law school as an entree to politics. An excerpt from your cite worth repeating.

'To demonstrate tolerance, however, he would enact prejudice into law with a civil union substitute for fundamental rights. This would institutionalize second-class citizenship while relegating gays to our own Jim Crow railroad car on America's new Freedom Train. It's not mere audacity but downright chutzpah, for an African American civil rights lawyer to oppose due process and equal protection for no reason other than deep faith and religious connotations. This demonstrates contempt for the doctrine of separation of church and state to which he pays lip-service. If one of Obama's law students gave his answer on a right to marry hypothetical s/he'd deservedly flunk the exam and might better serve the interests of justice by selling shoes at Macy's. Unlike the revered Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, who used religious faith to fight against discrimination and exorcize it from the law, Obama's approach uses religion as an excuse to deny civil rights and legislate prejudice into law.'

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 7:56pm
"homosexuality, adultery, and fornication"

shall we play a game?

which of the above topics doesn't fit with the other two?

hmmmmm......

this is why antisocialist will never get it. he doesn't care what gays do 'behind closed doors,' but out in the open? well, he's got a problem with that.

but he doesn't have problems with straight people holding hands in public. he doesn't have a problem with men and women kissing on television. he doesn't have a problem with every single f*cking public advertisement which "promotes" heterosexuality. he doesn't have a problem with straight people......getting married and having children! that's all fine and dandy. but when two men or two women want to do the same? now, there he has a problem.

Posted by darladoon at 05/28/2009 @ 8:00pm
and, please tell us, why do you have a problem?

like i said, you are simply uncomfortable with the idea of men having sex with other men. now, two women? you are so, so down with that. that's titillating. but two guys rollin' in the hay? get the f*ck out of there, man!

that's sheer homophobia, and nothing else. just admit it and we can move on with our lives.

Posted by darladoon at 05/28/2009 @ 8:01pm
You do???

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 6:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Well "tears" anyway...lol... Where do you think this Messiah stuff came from? Nobody called Bush 'Messiah' as I recall. Other things sure, but not 'Messiah."

Next Sunday turn on some of the tele-evangelicals - and tell me later if you don't think BO has studied the art. When he gets on a roll - he sounds just like Sunday morning.

THE MESSIAH HAS LANDED? By Betty Freauf March 29, 2008 NewsWithViews.com - Excerpt

'The day was March 21, 2008. Instead of Oregonians in the Willamette Valley flocking to Good Friday services at local churches they rushed to auditoriums by the thousands to hear Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama preach his social gospel of liberation theology (Marxism/class warfare), which he learned under the tutelage of his pastor of 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Only a few talk show heads have mentioned the phrase "liberation theology" but no one actually explains it.

Barack's campaign has been called "Obama's first coming" and some of his supporters refer to him as "something akin to a messiah."'

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 8:11pm
And again, how is a "Christian marriage" different from a Muslim marriage...specifically?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 6:54pm

My half educated guess is that some elements of Muslim marriage are culturally determined so that we could dig out marriage practices in some backward African or ME countries that would make Islam look bad. Conversely in Western countries Islam is unlikely not to be influenced by the underlying Christian culture.

However my understanding is that Muslim marriage is not based on a religious perspective, such as the "creation ordinance"( Gen 2.24) as the Christian version is and it is more of a civil contract without the basic religious undertones that are part and parcel of Western marriage (if one digs deep enough).

Here's a bit to play with:

"Muslim Marriage contract can have only one goal?

It is to meet the philosophical standards of marriage given in Quran. Still a Muslim marriage is not a sacrament. It is a legal agreement between a man and a woman where either of the parties may include certain conditions to avoid future legal complications."

See if you can spot the differences with the Christian variety below:

Main Elements of a Muslim Marriage Contract The Muslim Jurists have developed the following general elements of a Muslim marriage contract:

1- Consent of the Parties

2- Payment of dowery

3- Witnesses

4- Aimed to be Permanent in Sunni law but not in Mut'ah in Shia Law

5- May be terminated by either of the parties any time.

http://www.muslim-marriage-guide.com/muslim-marriage-contract.html

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/28/2009 @ 8:17pm
Posted by darladoon at 05/28/2009 @ 8:01pm 

Darla...seriously. I agree with your ultimate position, but seriously, you're laying out one of the worst strawmen I've seen on these blogs. His position isn't "I'm uncomfortable with this...ban it!" His position is that he believes that the Bible is inerrant and that it forbids homosexuality. I think he's mistaken on both counts, but let's not pretend that his position is just "this seems icky." Come on.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/28/2009 @ 9:59pm
>>>While the President was lifting up the nation's professed ideals in Washington, in California, justices approved discrimination against same sex -couples under the law, with only one dissent from the lone Democrat.<<<

In fairness to the justices - and I am no big fan of the California Supreme Court - the problem with overuling Prop 8 is that California law allows the constitution to be changed by a simple majority vote.

Prop 8 opponents should target this larger structural issue in California law, and push a measure that requires a 2/3 majority of "either" the legislature or the voters to overturn or add to a protection afforded under the California constitution.

I think there could be a majority that would support a 2/3rds vote to change the constitution but Prop 8 makes clear there is not a majority (although the outcome may have been different if the pro-gay marriage base was more energized and organized) of California voters that would support gay marriage.

There is already a 2/3 majority required to raise taxes, and there are a wide range of left and right protections in the California constitution that would have majority support.

Posted by Metteyya at 05/28/2009 @ 10:04pm
Posted by Metteyya at 05/28/2009 @ 10:04pm 

2 things:

1) Bingo.

2) This seems like kind of a funny arrangement because it makes the "2/3 vote to raise taxes" meaningless. The "2/3 vote" things is part of the constitution...and you only need 1/2 to change it.

Why would you ever have any threshold higher than that which you set up for a constitutional amendment?

Posted by Thrawn at 05/28/2009 @ 11:00pm
Golly, I do remember some TV shots of BO supporters in Chicago on election night with tears streaming down their faces, and utterances of hallelujah - "he has come."

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 4:11pm |

Here's an Aussie sheila's spin on "he who has come".

"Obama makes ‘em sob again"

http://tinyurl.com/pf6a48

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/29/2009 @ 12:25am
Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 8:11pm

Hmmmm....again, odd, OV. Sounds like you're buying into the RIGHT-wing attack on Obama and his popularity as "messianic"....or something else a bit more diabolical is going on.

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 07:49am
My half educated guess is that some elements of Muslim marriage are culturally determined so that we could dig out marriage practices in some backward African or ME countries that would make Islam look bad.---Posted by lrjones4 at 05/28/2009 @ 8:17pm

Really? So Judea in the time of Jesus was not "backward"????

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 07:52am
Really? So Judea in the time of Jesus was not "backward"????

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 07:52

What does backward mean Mask? If you think about it for a moment it can only be used at a point in history in a relative sense. In the 21st C we could use categories like technology, educational opportunities, public health systems or human rights. Using just these criteria we could easily rank various countries from top to bottom and it would not be difficult to identify advanced and backward countries.

Without being country specific there are practices in some Muslim countries such as honor killing. which invariably means an "unfaithful" wife is the victim.That is a cultural approach to marriage. I think we would agree that that is a backward practice and is abhorrent. That is why in looking for a Muslim perspective on marriage I selected one which was consistent with modern human rights norms but one which at the same time showed significant differences in the meaning of marriage and its elements, when set alongside our own (Christian) cultural model of marriage.

Thinking of Jesus one needs to think not only of Judea but also Galilee and Samaria which were different prefectures. As far as first century J, G & S combined, was an insignificant part of the Roman Empire but it certainly was not a barbarian region on the fringes of the empire like places Paul visited in his missionary journeys. Greek and Hebrew as well as the more common Aramaic were spoken so it was not intellectually backward.

Out of that milieu came a piece of literature, the Christian New Testament that was to change the Roman Empire and shape the cultural and religious life of the Western world even to our day. That is not a bad measure of what sort of country it was. Certainly not backward.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/29/2009 @ 09:20am
Without being country specific there are practices in some Muslim countries such as honor killing. which invariably means an "unfaithful" wife is the victim.---------Posted by lrjones4 at 05/29/2009 @ 09:20am

Leviticus 20:10--- "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

(BTW, Leviticus is NOT in the Koran!)

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 09:42am
Posted by Thrawn at 05/28/2009 @ 11:00pm

The broader point I was trying to make is that pro-gay marriage advocates need a serious lesson in politics - they need to learn how to form coalitions with other groups, even conservative ones, to re-structure how the California constitution can be changed.

If they are so tied to their gay marriage issue that they limit their advocacy and political efforts to pushing this issue, they will miss an opportunity to get their issue passed by including it in a broader effort to reform the California legal structure. There are a number of constitutional protections in California that have a much wider base of support than gay marriage, so why not play smart politics and form a coalition between all of these groups to pass a voter initiative that requires a 2/3rds vote for ALL changes to the California constitution?

Politics sometimes makes strange bedfellows, but one cannot be deterred by that if you are trying to be most effective at getting what you want on "your" issue.

Dividing yourself along pro and anti gay marriage lines plays right into the Karl Rove playbook of dividing the electorate on terms that are conducive to favorable Republican election outcomes, and the pro gay marriage needs to be smarter than that if they want to win.

Posted by Metteyya at 05/29/2009 @ 10:42am
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 09:42am

But Mask, you just don't understand. They (Muslims) are trying to take over the world! And it's our world!

I mean, we're an extension of the non-barbarian world in time & space.

You're pleading in a courtroom whose judge doesn't sit in black robes on a dais!

Posted by Sorelish at 05/29/2009 @ 10:43am
"I think he's mistaken on both counts, but let's not pretend that his position is just "this seems icky.""

i'm not pretending anything; i'm just basing my comments on what he said, which was essentially:

'i don't care what you do behind closed doors'

so, larry doesn't have a problem with it because the bible says it's wrong; he just has a problem with it being out in the open.

after all, he doesn't seem to mind public heterosexuality (which is ubiquitous). but public homosexuality (and i don't mean public sex) bothers him (that's for 'behind closed doors').

you see my point?

Posted by darladoon at 05/29/2009 @ 10:44am
in fact, thrawn, MANY straight people who support gay marriage have a problem with public homosexuality.

and i DON'T mean public sex. i'm just talking about two guys holding hands and walking down the street.

even in san francisco there are many neighborhoods where men cannot do this. period.

straight people do it all over the place, all the time, but not gay men.

for gay women it seems to be ok, but not gay men.

so what does that say about our culture? "keep it behind closed doors". that's precisely what it means: it means it 'icks them out'.

but straight people can do whatever they want, because the culture tolerates it.

fortunately, times are changing fast.

Posted by darladoon at 05/29/2009 @ 10:48am
Posted by Sorelish at 05/29/2009 @ 10:43am

Of course, given his past, I know that LRJONES is an Islamophobe....again, which conflicts with his neo-conservatism and support for the Iraq War and "how it's bringing democracy to the Middle East" (How does that happen if they are "barbarians", LR????)

And of course his "Christians and Christian marriage are civilized unlike those others" bullshit as well.

I just figure I'd pay out enough slack in the rope for him to loop it over a high branch and let him tie the knot himself.

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 11:20am
The California court is only supposed to interpret law. I'm not familiar with California law so is the court wrong? Maybe. I believe in equality. Gay people should not be second class citizens and be able to enjoy the same rights as straight people. But is California law unjust? Did the court read the law and that law allow discrimination. This is what I'm not hearing from the groups demanding equality. You can't blame the courts. They don't make the laws. They interpret the law and make rulings.

It's hard to get hopeful in these times (as if ever). I really hope that Sotomayer is the bastion of reason and justice everyone hopes she is. We certianly have enough unreasoning and biased justices in the Supreme Court. It's very sad. Here's to you Sonia Sotomayer. I hope you're the everything a justice should be and I hope you support the ideal of the Constitution.

Posted by annakis at 05/29/2009 @ 11:45am
"Obama makes ‘em sob again"

http://tinyurl.com/pf6a48

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/29/2009 @ 12:25am | ignore this person | warn this person

Thanks for the cite. Mask, obviously, doesn't think out of "his box" often times.

He thinks this is all a right wing conspiracy - among other inconvenient truths that go against his view of the "Messiah."

Posted by OneVote at 05/29/2009 @ 12:00pm
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 11:20am

Well done, Mask.

Remember anti's assertion that he'd represented himself in court & won both times? Wonder if he had an accomplice purveying t-shirts to the jury pool out in the parking lot on the day of selection?

Remember those t-shirts with the arrow pointing down to the word - baby-? Or substitute the word -hell. Lord, just give me a sign.

Posted by Sorelish at 05/29/2009 @ 12:03pm
Golly, I do remember some TV shots of BO supporters in Chicago on election night with tears streaming down their faces, and utterances of hallelujah - "he has come."

Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2009 @ 4:11pm |

Here's an Aussie sheila's spin on "he who has come".

"Obama makes ‘em sob again"

http://tinyurl.com/pf6a48

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/29/2009 @ 12:25am

Golly, I do remember actually BEING at Bush rallys (and all sorts of other rallys) where more than one person had signs proclaiming that god hates fags, and a myriad of other ignorant bullshit.

Something tells me the conservatives wouldn't like to be judged one and the same as the lunatic fringe of their ideology...

Posted by TexasFlood at 05/29/2009 @ 12:18pm
(BTW, Leviticus is NOT in the Koran!)

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 09:42am

Nor is it in the NT.

Though it was a Jewish practice (it may have needed Roman Approval?) in the 1st C.

Jesus sets the Christian pattern in that familiar story when the Jewish leaders tried to trick him by bringing before him a Jewish adulteress claiming the law (which you quoted) said she had to be stoned. He stooped down and began to write on the ground. Some have guessed he wrote, in the dirt, something like Rabbi Josephs was at the Hot Pussy Club in Jerusalem last night and went down the list of the accusers writing their misdemeanors on the ground. Whatever they all they all slinked away. He then said to the woman go your way and sin no more.

I think you may also find that the Quran is not the source of all the backward practices associated with marriage in some Muslim countries but rather they are cultural in origin.

Maybe you'll have to get a Jewish friend to explain the Leviticus thing for you. Christians tend to see biblical revelation as a progressive activity over millennia so they see the Leviticus passage in the context of the state religion of the day i.e. the union of church and state.

Don't know why you are so concerned about it anyway. How many ways does your state still kill certain felons? Let's see. Do you still have gas chambers? Lethal injections? Electrocution? Do you do any neck stretching these days?

Perhaps you could do a few Leviticus style stonings just for variety? Do you think that all killing stuff is inspired by Christianity or is it just a cultural thing?

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/29/2009 @ 12:40pm
Posted by Sorelish at 05/29/2009 @ 12:03pm

Maybe he won in court AND defeated demons and witches...at the same time!

You know, some "Devil and Daniel Webster" scenario!....heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 12:43pm
Posted by darladoon at 05/28/2009 @ 8:00pm

Posted by darladoon at 05/28/2009 @ 8:01pm

Posted by darladoon at 05/29/2009 @ 10:44am

Here is why you don't understand my argument, you continue to conflate legal behavior with Biblical morality. When I state that what people do behind closed door is their business, I'm addressing it from the standpoint of law.

When I say that adultery, fornication (sex outside of marriage), and homosexuality are wrong, I'm addressing it from the Biblical morality standpoint as a pastor regarding one's relationship with G-d.

<Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 11:24am>

As to the heterosexual behavior in public, you made a number of assumptive leaps that were not in any comments I have made. I don't like overt public displays of sexuality by ANYONE. Sex is meant to be intimate which by it's nature suggests private.

As to other displays of sexuality on tv and in public, I have the freedom to switch the channel or to look in another direction.

To repeat, I'm not "afraid" of homosexuality, I am obligated in obedience to G-d to view whatever G-d calls sin, sin. That is why I can say to Mask that I view an adulterer or someone who repeatedly marries with no sense of guilt, equally as sinful as the homosexual.

BTW Darla, if you don't believe in G-d, sin, or the need for salvation; what does it matter to you if Christians do believe it? Especially in a democratic society like ours.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/29/2009 @ 12:54pm
Maybe he won in court AND defeated demons and witches...at the same time!

You know, some "Devil and Daniel Webster" scenario!....heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 12:43pm

They were civil cases; one was a consulting contract I had with a corporation; the other involved my being sued as the intermediary between two parties in a purchase of a company. I ran the Company during the negotiations and transition. The existing owner seized back the company and then sued the buyers and myself. I was sued for 2 million dollars and during my testimony during the trial, the plaintiff and his attorney agreed to dismiss me from the complaint.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/29/2009 @ 12:58pm
the homosexual movements that continue to push this acceptance of the term marriage or nothing else cannot reasonable be assumed to be anything other than an assault on the religious tradition of marriage.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 09:58am

OK, so I am slow on this one since this was posted yesterday, but the above statement is so obviously opinion based on homophobia.

If the word "marriage" is all the Right cares about, then I would agree with both anti and ibble about civil unions being the purview of the state and marriage being the purview of religion. End of story, right?

But it's not about a word. It's about the rights that come along with the word, as well as the feeling that one is not a second class citizen in one's own country. Do you think blacks in the South in the 1950's would have been happy to know that they would still get where they were going (and thus have the same "rights" as whites), even while sitting at the back of the bus? It wasn't about the bus, it was about sitting where you want to sit and to feel equal in doing so.

Believe me, when all the marriage equality stuff started a few years ago, I couldn't have cared less. Then I realized it's not actually about marriage. It's about equality. Separate is not equal and marriage may have started out as a religious term, but it has a civil use now in our country. Anyone should be allowed to get married in this country, regardless of religion, race, creed , or sexuality. You seem to imply anti, that all homosexuals are non-religious people, which is again, very far from the truth.

It's not about destroying someone else's traditions (that's what Protestantism is), it's about being truly equal in the eyes of the law. The law uses the term marriage. End of story.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/29/2009 @ 1:06pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 05/29/2009 @ 12:40pm

Christian marriage had its origins in Jewish tradition, JONES. Including the "backward" tradition of killing adulterers...just like them "barbarian" Muslims.

Look, we all know where you're coming from. Christian supremacist at best, religious bigot at worst.

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 1:46pm
You seem to imply anti, that all homosexuals are non-religious people, which is again, very far from the truth.

It's not about destroying someone else's traditions (that's what Protestantism is), it's about being truly equal in the eyes of the law. The law uses the term marriage. End of story.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/29/2009 @ 1:06pm

Stephen, You are dead on with this. The GOP and those who are against gay marriage treat gay people like second or third class citizens. Since they abhor "gayness" then something certainly is wrong with gay people making them lesser in the eyes of those believing themselves to be holier than thou.

The GOP has targeted the religious right, and the idiots who think they are rich, but aren't but wish to identify up in the wealth category. Why, because without those two groups of people, they wouldn't even have the 30% rating they enjoy now.

So, gay marriage, the abortion issue, the NRA issues, are all tools of the extreme wealthy to keep the not so wealthy drooling over issues that keep putting pro-business representatives in both houses of congress and in the executive office.

Even when a middle of the road candidate like Obama comes along, the wealthy make sure to protect what they have and wish to gain by continuing to hammer away it every issue not related to how they are siphoning money out of the system while accusing everyone else of the crimes they themselves commit. I don't know how they can look themselves in the mirror every morning, but I guess greed must gloss over feelings of guilt and/or shame.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/29/2009 @ 2:22pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/29/2009 @ 2:22pm

I always find it amazing that more of the GOP base hasn't figured out that they are being conned...especially on the abortion issue.

GOP controlled the White House, House, and Senate from 2003-2006....and the "Human Life Amendment" stayed exactly where it had been since the mid-70s...in Committee.

Yet ever 2-4 years, Repubs go out and tell the base that they're going to "fight the scourge of abortion and protect the unborn"....and every 2-4 years the base turns out....believing it.

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 2:32pm
Isn't eliminating "marriage" and replacing it with "civil union" because gays want the privilege of marriage similar to eliminating the results of a firefighters qualification test when the wrong people want the privilege of taking and passing it?

Posted by Mistral at 05/29/2009 @ 2:50pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/29/2009 @ 2:22pm

Pure, unadulterated BS.

No one is saying homosexuals are "lesser" people. Can you provide a single quote from anyone in the GOP who has said anything like that?

What you continue to denigrate is the view of conservative Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and others who do not share your view of morality. Thus you provide a demonstration of the absolute bigotry of radical liberalism.

And it was primarily the wealthy who elected Obama. Your premise is simply a product of your hatred of anyone who is not a member of the far left.

Are also suggesting that all Republicans in govt who are also Christian do not share the views of the conservative, religious base? And if so, what is your evidence?

Are there hypocrites in the GOP? Sure, just as there are hypocrites in the Democratic Party.

Can you explain what is "middle of the road" when Obama has increased the US debt and deficit by more than the total of all Presidents before him?

Posted by antisocialist at 05/29/2009 @ 4:34pm
Can you explain what is "middle of the road" when Obama has increased the US debt and deficit by more than the total of all Presidents before him?

Posted by antisocialist at 05/29/2009 @ 4:34pm

If Bush/Cheney hadn't left the country in such a disastrous state, Obama would not have been forced, FORCED I say, into increasing the debt to try and keep the country out of another Great Depression. Oh, yeah, he also decided to put the Iraq war on the books...unlike Bush/Cheney who kept it out of the budget for seven (7) years. That was a quick increase of over $800MM right there. Oh, and wasn't it Cheney himself who said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."? Isn't he your favorite Vice President ever? So, what do you care about the deficit?

Cheney has shown nothing but contempt for people who don't agree with him (including his boss). It is unfortunate that many people of religion (especially of the forgiving and loving Christ) abuse the Bible, much like Cheney abused the Constitution, to espouse their narrow-minded viewpoints and claim to be of "higher" morals. Why is my religion, which thinks gay marriage is fine, worth any less than yours in a country of laws?

To paraphrase your earlier post: "BTW Anti, if you do believe in G-d, sin, or the need for salvation; what does it matter to you if non-Christians don't believe it? Especially in a democratic society like ours."

A democratic society which espouses equality for all, should HAVE equality for all, regardless of what the Bible, the Koran or any other religious book might say. Why can't you right wing christians understand that?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/29/2009 @ 5:03pm
To paraphrase your earlier post: "BTW Anti, if you do believe in G-d, sin, or the need for salvation; what does it matter to you if non-Christians don't believe it? Especially in a democratic society like ours."

A democratic society which espouses equality for all, should HAVE equality for all, regardless of what the Bible, the Koran or any other religious book might say. Why can't you right wing christians understand that?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/29/2009 @ 5:03pm

I've never espoused anything different. I believe completely that we live in a nation that uniquely gives equality to all varieties of belief or no belief at all. You cannot cite any post where I have ever suggested that anyone else's belief's should have a standing that is different than mine before the law.

In the homosexual marriage issue, all I've stated is that marriage was introduced to this nation as a religious sacrament. And that religious history across all major faiths throughout recorded history is that of a man and a woman. Civil licenses were almost unheard of until the mid 1800's, and an approach to make them uniform from a civil standpoint did not take place until 1911. Thus, I believe given the changes in our culture that all civil contracts should delete the word marriage. Thus all citizens would enjoy equality before the law and the term marriage would be returned to it's religious foundation.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/29/2009 @ 5:28pm
If Bush/Cheney hadn't left the country in such a disastrous state, Obama would not have been forced, FORCED I say, into increasing the debt to try and keep the country out of another Great Depression. Oh, yeah, he also decided to put the Iraq war on the books...unlike Bush/Cheney who kept it out of the budget for seven (7) years. That was a quick increase of over $800MM right there. Oh, and wasn't it Cheney himself who said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."? Isn't he your favorite Vice President ever? So, what do you care about the deficit?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/29/2009 @ 5:03pm

Except for Bush not vetoing more budgets which I wish he would have done, and the stupid decision to join with Democrats in the first bailout, Bush had very little to do with with the deficit.

To say Obama was forced to quadruple our debt in his first 60 days in office is laughable. Nancy Pelosi called the February bailout a long wished for dream. They threw in every spending opportunity that they had wanted to implement over the past years before they controlled the Congress and the White House. And nowhere was Obama forced to bailout insurance companies, GM or Chrysler (who have filed bankruptcy anyways).

There was no forcing Obama to put 650 billion as a down payment on an undefined national health care.

You prefer to post leftwing talking points rather than a substantive viewpoint.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/29/2009 @ 5:37pm
The claim that marriage came to America as a religious sacrament has been proven to be incorrect and antisocialist knows that,yet repeats his revision of US history.The claim that marriage has it's roots in religion has,also,been shown to be unlikely.What we see as marriage today does not resemble marriage of old and is quite a different thing.Times change.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2009 @ 5:45pm
Anti, I don't read left wing talking points...I'm not on the list to receive the memos. Everything I say on this site comes from my heart, because I do not believe that inequality in any form should exist in America's laws.

As for the budget, lest we forget, the Republicans managed to get a lot of crap in the budget too...and then complained about all the Democratic crap...that's called hypocrisy. There might have even been something in there for YOUR state. (I don't know where you live.)

And in case you haven't noticed, the country is falling apart at the seams. That is not a situation Bush walked into, so saying he had nothing to do with raising the deficit is laughable. Bush walked into a surplus, raided the Treasury to give to the rich (and defense contractors) and left us with a deficit and a mess. Duh.

As for healthcare, I guess your city doesn't have 70,000 homeless people wandering the streets on any given day like mine does. I like the idea of a single-payer healthcare system. Then again, perhaps you like the fact we spend more on healthcare (per capita) than any other nation in the world, and yet are still ranked below most of the western world in quality of healthcare.

This is America, dammit! We should be at the top of every quality of life list in the world, and yet the Republicans continually stop every single progressive initiative, mostly because you are all under the delusion that life was better for everyone in 1952 and ya just gotta get back there and drag the rest of us back there with ya.

And as for Bush "joining with the Democrats on the first bailout," I guess you must have lost your short term memory...Bush's team came to Congress with the bailouts, not the other way around...or do you not remember Paulson's Panic?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/29/2009 @ 6:13pm
the homosexual movements that continue to push this acceptance of the term marriage or nothing else cannot reasonable be assumed to be anything other than an assault on the religious tradition of marriage.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 09:58am

Agreed Liberty but it goes further than that, it is an assault on the meaning of words and on our intelligence. It is not about rights but rather about the legal meaning of the word marriage and what it entails.

Following your position on this it is obvious that what some proponents of same sex relationships being called marriages miss is that many of the actors want to get "married" in a church. Thus the attack fundamentally is not so much about marriage per se but it is a wedge attack on the wider issue of homosexuality and its acceptance within orthodox Christianity as normal, non sinful, sexual behavior.

I mean one has to be quite stupid not to see that is what is at stake, for why on earth would say an atheist or agnostic, who is a homosexual, give a fig's leaf about whether their relationships thus (via marriage) had the implicit blessing of Christianity or not. Civil unions then may be just what they do not want.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/29/2009 @ 9:08pm
Agreed Liberty but it goes further than that, it is an assault on the meaning of words and on our intelligence. It is not about rights but rather about the legal meaning of the word marriage and what it entails.

Following your position on this it is obvious that what some proponents of same sex relationships being called marriages miss is that many of the actors want to get "married" in a church. Thus the attack fundamentally is not so much about marriage per se but it is a wedge attack on the wider issue of homosexuality and its acceptance within orthodox Christianity as normal, non sinful, sexual behavior.

I mean one has to be quite stupid not to see that is what is at stake, for why on earth would say an atheist or agnostic, who is a homosexual, give a fig's leaf about whether their relationships thus (via marriage) had the implicit blessing of Christianity or not. Civil unions then may be just what they do not want.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/29/2009 @ 9:08pm

LR,

thanks for your post. I know on sites like this, I'm howling into the wind.

I have stated a view on recognizing the right of states to issue civil contracts to all types of people which is clearly outside of the normal view of conservative Christians. And certainly it is not the normal view found among conservative pastors. But I believe that there is a way to let the secular world represent changing morals and still preserve the integrity of religious belief and the separation politically of both the church and state.

As is amply represented here, that is still not sufficient for the radical left. While most cannot bring themselves to admit it, this is about their attack on primarily Christianity, but actually against all major religions who do not accept redefining marriage.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/29/2009 @ 9:25pm
lrjones-Where are you guys getting the idea that the only people who have ever been called "married" are Christians?Where do you guys get the idea that every person who gets a marriage license and is married in a church is a repentant sinner who has perfect sexual standards and is sin free?Where do you get the idea that people are called civil unioned if joined by a judge,but married if joined in a church?Why do you believe that a gay person cannot be a Christian?Why are you paranoid and believe in anti Christian plots?

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2009 @ 9:29pm
It isn't just the radical left that sees no anti Christian or anti religion plot with the idea of gay marriage.That is particularly true since there are so few gay people.It is only irrationally paranoid people who see such plots,but as is known from history marriage has changed drastically,has been defined in many different ways,but still exists and continues to evolve, like all human traditions..The paranoid people will ignore historical reality and anything else related to the word reality ,of course,because that is what paranoid people do.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2009 @ 9:39pm
LRJones-Gay couples can already get married in a Christian church in all 50 states in America as long as a clergy person is willing to perform the ceremony.The issue is whether or not the married couple is given the same state license that straight people get.Legalizing gay marriage does not mean that the clergy has to perform the ceremony so this means nothing as far as getting married in churches is concerned.Gay couples can already do that..

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2009 @ 9:52pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/29/2009 @ 9:25pm

The position on marriage by virtually all religions, (as well as cultures) far as I have been able to ascertain, is as you say so it is interesting that Christianity is in the gun.

My discussion with Mask was not to deny that position but merely to point to the reality that the general Western understanding of marriage, even in law, is essentially an ideal Christian one in terms of its purpose(s), monogamy, participants and duration (as long as we both shall live). Other religions do not always have all these components but they leave little doubt about who is entitled to participate.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/29/2009 @ 10:00pm
LRJones-For most of Christian history children have been allowed to participate in your marriages,but that changed as society changed just as all traditions change as society changes.I know you guys are busy ignoring facts in favor of history revision and flowery theories about the ideals of Christian marriage,but we must stick to reality when looking at these issues rather than paranoid claims about anti Christian plots and, as you have already been told,gay couples can already participate in Christian church weddings in America making your claim that they are not already entitled to participate incorrect.All they need is a clergy person to perform the ceremony and such clergy do exist and already perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples..Guess what?Christianity and marriage still exist even though there are thousands of legally married gay couples and thousands more gay couples who joined by a Christian or other religious wedding ceremony.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2009 @ 10:37pm
The religions and cultures being mentioned by antisocialist and LRJones did allow or still allow adults to marry children so I,for obvious reasons,cannot find any moral reason to pay much attention to these peoples marriage traditions or give them any weight or meaning..

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2009 @ 11:29pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2009 @ 9:52pm 

Their position is that for any X individual congregation, activists want a gay couple to be able to come in and say "we want you to marry us" and the church to have to comply. That's the fear they're espousing, not the fear that there might be SOME church that would marry gays. They want to make sure that their church and churches who agree with them don't have to marry gays. The thing is...their fears are utterly groundless. The federal and state governments not only will never do that, but in fact they are constitutionally prohibited from doing so.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 12:17am
the homosexual movements that continue to push this acceptance of the term marriage or nothing else cannot reasonable be assumed to be anything other than an assault on the religious tradition of marriage.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 09:58am

Poor, poor Christians, under ATTACK from all sides.

What Bull.

Religious traditions include:

Brother in law marriage

Polygamy, yes in xtian rites.

no divorces allowed.

honor killings

forced marriages

marriage of under age girls.

---

It is homophobia plain and simple. 18,000 people have been joined in marriage in California, Larry lives in California. Larry, did you divorce your wife because suddenly your "marriage" means nothing? Did all the poor xtian heteroes sudenly become un-married? Did their love fall apart at the seams?

No, nothing happened to anybody. It is like your fear of Saddams wmd's, a myth, a fear based fear based on nothing. You have to be afraid or you can't live. As Thrawn sats, your fears are groundless, yet you continue to hold them. If you were a true libertarian, you would support equal rights for all. But, you are not a true libertarian, you are a Taliban libertarian with delusions of Unitary Executive power.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2009 @ 09:02am
Something tells me the conservatives wouldn't like to be judged one and the same as the lunatic fringe of their ideology...

Posted by TexasFlood at 05/29/2009 @ 12:18pm

But this isn't solely "a conservative" issue is it?

Obama's support past and present isn't just secular liberals, though the conservatives vie to portray it as such - "the lunatic fringe."

Really, there is "common cause" on this issue. There is a line drawn in the sand which must not be crossed.

Obama didn't shy away from his faith, just Reverend Wright's version. There are religious underpinnings, as well as secular moralities. This is an ancient debate, which defies political labels.

'Within the spectre of sexuality in ancient Rome, sources for Ancient Roman homosexual practice, and attitudes and acceptance of it are abundantly available. There are literary works, poems, graffiti and comments on the sexual predelictions of single emperors. Graphic representations are, on the other hand, rarer in ancient Rome than in classical Greece. Attitudes toward homosexuality changed over the time and from context to context, ranging from strong condemnation to quite open acceptance. Indeed, it was also purported to be one of the cultural facts of certain provinces.'

Wiki

Posted by OneVote at 05/30/2009 @ 09:19am
Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2009 @ 09:02am 

I assume this list of traditions reflects the past (i.e. some abandoned traditions) as well as the present? Moreover, this is only partially engaging antisocialist's argument; I'm pretty sure his response would be that many of these aren't founded in scriptural texts. The interesting thing is that if you can argue for some of them based on scriptural texts, antisocialist has to either dismiss them as not supported or directed only at their specific time, or admit that inerrancy is false (which it plainly is).

Also...I'll back antisocialist in this: he's not arguing from fear, he's arguing from what he believes the Bible says. It's a theologically-grounded response, not an "oh, ick"- grounded one. If you have grounds to the contrary, you should spell them out.

Posted by OneVote at 05/30/2009 @ 09:19am 

Here's the fascinating thing about that article, though: I don't think it really says anything about homosexuality. The accepted practices (where and to the extent they were) were ACTIONS. Homosexuality there, as in many places, was still conceived primarily as ACTIONS and NOT as a diametric opposite to heterosexuality. Why? Because virtually no one understood what homosexuality actually was until relatively recent times.

That may be part of why antisocialist's approach is "I know it's illegit because X is the standard, and this isn't X." He can't get to a straight (forigve the pun) attack on homosexuality because nothing in the Bible addresses homosexuality as such, so his only fallback is to say "fine, but the Bible prescribes X model for marriage, and since homosexuality isn't X, it's a sin." That's the ground he has to defend.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 09:32am
But, you are not a true libertarian, you are a Taliban libertarian with delusions of Unitary Executive power.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2009 @ 09:02am | ignore this person | warn this person

Pretty scary. Libertarian cover for a "religious majority" exerting their will. Of course, they never discuss the double edged sword of such philosophy, and how it might contravene constitutional rights of selected groups. These "libertarians" are posers. They wear their badge of hypocrisy without shame or reflection. Spot on Crab.

Posted by OneVote at 05/30/2009 @ 09:35am
Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 09:32am | ignore this person | warn this person

Great points Thrawn! Historically, Anti has little foundation for his current argument, but wants Biblical endorsement which just isn't there.

It is fascinating. And, you don't have to look back as far as Rome either. Say, the receding Ottoman Turkish empire in the early 20th century.

Posted by OneVote at 05/30/2009 @ 09:47am
Thrawn-I told LRJones that the clergy cannot be forced to marry anyone and not sure where they came up with the idea that the clergy could be forced to perform marriages.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 10:23am
'Verse 22 is translated in the King James Version as: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." As is amply represented here, that is still not sufficient for the radical left. While most cannot bring themselves to admit it, this is about their attack on primarily Christianity, but actually against all major religions who do not accept redefining marriage.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/29/2009 @ 9:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

What of the debate within your own Church? For instance, debate about interpretations of Leviticus.....

'If the verse is considered in isolation -- as it is most often done -- then a logical interpretation is that the verse condemns all sexual activity between two males.

If Leviticus 18:22 is considered in the context of its surrounding chapters and previous verse, then one might expect that it refers to some forbidden idolatrous activity in a Pagan temple from which the ancient Israelites must separate themselves.'

Homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 Context and analysis of Leviticus 18:22

Religioustolerance.org'

It might be more accurate to characterize your argument as attack on "your view" of Christianity. There are some believers within the church that don't view it as such.

Posted by OneVote at 05/30/2009 @ 11:39am
antisocialist needs to study history.Humans have redefined marriage multitudes of times and it was mainly his group of protestants who ended the idea that marriage was a religious sacrament as they eliminated the Catholic idea of sacraments.They do not live by laws in the OT so quoting them is pure hypocrisy.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 11:51am
So far,the Christian right has blamed gays for 9/11,hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters,our failure to win in Iraq,and are claiming that gays are attacking Christianity and marriage and plotting to bring these things down..Can you think of any other time in history when one group blamed another group for everything?Think 1930s Germany.It is quite sad that the sane Christians,like Thrawn,are being drowned out by the screams of the lunatic fringe and it is the lunatic fringe that is the loudest voice in Christianity in America.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 12:03pm
it's more than just antisocialist's reading of the Bible, it's also what i've already pointed out: homosexuality is something that makes him, and millions of others, very uncomfortable.

he's attempting (illogically) to do whatever he can to translate that uncomfortableness into some sort of line of reasoning against gay marriage.

i mean, he actually said that when he says two straight people holding hands on television, he looks away.

Posted by darladoon at 05/30/2009 @ 12:32pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 10:23am 

Right; that's my point. Here's how I saw it:

You: You can't prevent gay people from being married in churches because many couples can find at least one church willing to marry them

Anti: I just don't want churches to HAVE to marry gays.

All I'm saying is that you two appeared to be arguing on different wavelengths. I agree with you that his fear seemed groundless; I simply believed that you had misstated it.

Posted by darladoon at 05/30/2009 @ 12:32pm 

To give the most generous interpretation...is it possible that the relation between those things is something other than what you're describing? For instance, it might be that:

a) He thinks the Bible condemns homosexuality, and this leads to a reaction of revulsion to its sensory manifestations (i.e. seeing 2 guys hold hands)

b) His revulsion and Biblical attitude are separate phenomena, i.e. he both has the revulsion AND believes after honest reflection that the Bible condemns homosexuality.

Why simply assume that his Biblical reading is tainted by his own prejudices here when there's no explicit foundation to do so? I'm sure there are places where it is, just as I'm sure many of us subtly mold our theologies or philosophies around our own pre-existing prejudices. I don't think, though, that this entitles us to assume that's true anytime someone believes something that we believe to be mistaken or wrong.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 1:33pm
Thrawn-I was responding more to what LRJones said when he said that legalizing gay marriage would mean that they could get married in a church and I was trying to get him to see that gays can already get married in a church and that wasn't the issue and the license was the issue.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 3:26pm
'Verse 22 is translated in the King James Version as: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." As is amply represented here, that is still not sufficient for the radical left. While most cannot bring themselves to admit it, this is about their attack on primarily Christianity, but actually against all major religions who do not accept redefining marriage.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/29/2009 @ 9:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

What of the debate within your own Church? For instance, debate about interpretations of Leviticus.....

Homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 Context and analysis of Leviticus 18:22

Religioustolerance.org'

It might be more accurate to characterize your argument as attack on "your view" of Christianity. There are some believers within the church that don't view it as such.

Posted by OneVote at 05/30/2009 @ 11:39am

I have not raised any arguments based upon Leviticus.

And the only real debate on homosexuality is with what have become minor denominations like the Episcopalians/Anglicans and one branch of Methodism. And even there, the only support is among some in the UK and the US. the majority of that denomination do not support it.

Both the historic and the majority view is determined by those denominations that actually hold to the Bible being the Word of G-d.

As I've repeatedly stated, the first and foremost authority condemning homosexual activity is Jesus Himself. He condemned ALL sexual activity outside of the relationship of a man and woman who are married.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 3:27pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 3:27pm 

Your argument has to incorporate Levicitus for one simple reason: the only way you can extrapolate Jesus' teaching about marriage into a condemnation of homosexuality is (as I recall you saying) through your definition of fornication. That definition can come either from Jewish tradition or from Old Testament scripture. You've already basically conceded (via non-response) that Jewish tradition isn't a sufficient source, so your argument relies upon a scriptural concept of fornication that precludes the very concept of homosexuality. Levicitus is therefore key to your argument. It's not sufficient, since lacking any explicit condemnation you still have to extrapolate your position from Jesus' words, but without it your position has a very weak foundation indeed.

The debate is also not nearly that narrow; you're not taking into account both the disagreement within many individual congregations and the failure of many congregations to take a definitive stance. Finally...a minority of 1% can still be correct, and a majority of 99% can still be wrong. The standard of truth is merits, not a head count.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 3:37pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 3:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Liv - what about Thrawn's argument about your argument re Leviticus. How can you say that you haven't raised the issue of Leviticus if this is bedrock basis of your scriptural support? I thought you were pretty adamant about sticking to the word of scripture, and that you would disdain "pretend Christians" such as Unity Church.

So - do fundamentalists have right to be loosy goosey with the good book?

Curious also about you take on

'Traditional Christianity must change or die, says one of the foremost religious scholars of our time, and he believes the Unity movement may hold a key to Christianity's future. Retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, author of some two dozen books, most analyzing the Bible, spoke at a recent educational symposium on spirituality and theology at Unity Village.'

Pondering the Future of Christianity: Bishop John Shelby Spong By Ellen Debenport Unity.org

I believe you mentioned Episcopals and Methodists. Unity Church is another "minor denomination" that is pretty open minded on the issue - right?

Posted by OneVote at 05/30/2009 @ 4:33pm
<Curious also about you take on

'Traditional Christianity must change or die, says one of the foremost religious scholars of our time, and he believes the Unity movement may hold a key to Christianity's future. Retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, author of some two dozen books, most analyzing the Bible, spoke at a recent educational symposium on spirituality and theology at Unity Village.'

Pondering the Future of Christianity: Bishop John Shelby Spong By Ellen Debenport Unity.org

I believe you mentioned Episcopals and Methodists. Unity Church is another "minor denomination" that is pretty open minded on the issue - right?

Posted by OneVote at 05/30/2009 @ 4:33pm>

1. Thrawn continues to be wrong because I don't need to rely (and haven't) on Leviticus. I have centered my argument on the words of Jesus who is Himself the Word of G-d.

Jesus frames the argument in two ways.

A. He states that marriage as defined in Genesis (which predates the Law of Moses) is that of a man and a woman.

B. Jesus then declares that all sex outside of this marriage sacrament is sin and therefore separates you from G-d.

BTW, I'm not a Fundamentalist. I'm a pentecostal/evangelical.

As to Spong, he is a heretic through and through who denies all of the central tenets of Christianity, including the idea of a personal G-d, the deity of Jesus, the atonement of Jesus on the Cross, and the physical resurrection of Christ just to name a few.

http://www.canonlaw.org/article_spong.htm

you may find this series of debates between Spong and one of my mentors, Dr Walter Martin to be interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/csbaw6

Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 6:15pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 6:15pm

Well Thrawn has certainly outed himself.

Shelby Spong generally does a tour of Australia whenever he has a new book to promote. He's been here in o1, o3 and 07 his greatest fans are from Gay and Lesbian organisations. He is regarded by the growing and most important Anglican diocese in Australia as you have described him.

He is a promoter of the homosexual cause and the only way he can do that is to tear the person of Jesus and the biblical record to shreds. That is what has not occurred to those who quote him.

One doesn't have to be a theologian to know that this retired Episcopalian bishop is certainly not a representative of anything remotely representing orthodox Christianity. Spong is a left over from the 19C Higher Critical movement with an angle on human sexuality. He imagines he speaks to the modern world but fails to tell us why it is not listening to him as the evidence points in the other direction viz the fastest growing section of the Christian church, worldwide is the Evangelical/Pentecostal wing.

Spong's brand of "christianised unbelief" (he is at the extremes of the liberal movement) is what, even in a milder form, has emptied liberal churches in Australia and I'm sure in other parts of the world.

"Sydney Archbishop Jensen bans John Shelby Spong"

By Greg Roberts

The Australian

August 14, 2007

".. During a 2001 visit to Australia, Bishop Spong was banned by the then Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane, Peter Hollingworth, from Brisbane diocesan churches." (PH is himself a liberal)

"..Bishop Spong, a prolific author and longtime supporter of female and gay priests, retired as bishop of Newark in 2000.

"..Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Choir will perform for the bishop at a farewell service..."

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/30/2009 @ 7:40pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 05/30/2009 @ 7:40pm

I find it amazing that anyone even tries to quote Spong. His views are so off the wall that most Episcopalians have long since abandoned any sense that he belongs among them. Which is probably why he spends most of his time now with Unity which doesn't care what you believe. You can be a Buddhist and belong to Unity.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 8:35pm
Thrawn,

I don't want churches to have to marry gay people either. I cannot think of a single gay person who would want to ruin their wedding day knowing they "forced" a minister/priest/whatever to do the ceremony (and I know a few gay radicals). In the gay community (as with straights) it's a service about love...not politics. That argument, that gays are going to "force" churches to marry them, doesn't even pass the common sense test. I think the fact that it is a service based on love is what truly scares these people: "Well shucks, SOMEONE has to be miserable, and we can't pick on the Jews, blacks, hispanics or crippled anymore, so let's get the gays and use the Bible to justify it."

Just yesterday, out here in La La Land, several ministers/priests/whatever came out and stated that they will not be doing ANY marriages until marriage for everyone is allowed. When told that could be a while, one African-American minister said, "I can wait." And this was AFTER he said that marrying people is his favorite thing to do. I applauded.

However, I still find it amazing that people who profess to follow the teachings of the Christ, who never said a word about homosexuality and said a lot about everyone loving each other in his name, use the Bible as a weapon of discrimination. Because that's exactly what they're doing: using the New Testament as a weapon to cover up their fear. I find that to be shameful. I'm wondering if they ever will. Anti...?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/30/2009 @ 9:47pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 8:35pm

Romans 1 is the definitive exposition of the Christian position on man's rebellion against the rule of God. There can be no doubt that amongst the long list of symptoms of that rebel posture, to which by nature everyone of us is an heir and unfortunately a willing practitioner, lesbian sex and male to male sex gets a mention. It is interesting that the temporal judgment, for that form of idolatry or creature worship, is to be given over to a reprobate mind. That is a very powerful word to use and its implications are enormous.

It seems to me that the theologian of the NT in this treatise provides the matrix to understanding his comments in 1 corinthians, 1 Timothy and also Jude's reference to the topic and of course the Christian understanding of the OT references. Paul's focus is not on the prescribed OT penalties, because every act of rebellion against God is worthy of death but to sheet home our alienation from him. Homosexual sex, he tells us, is just a subset of the symptoms of that alienation.

(It is in that context the reconciling Christian gospel is exhibited as the answer to our rebellion against God's rule over us. Incidentally "Islam" is what God demands, so our Muslim friends agree with orthodox Christians on that fundamental).

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/30/2009 @ 9:48pm
The fact that Anti is a Pentecostal/evangelical explains everything.

Anti...I will no longer argue with you about religion because you know two things:

1. You're right. You're always right. 2. Everyone else is wrong. Always wrong.

I grew up near a big Pentecostal church in Austin, Texas and knew many kids who went there. They were the most intolerant, un-Christian "christians" I had ever met and they knew they were right and everyone else was wrong. Even the local Southern Baptists were more forgiving and loving...and that's saying a lot.

The experiences I had with the congregation of that church have colored everything I believe about religion. And not in a good way. They are among the most unforgiving of any denomination of Christ, and in my opinion, have completely warped and distorted Jesus' teachings about love. Because to them it's not about love, it's about power.

Anti, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because you know I'm going to hell, and I know that hell was created by the church to scare people into obeying the hierarchical orders, not because Christ wanted people to live in fear. Christ is all about love. Love will conquer all in the end.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/30/2009 @ 10:06pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 05/30/2009 @ 9:48pm 

Right off the top, the ONLY kind of homosexual sex (note, not homosexuality, homosexual sex) is man to man. Lesbian sex is NOT referenced.

That said, let's go to the only other argument that has any legs: Jesus' teaching on marriage. First off, he says nothing explicitly about homosexuality. That should be noted right at the top. That means that the only foundation to rest on is what Jesus says about the framework of marriage, and I really think this is the hardest argument to defeat. My response is simply that as in other cases, we must differentiate an exclusive statement from an inclusive one. He says that a man and a woman come together in marriage, BUT note the purpose of him saying so: God has created this union and it should not be sundered lightly. He NEVER makes an exclusive statement there, nor was there any purpose of doing so. He talks about the DEPTH of the bond, not its composition.

But what about later teachings about fornication? This is actually an easy KO to inerrancy. Paul says that fornicators, etc. will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. This is plainly false, and Jesus himself says so (see his statement to the thief on the cross). Paul isn't saying "those who are fornicators and don't repent go to hell," he says "those who are fornicators go to hell," so there's no dodging the problem.

No one back then had any concept of what homosexuality was; this has NEVER been responded to. This makes the burden of proof very high for those claiming that the Bible still condemns it. That burden hasn't been met.

Finally...the Spong mention is a strawman (at least of my position). I'm not defending Spong, and certainly not defending his positions regarding the crucifixion, resurrection, etc.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 11:57pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 11:57pm

In talking with persons my parent's age I've discovered that most of them did not know very much about homosexuality except that there may have been a rumour, sort of wink, wink, nudge, nudge generally about some old fellow who was a bit queer because he couldn't get a woman. Such expressions are indicative of that general unawareness.

I've been thinking about my own situation, I mix with a wide range of people some well some less educated and I know of only one male who is an openly homosexual person. He is a friend's brother-in-law. I guess the only reason I'm aware of the issue is because of the media's interest in it and a very vocal lobby pressing for things like the recognition of same sex marriages.

Now given that, it's not too hard to imagine in Jesus' day, in a Jewish society with its religious prohibition on homosexual acts there was not even much winking and nudging going on. In other words it would have been an irrelevancy that would have had his listeners scratching their heads.

That is a pretty good reason for the silence of Jesus on the issue. Further his awareness of his mission also meant he was not condemnatory about other transgressions of the law. The heart of his mission, he tells us is not to judge, but save.

However the "saving" is not societal but rather soteriological. So transgressions of the law (sins) are not unimportant (he tells the adulterous women to sin no more) for he has come, he tells us, to save his people from their sins.

However when we come to the sophisticated, highly educated Saul of Tarsus, familiar with Greek philosophy and Rome's intellectual as well social life, he was a Roman citizen, we have a person who knows all the sex was not heterosexual as indicated in the following.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/31/2009 @ 03:18am
In the quote, from Romans 1, below it is a bit hard to see that Paul has anything else in mind except homosexuality, which no doubt he had noted in his reading of Greek history was a practice not unknown to the Greeks. Of course he seems to have had wanderlust and no doubt knew the same activities were practiced around the Roman Empire. Though when he wrote this he had not yet been to the city of Rome.

" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools And exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "

This portion deals with what obviously is male on male sex. Some pro-lesbian commentators have suggested, in the case of the ladies, that bestiality is in view. However "in the same way the men" means the better exegesis is that he is referring to female same sex acts.

Inerrancy is not really the issue but rather how each side would exegete passages like this.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/31/2009 @ 03:53am
"...it is a bit hard to see that Paul has anything else in mind except homosexuality..."----Posted by lrjones4

There is some discussion of THAT with Paul as well....heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/31/2009 @ 07:21am
Finally...the Spong mention is a strawman (at least of my position). I'm not defending Spong, and certainly not defending his positions regarding the crucifixion, resurrection, etc.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 11:57pm

I'm sorry Thrawn I read too quickly and did not realise it was OVs post and not yours until I checked it out just now.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/31/2009 @ 07:35am
Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 11:57pm

I think Thrawn that we need to look at the words used as you seem to be saying that it is possible Paul is referring to heterosexual men having male on male sex.

Now let us be quite blunt. A true little Mr. Heterosexual always remains limp in the presence of men. Always. Dead as a dodo. (Quite the opposite in the presence of a woman). That's a truly heterosexual man for you.

The form of words Paul uses is "burned in their lust toward one another". It is not possible for heterosexuals to react in that way.

Sometimes it is said that pederasty, which was common among the Greeks was what was being condemned but the idea of a passive younger partner is also, by those words, ruled out.

Remember Paul lived in Roman times and "in the early days of the empire pederasty was considered a degenerate Greek practice and as such was generally forbidden or not done. "(wiki)

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/31/2009 @ 07:44am
Cont.

Or this also from Wiki: "Within the spectre of sexuality in ancient Rome, sources for Ancient Roman homosexual practice, and attitudes and acceptance of it are abundantly available. There are literary works, poems, graffiti and comments on the sexual predilections of single emperors.

Graphic representations are, on the other hand, rarer in ancient Rome than in classical Greece. Attitudes toward homosexuality changed over the time and from context to context, ranging from strong condemnation to quite open acceptance. Indeed, it was also purported to be one of the cultural facts of certain provinces.

In discussing such attitudes, it is fundamental to recall that the term "homosexuality" is entirely problematic for the ancient world since there is no single word in either Latin or ancient Greek with the same meaning as the modern concept of homosexuality.

Although it again and again becomes apparent that bisexuality was more the norm, even the ancient authors agree that there were ancient Roman men who had sexual relations exclusively with men."

Given that cultural environment and the word form that Paul uses we are left, I suggest, with no options other than that Paul is describing male on male sexual activity by what we now call homosexual men.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/31/2009 @ 07:47am
'Now let us be quite blunt. A true little Mr. Heterosexual always remains limp in the presence of men. Always. Dead as a dodo. (Quite the opposite in the presence of a woman). That's a truly heterosexual man for you.''

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/31/2009 @ 07:44am | ignore this person | warn this person

Spong is put forward as a differing opinion - that there isn't a "united front" on this issue.

Secondly, if your test above is valid, why worry? I thought part of "the concern" was seduction of those who might be tempted, and the removing social barriers and obstacles to such a choice. I am not buying into the argument that your only concern here is with sanctity of marriage. I think your fear here is making homosexuality socially and culturally acceptable right?

Posted by OneVote at 05/31/2009 @ 08:02am
Lesbian sex is NOT referenced.

Posted by Thrawn

Thrawn it is important to see what is being said and how the cultural context shapes it.

Here is the word form: "… God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones."

Some may respond and say well if we accept on face value that lesbianism is in view then it is saying too much.

Others also wanting to avoid such a conclusion have suggested that "unnatural" is referring to heterosexual anal intercourse and not a lesbian sex act.

So let us look at what natural and unnatural sexual relations were in contemporary society:

• Same-sex activity between females was thought of as unnatural in the Graeco-Roman culture of Paul's time because such activity involved one of the women having an active penetrative role, thus acting like a man. This contravened the cultural view that only men should be the penetrators and women should always be passive in sex.

• Many ancient Greek and Roman non-Christian authors depicted sexual relations between females as unnatural. The authors include Plato, Seneca the Elder, Martial, Ovid, Ptolemy, Artimedorus, Pseudo- Phocylides. For details see Chapters 2, 4 and 6 of Bernadette J. Brooten, Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, 1996.

• The use of likewise or in the same way (men) means that same-sex activity is referred to in both cases.

• Anal intercourse between women and men generally carried no stigma in ancient Roman society. No known ancient source defines anal intercourse between women and men as unnatural. Therefore Paul would have no reason to call male-female anal intercourse unnatural.

Which leads us back to lesbian sex acts being in view.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/31/2009 @ 08:53am
Posted by OneVote at 05/31/2009 @ 08:02am

OV if you had followed what I said you would have got some inkling that I think there is an almost universal religious and cultural view about marriage that precludes the use of the word for same sex relationships. (The discussion with Thrawn is about how certain bible passages on the topic of homosexuality should be understood).

I was pretty pleased when our parliament a few years ago voted overwhelmingly, both on the right and left, to reaffirm that cultural view of marriage.

Same for your Proposition 8. It means that the law is not the plaything of activists but still reflects what the community believes and feels.

In a democracy it seems to me that a powerfully didactic thing like the law should not become a tool of indoctrination for minority points of view.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/31/2009 @ 09:33am
I return to the website this morning and to my delight, I find that my esteemed web-friend, lrjones has addressed most of the rebuttal points, and quite elogantly, I might add.

Well done sir.

Let me add an addendum to your points.

Easily forgotten by critics in forming their attempts to remake the context of NT scripture, is that a central element in any attempt of hermeneutics, must be the context of the words spoken.

Thus, who the words were directed towards, meaning, the existing culture, and the idioms of speech must be foremost in understanding the text.

1. These were all Jews

2. The Jews as stated by G-d, were selected by Him to bring light to the world of the one true G-d. That meant that His personage, His character (holiness), and His view towards mankind could be known in a singular way. That would bring clarity whereas the rest of the world had innumerous understandings of who or what a supreme being was and how man responded to this supreme being.

3. The importance of following all the commandments of the true G-d were also defined by Him as resulting in either blessing for obedience, or cursing (being in a stated of removal of blessing and protection) for disobedience. This G-d explained, also allowed the world to see, that the true G-d's standards were different from what the rest of mankind practiced.

Thus we can know that when Jesus addressed the Jewish people, it was entirely within this context. And given that context:

A. No Jew who was trying to walk in the blessings of G-d would ever consider marriage outside of what G-d established in Genesis.

B. Likewise, no such Jewish person would engage in the sexual practices of the pagans (defined as all others except the Jews).

continued

Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 12:26pm
continued addendum to my previous post at 5/31/2009 12:26pm

Thus there was no necessity for Jesus to address what was already known to be absolutely forbidden.

Jesus spent little if any time addressing the practices of those outside of Judaism. It was not relevant to why He had come to place Himself in and among humanity. He came aside from His atoning sacrifice to affirm the reality of the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that it was indeed the true G-d who had been speaking to and providing for the Jews throughout the centuries.

We do see where Jesus did address whenever he confronted the attempts to bring in the traditions of men to either add to scripture or to bypass it.

Thus Mark 7 finds Jesus rebuking them for their hypocrisy in that they called themselves followers of G-d, yet they had instead become followers of their own traditions.

This speaks directly to this issue of homosexuality.

There are found here and in the everyday discourse, those who call themselves Christians who are now trying to supplant or even replace the word of G-d with their own traditions. Those who do so, stand just as rebuked and separated from Christ as did those who did so 2000 years ago.

Even more sinister are those outside of Christianity who want to redefine what they believe Christianity should believe.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 12:36pm
We only have a tiny portion of the teachings of Jesus,none in their original language,and are far removed from that time,place,and culture.Few of the teachings of Paul exist.Making vast conclusions based on so little information is meaningless.Two authors took selected teachings from the book Mein Kampf and created a perfect and peaceful community from the teachings of hitler to show how pointless it is to take bits and pieces of teachings and drawing vast conclusions from those.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/31/2009 @ 12:46pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/30/2009 @ 10:06pm

First of all, I'm sorry you had such a terrible experience. You were vague, so I have no idea which denomination (if any) that the church was part of.

Pentecostal/evangelicalism touches across many denominations and beliefs so your blanket condemnation seems to reflect a bigotry rather than an informed conclusion.

Secondly, you don't cite any specifics about the "intolerance" you said you encountered. Thus, it is impossible to know whether your accusation is justifiable. If you found them reflecting personal intolerance, that certainly is an issue I can agree with you upon. If it was because they felt that their obedience to Christ required them to not compromise the teachings of Christ, then you are being intolerant and not them.

In genuine Pentecostal/evangelical churches, love is at the center of all that is taught. The only power that is ever to be sought is the power from the Holy Spirit to a) resist temptation, b) defeat the devil and his demons, and c) demonstrate the reality of Jesus as Lord and Savior to the world. None of those speak to personal power or power for earthly gain.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 1:25pm
I know that hell was created by the church to scare people into obeying the hierarchical orders, not because Christ wanted people to live in fear. Christ is all about love. Love will conquer all in the end.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/30/2009 @ 10:06p

Your assertion that the Church created hell is patently false. It was described in the OT. This has produced endless debate in Judaism resulting primarily in a concept similar to purgatory for most. Rabbinical teaching leaves hell only for the worst of the worst. It was based upon speculation and a denial of what scripture had declared.

Daniel 12:2 declares, "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence."

Psalm 88:4-7 I am sated with misfortune; I am at the brink of Sheol. I am numbered with those who go down to the Pit; I am a helpless man abandoned among the dead, like bodies lying in the grave of whom You are mindful no more, and who are cut off from Your care. You have put me at the bottom of the Pit, in the darkest places, in the depths.

The uncertainties, the lack of full understanding of the after life (Olam Ha-Ba-the world to come), were answered/resolved by Jesus. He declared that He held the authority of Judgment and that He would be separating into heaven and hell, just like the shepherd separates sheep and goats (Matthew 25 also Matthew 13). Jesus declared the truth about the world to come.

In fact, if you look at the gospels, Jesus taught more about the coming Judgment then He did life on earth.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 2:10pm
antisocialist comes on here and tells people on the left that he enjoys laughing at their ideas and makes other similar types of put downs,promotes cluster bombs,and other such things and then says that his brand of the religion is all about love.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/31/2009 @ 2:10pm
Wow, there is a LOT here to cover. I hope this doesn't take more than two posts, but it might.

BTW, lrjones, no hard feelings on the Spong thing. :D

As an overview, there are three areas of contention thus far, with the bulk of lrjones' energy being spent on the first

1) Does the Bible have any concept of homosexuality?

2) Do Leviticus/Paul condemn homosexuality, and if so, is that sufficient?

3) Does Jesus' model of marriage prohibit homosexuality.

FIRST, whether the Bible has a concept of homosexuality. I think jones actually makes the most compelling argument against my position that I've ever seen. That said, however, I don't think it survives. To begin with, the citation of Levicitus simply begs the question; Leviticus contains no concept of homosexuality beyond actions (which is precisely the problem I raise; it CAN'T be defined solely by actions), and unlike Paul, it says absolutely nothing about lesbian sex.

Your point about Jesus not coming to condemn the world's transgression is, I think, on point. The implication, however, is that it immediately falsifies inerrancy because it cannot be reconciled with Paul's statement that fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. That, in turn, means that we need not take everything Paul affirms as correct.

So let's talk about Romans 1. I actually think it's very telling. It says that men had sex with men and women with women, but ALSO says specifically that those relationships were lustful. That strikes me as hugely important; precisely which element is Paul condemning? Moreover, his presupposition that homosexuality is unnatural (and thereby can be explained only as lust) is an assumption that our human experience seems to render problematic.

Continued

Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 2:50pm
In fact, I think you even concede this point when you say that there was not even a word back then for what we now call homosexuality. If there was no word to describe it even in Jesus' day, the only foundation your argument can possibly have is from Jesus' own conception of marriage (which I'll get to in a moment).

So, on TWO (some of which I've already dealt with), I think the foundation is rather weak. Your analysis of "naturalness" in Paul is also extremely telling. The rationale that the ancients held, you say, is that sex between men was unnatural because the penetrated partner should always be female, and the female should be passive in sex. If that is the foundation of Paul's understanding of naturalness, I think that gives us even better justification to reject it; it's inconsistent with how Jesus regarded and treated women, and represents the same mentality as that which says women cannot be pastors.

Somewhat related is antisocialist's argument that Jesus didn't need to address homosexuality because everyone knew it was forbidden. This, of course, begs the question of whether the scriptures plainly say that (Levitivus, for instance, is at best ambiguous), but also proves too much. If your logic were correct, he would not need to address ANY points of Jewish law.

For what did Jesus continually attack the Pharisees? He never remotely suggested that they weren't legalistic enough; he said that their legalism had gotten in the way of their love for one another, and of the purposes behind the law. He broke Jewish tradition on the Sabbath and ate with sinners (putting the lie to "God can't stand the presence of anyone tainted by sin"). Unless my recollection is mistaken, Jesus never attacked them for being too tolerant.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 3:00pm
So let's go to the final issue, the one on which I think the most hinges (and the one which lrjones says surprisingly little about): whether Jesus condemns homosexuality by implication.

I won't take much time to address it because my primary response has not been dealt with. Precisely what was Jesus saying? He was responding to someone who asked about the legality of divorce, and he said that a marriage should not be severed except under the most necessary of circumstances because it was a sacred institution. His purpose was affirmation of marriage's meaning, not affirmation of its exclusiveness to male and female.

Moreover, if no clear concept of homosexuality existed (as lrjones seems to tacitly concede), that might explain why he didn't address it; the people to whom he was speaking would be baffled.

I finally would like to leave a question to antisocialist: do you believe that those who defend gay marriage from within the Christian tradition are either condemned or are seeking to corrupt the church? My own thought is that seeking to reconcile the God who reconciles people and breaks down barriers with verses that appear to condemn homosexuality is an inquiry that should be conducted thoughtfully but openly. I completely respect your position, but I would ask you to also consider mine.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 3:06pm
In a democracy it seems to me that a powerfully didactic thing like the law should not become a tool of indoctrination for minority points of view.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/31/2009 @ 09:33am

Ah.....so there is a "bigger picture" here, aside from sanctity of marriage. Well, I am thinking a minority group in NW Territories that wasn't given the right to vote until 1962.

Posted by OneVote at 05/31/2009 @ 3:47pm
Thrawn-We have no idea if Jesus addressed the issue of homosexuality or not.We only know that it was not included in what little was included in the Gospels.It is quite unfortunate that we do not have most of the story and teachings available to us.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/31/2009 @ 3:49pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 3:06pm

Absolutely they are violating G-d's commands. Romans 1 makes that point very clear. And that point is consistent with OT teaching on corruptibility

In Ezra chpt 10, we have Ezra condemning the men who had taken pagan wives. He notes that they had brought guilt upon all of Israel by their actions.

This returns to a central point that I made in my 5/31/09 12:26pm post; As with the Jews being separated from the rest of civilization, so it remains under the new covenant with Christians.

In fact, sanctification actually means to be set apart. We are as Christians to be set apart from the world and the ruler of this world (satan). And in the setting apart from the world and it's corruption, we put on the holiness of G-d. This is why the NT often interchanges sanctification and holiness

In John 17:13-21

"But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me"

next step, understanding the sanctification role

Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 4:23pm
understanding sanctification

<God's purpose for choosing Israel as His peculiar treasure is stated throughout the Bible. Israel was called to be an example and a channel of blessing to the rest of the world. While followers of Jesus were commanded to be His witnesses by carrying the Gospel to the ends of the earth, Israel was to be a witness to God by being obedient in the Land He had given them. Thus all nations would see and understand the blessing that He showers on those who obey Him. The Gentiles would also consider the curse that accompanies disobedience. Exodus 19:5-6; Deuteronomy 28; 29:24-29;I Kings 8:41-43; 9:4-9; 10:24; Isaiah 41:20; 42:6; 43:10-12, 21; 44:8; 60:3; Jeremiah 22:8-9; Zechariah 8:23; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8; I Corinthians 10:11.>

http://www.edhaor.org/Purpose.html

Leviticus 22:31-33

"Therefore you shall keep My commandments, and perform them: I am the LORD. You shall not profane My holy name, but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel. I am the LORD who sanctifies you, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD."

Exodus 28:41

"So you shall put them on Aaron your brother and on his sons with him. You shall anoint them, consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister to Me as priests."

Joshua 7 deals with the result of mixing our status as sanctified with the things of the world

verses 12:13

"Neither will I be with you anymore, unless you destroy the accursed from among you. Get up, sanctify the people, and say, ‘Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow, because thus says the LORD God of Israel: "There is an accursed thing in your midst, O Israel; you cannot stand before your enemies until you take away the accursed thing from among you."

next, NT role

Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 4:53pm
In a democracy it seems to me that a powerfully didactic thing like the law should not become a tool of indoctrination for minority points of view.

Posted by lrjones4 at 05/31/2009 @ 09:33am | ignore this person | warn this person

Hmmm........democracy eh? Would this be democracy on initiative of John Howard?

'Friday the 13th of August was a Black Friday for Civil Liberties in Oz.

With an Election looming, the Prime Minister finally got his wish and forced the Parliament, with the support of a supine Opposition, to pass the US Free Trade Agreement, an anti-terrorism bill that further increased the grounds on which citizens could be held without trial, and his pet desire; the same-sex marriage bill. The original marriage act was not in any way restrictive, and would have allowed all types of unions, but the homophobic PM and his religious allies have inserted the phrase "between a Man and a Woman".

Of course the definition of Man and Woman are subject to interpretation, but have no illusion about what this means for same-sex couples; we are inferior, and have no legal rights.

The local LGBTI communities have been protesting and marching, and this may help some of the minor political parties, such as the Greens and Democrats, who have been vigorously supporting our community, but it doesn't look good.

Homophobia is alive and well, and kicking holes in the wall in Australia.'

http://www.ifge.org/Article27.phtml

Posted by OneVote at 05/31/2009 @ 6:11pm
Howard's social agenda:

As part of a new social agenda to accompany his economic agenda (later documented in the "Future Directions" manifesto), Howard promoted the traditional family and was antipathetic to the promotion of multiculturalism at the expense of a shared Australian identity.[38] The new agenda's immigration policy, One Australia, outlined a vision of "one nation and one future" and opposed multiculturalism.[33] In a radio interview discussing multiculturalism Howard suggested that to support "social cohesion" the rate of Asian immigration be "slowed down a little".[39] The comments divided opinion within the Coalition, and undermined Howard's standing amongst Liberal party figures including federal and state Ministers, intellectual opinion makers, business leaders, and within the Asia Pacific. Prime Minister Hawke moved a motion to affirm that race or ethnicity would not be used as immigrant selection criteria to which three Liberal MPs crossed the floor and two abstained. Many Liberals later nominated the issue as instrumental in Howard subsequently losing the leadership in 1989.[40]

Later in 1988, Howard elaborated his opposition to multiculturalism by saying "To me, multiculturalism suggests that we can't make up our minds who we are or what we believe in."[33] In line with "One Australia's" rejection of Aboriginal land rights, Howard said the idea of an Aboriginal treaty was "repugnant to the ideals of One Australia"[33] and commented "I don't think it is wrong, racist, immoral or anything, for a country to say 'we will decide what the cultural identity and the cultural destiny of this country will be and nobody else."[41]

Source: Wiki

Posted by OneVote at 05/31/2009 @ 6:17pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 4:23pm 

The impact of your position is then that for any disagreement, however reasonable, about what God commands, anyone who things God doesn't command something and is wrong is condemned. Jesus NEVER defended anything close to that. In fact, he didn't even say that people who knew what the Commandments were and violated them were condemned. The fact that Romans DOES basically say that violators of commandments are condemned is a crystal-clear proof that inerrancy is false.

I'll give you at least three independent warrants for my claim that Jesus definitively does not say that:

1) The accused adulteress. I don't think there's any dispute in this story that she did what she was accused of. Despite that, and without her even asking Jesus' forgiveness (crucial detail), he says "neither do I condemn you." Yes, he also said "Go and sin no more." Does that mean she was condemned if she sinned again? No. It means that she shouldn't.

2) The prodigal son. I think I've made this argument plenty of times already. Again, the father seeks NO preconditions before forgiving his son.

3) What you're describing here isn't grace, it's law. If the standard for not being condemned (by which I assume we both mean "not going to hell") is following the law, no one gets to heaven. In no universe is that grace, nor does it make any sense with your own Atonement theory.

You also can't say "well, maybe people get forgiven, but only for specific things they mention." Not only is THAT nowhere in the Bible, but it's both too much and too little. It's too little because some pro-gay rights activists ask God for forgiveness if they're wrong. It's too much because it's contrary to Jesus' testimony.

Jesus' paradigm is grace, not works.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 9:58pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 9:58pm

Thrawn, I keep trying to discern where you get your theological understanding from and the only place I've ever seen the kind of thought similar to yours expressed is with the new age movement.

Your arguments run counter to all of the apostles, the early church fathers, and reform theology since Luther.

1 John 1:

<If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.>

We know because we have not yet been perfected that man has moments of failing (sin). But we have the advocate so that when we sin, we find fresh renewal of grace. However as Paul among others notes, grace is not license.

Further as stated in Hebrews 10:26

"Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins."

Your prodigal son reference always ignores that the son confessed his sin before the pronouncement of forgiveness. Furthermore, in soteriology, forgiveness was already made for us at the cross, but we cannot receive it until we confess our sins and acknowledge Jesus as Savior.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 10:45pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 10:45pm

As an overview, none of what you have just posted warrants the position you took in your previous post. In the previous post, you said (effectively) that we are condemned if we violate God's commandments. For that statement to be true, grace can't exist. The two are, by necessity, mutually exclusive.

The closest thing to a defense of this position in your most recent post is the statement that willful violation of the commandments leads to condemnation. Two problems with this. First, you then run into an issue with Paul; Paul came out and admitted not only that we all sin, but that he sinned even though his deepest being would rather not be sinful. In other words...EVERYONE commits willful sins. Second, Jesus explicitly repudiates it. Your lack of response to the adultery case is telling because I think that it, perhaps more than any other example I've raised, undercuts the argument you make here. The prodigal son parable does so as well. The prodigal son recognizes that he has sinned, but at no time is he even given the chance to ask forgiveness of his father. Grace intercepts judgment.

Your soteriology statement also begs the very question that's been under discussion. The two stories I reference, plus the theological refutations that have met with inadequate response, make this position extremely problematic.

Finally, if your standard is tradition, your position fails as well. The position of inerrancy is a relatively new phenomenon; the Catholic Church has rarely, if ever, accepted it, and Luther certainly didn't. Some books, like James, endorse a position that is heavily works-based. Jesus explicitly repudiates that. This invalidates your soteriological position and inerrancy simultaneously.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 11:15pm
To clarify slightly: my final point is two-prong. First, tradition doesn't swing in favor of inerrancy. Second, some of the reasons that prominent people in Christian theological tradition (ex: Luther) didn't favor inerrancy was because they thought there were some serious theological problems in some books. My argument is: they were right. There are passages in the New Testament letters that defend a works-based position which Jesus explicitly rejected.

So...the first prong refutes any defense of inerrancy from tradition, and the second prong refutes it on the merits.

Posted by Thrawn at 06/01/2009 @ 08:00am
'It is homophobia plain and simple.' -- crabwalk

'Because that's exactly what they're doing: using the New Testament as a weapon to cover up their fear.' -- Stephen_Carver1

'I'm a Christian. ..., and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.' -- President Barack Obama

Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/01/2009 @ 08:17am
Posted by Thrawn at 06/01/2009 @ 08:00am | ignore this person | warn this person

I think you are really hitting it Thrawn. Inerrancy has to be based on absolute literal and not figurative interpretations. Anything less is the opinion of man. As a Pentecostal Evangelical, Liv carries a heavy burden in that if any of what he preaches is tainted by his personal beliefs, then he is preaching heresy. Inerrancy itself, as theory, likely carries that taint. Man is fallible, and scripture is not stenography. Unless scripture is written by the hand of G-d, it carries the taint of creed, opinions, and agendas of men.

'Because as Pentecostals we believe that the Bible is the perfect, inerrant, inspired word of God; then we are, through this word, made aware of the power, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit available to all who believe and accept Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

We believe that salvation is by the grace of God not the works of men. In other words, there is nothing you can do in and of yourself, no amount of good deeds, traditional religious observances, or self-sacrificing oaths, that can change the sinful nature of mankind that keeps us separated from God. All you can do is realize that you are under the same curse of sin as everyone else; acknowledge your need for redemption; repent, or turn away from your sins, and invite Jesus into your heart; then confess Him to others as your Lord and Savior. In an effort to simplify an answer that could get quite lengthy and wrapped up in a great deal of theology, suffice it to say that Pentecostal belief has as its foundation, the whole word of God, uncompromised by the creeds, opinions, or agendas of men.'

Lorain County FreeNet Chapel - Excerpt from Ask a Minister

Posted by OneVote at 06/01/2009 @ 08:21am

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)
Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)
Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)
Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)
Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)
Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)
D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)
Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)
Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)
Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)
Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)
Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)
Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)
Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)
Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)
Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)
Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)
Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

The President of Paradox

posted by Laura Flanders on 05/28/2009 @ 06:00am

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» Altercation

The President of Paradox

posted by Laura Flanders on 05/28/2009 @ 06:00am

Share this article

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» Altercation