SCLC and Marriage Equality

posted by Melissa Harris-Lacewell on 07/13/2009 @ 7:59pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (246)

Subscribe Now

At Sotomayor's confirmation hearings senators are debating the relative merit of empathy as a professional attribute of a Supreme Court justice. Republicans spent Monday morning arguing that empathy impedes the cool rationality to which justices should aspire, while Democrats argued that empathy improves judicial decisions because it allows judges to imagine the full impact of their choices.

Whether or not empathy impedes or facilitates jurisprudence may be up for debate, but the importance of empathy for social justice movements seems obvious.

The effectiveness of the mid-century Civil Rights Movement rested on generating empathy among fair-minded whites appalled by the brutal mistreatment of black citizens in the South. One reason that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. targeted Birmingham, Alabama was his expectation that police chief Bull Connor's violent overreaction to protestors would elicit national empathy for the cause of civil rights and full equality. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail is a classic political treatise calling on the empathetic impulses of white church leaders.

This history of politics and empathy was violated by the SCLC this week. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), an organization founded and led by Dr. King, is considering dismissing the president of its Los Angeles chapter because of his vocal opposition to Proposition 8. During the 2008 election the SCLC officially took a neutral position with regards to California's Proposition 8, which stripped gay men and lesbians of the right to marry. With his national organization silent on the issue, Los Angeles SCLC chapter president Rev. Eric P. Lee worked hard to oppose the measure. In a display of political empathy Lee explained "it was clear to me that any time you deny one group of people the same right that other groups have that is a clear violation of civil rights and I have to speak up on that."

Now Reverend Lee has been summoned by the SCLC's national board to explain his advocacy on behalf of marriage equality or face being removed from his position.

There are so many things wrong with this. At moments like this I wish I were a snarky comedian, political cartoonist, or smart satirist rather than simply a college professor. Somehow those media seem better suited to capturing the ridiculousness of the SCLC's behavior. But let me try.

Simply put a national civil rights organization that takes a "neutral position" on an issue of basic civil rights does not deserve to exist. Whatever the personal beliefs and prejudices of individual leaders of the SCLC, the organization's mission as a "nonprofit, non-sectarian, inter-faith, advocacy organization that is committed to non-violent action to achieve social, economic, and political justice" requires that it stand forcefully against efforts to impose second class citizenship on an entire group simply because of identity.

In my view, the failure of the SCLC as a national organization to defend the dignity and equality of LGBT families disqualifies it as a civil rights organization.

The SCLC cloaks its support for inequality in religious rhetoric. I often hear the argument that religious African Americans are somehow required to be homophobic and to oppose marriage equality because of their deep commitment to Christian doctrine, practice, and belief. But this ignores that the primary distinguishing characteristic of African American Christianity is its rejection of oppressive biblical interpretation in favor of embracing a liberating and loving God. White enslavers used substantial biblical evidence to assert that God condoned slavery and required their meek submission to it.

But black people rejected this chapter-and-verse Christian perspective and instead embraced a more holistic Christian narrative centered on a God who loved all God's children equally, even if the text sometimes suggested otherwise. There is no reason why a people with this libratory religious heritage must submit to reactionary, oppressive leadership on same sex marriage. Empathy should remind us that we know better.

Homophobic black clergy do not speak for the entire black Christian community. Though they receive dramatically less media attention, many African-American religious leaders, like Reverend Lee in Los Angeles, are encouraging acceptance and inclusion in their congregations and communities. African-American Christians have long resisted readings of the Bible that exclude and oppress. Enslaved blacks were admonished to "obey their masters" but they believed the story of Moses leading his people from bondage. Jim Crow religion told black people to be silent about oppression because the "meek shall inherit the earth," but Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. called for "justice to run down like waters and righteousness as a mighty and ever-flowing stream."

At Sotomayor's hearing on Monday many Republicans senators engaged in deliberate forgetfulness about American history. They spoke of the Constitution as though it is an infallible document and of American history as though it were a pristine narrative of equality. The SCLC seems to also have forgotten the complexity of its history. They behave as though they don't remember that the architect of 1963 March on Washington was Bayard Rustin, an openly gay black man whose fierce pacifism and commitment to non-violence is the very basis of King's strategy. Without Rustin there is no March on Washington, no sustained nonviolent movement in the South, and therefore no 1964 Civil Rights Act and no 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Bayard Rustin in all his gay, brilliant, brave, blackness is a cornerstone of the SCLC. Virulent opposition to marriage equality defames the memory of their own son. This is not only about empathy; it is about self-knowledge.

LGBT communities and black communities are not separate constituencies. They are overlapping communities full of our own brothers, sisters, daughters, friends, preachers, and choir directors. To oppose equality of any kind for LGBT individuals is to oppose equality for black people. They are us, we are them. Empathy reminds us of that basic truth.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote from a Birmingham jail to express his grave disappointment in his fellow clergy because they failed to support the struggle for equal rights and human dignity. But even King failed in the issue of fairness and equality for gay men and lesbians. King ultimately caved to the anti-gay impulse of his day and distanced himself from Rustin; shunning the man who'd trained and supported him. But the SCLC can do better than that today. They can finally fulfill King's demand for justice and bring to fruition the broadest vision of beloved community.

Civil Rights organizations whose traditional role has been addressing racial inequality must be equally vigilant about advancing LGBT rights. Our history demands a politics of empathy.

Comments (246)

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You to the authors.

Letter from a Birmingham Jail has always been an inspiration to me and seemed particularly relevant to the struggle for LGBT civil rights (marriage, housing, employment, etc.), especially the part about being told to wait for a better time to get equal rights. I am deeply touched by this piece. Thanks again.

Posted by Qj at 07/13/2009 @ 8:29pm
With all the greatness and empathy displayed by MLK, he still had struggles with it at times when it involved gay issues of the time. Maybe, just maybe the new leaders of the SCLC if allowed by its national board will go where MLK could not.

Posted by larrytsr at 07/13/2009 @ 8:46pm
empathy is defined as: the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

conservative judges like antonin scalia say their job is to interpret the constitution as the founders intended it to be interpreted. seems to me even the most conservative judges would have to admit "empathy" is required just to do the job.

Posted by urmygyro at 07/13/2009 @ 8:47pm
Thanks for this in depth article and the passion and good will towards all of humanity that shines through! Check out Brother Outsider for an in-depth look at the ouster of Bayard Rustin from SCLC and CORE. The history of out LGBT African Americans is often unwritten but this film does a terrific job! You can order it at rustin.org where they keep the dream alive for all free peoples!

~Faith, labicenter(dot)org and binetusa(dot)blogspot(dot)com

Posted by thefayth at 07/13/2009 @ 9:45pm
Homophobic black clergy do not speak for the entire black Christian community.

Let's put that in plain unadulterated language rather than the usual guise used to advance the homosexuals activism inspired deceptive lies seeking forced acceptance of their perversions of sexuality!

"Any black clergy (or white) that believes that the Holy Bible is the inspired word of God who speaks against the practice of homosexuality as it plainly does in many books, chapters, and verses is a Homophobe!"

--------------------------

God who loved all God's children equally, even if the text sometimes suggested otherwise.

Now this is just a blatant lie which is unsupported by any scripture in the New Testament (ie Gods new covenant with all flesh). For one, God is no respector of persons, all are the same in his eyes! God loves all his creation, but makes it clear that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God! "If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" Homosesuality is clearly a sin against God, but one that can be forgiven!

Posted by BigPasture at 07/14/2009 @ 12:01am
And James Baldwin.

Posted by sloper at 07/14/2009 @ 03:17am
Posted by BigPasture at 07/14/2009 @ 12:01am

And yet the Bible is "just fine"...

with slavery. Isn't it?

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 07:39am
Thank you, MLH, for prioritizing this piece in an otherwise exiting week for "civil rights" in America. The contributions of Mr. Rustin have long been ignored and undervalued.

Posted by MamaTor at 07/14/2009 @ 08:13am
Does this mean that Mr. Ricci should be allowed to marry one of his fellow (male) firefighters, but should still be denied promotion? Just wondering.

Posted by Mistral at 07/14/2009 @ 08:28am
Posted by Mistral at 07/14/2009 @ 08:28am

Didn't it turn out Ricci was hired ...due to affirmative action? That he claimed disability as a dyslexic?

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 09:05am
What does Bayard Rustin have to do with same sex marriage? Did he support same-sex marriage?

This appropriation of his image to illustrate an opinion about an assimilationist liberal movement seems at odds with Dr. King and Rustin's struggle for self-determination.

Posted by bangpound at 07/14/2009 @ 09:50am
I think he actually claimed he was discriminated against because he was dyslexic, rather than that he deserved special consideration because he was dyslexic, but I'm not very familiar with that part of the news story.

Posted by Mistral at 07/14/2009 @ 10:59am
MASK, the Bible is 'just fine" with slavery because in those days almost evryone was 'just fine" with it. Using what was a culturally common thing then to judge beliefs today in order to make the book look hypocritically is a cheap trick used too often today and is frankly beneath you. The Southern Planters used the appropriate passages to justify the institution in the face of growing opposition to slavery in the nineteenth century. But thats man, not God.

And the Jews have a sect of their faith, not modern or orthodox, sort of mid-ground, that believes that certain changes are allowed in behavior depending on the changes of the times, so not accepting slavery anymore does not put one in conflict with the Bible.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/14/2009 @ 11:01am
To me the solution is simple, government shouldn't be in the position of granting anyone a "marriage", but rather allow all people to enter into civil union contracts and leave the term of "marriage", due to the religious overtones, to churches.

The problem that I have with the current debate is that it really isn't over the rights of one group or another, but rather the demand that homosexuals are really making - they want acceptance of what they do forced on the majority. The other issue is where does it end? Under the guise of civil rights, what about being able to marry multiple people, underage people, animals (just kidding). The slippery slope argument is valid and no matter what their rights may be, no one can be forced to accept what they fervently opposed based on their religious beliefs

Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/14/2009 @ 11:16am
"I think he actually claimed he was discriminated against because he was dyslexic...."----Posted by Mistral at 07/14/2009 @ 10:59am

So he wanted THE GOVERNMENT to intervene on his behalf in a matter of employment??!??!?

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 11:20am
"MASK, the Bible is 'just fine" with slavery because in those days almost evryone was 'just fine" with it. "-------Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/14/2009 @ 11:01am

CHIP, if you want to argue that the Bible is not "eternal" or "for all ages"...but linked only to the time period in which it was written...

your fight won't be with me, will it?

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 11:22am
I think actually the government agency (the Fire Department) cast the first stone by sticking it to him on account of his race (or earlier, his dyslexiq - maybe HonestLiberal can get the real story on that, I'm really not familiar with the facts there).

Posted by Mistral at 07/14/2009 @ 11:50am
And yet the Bible is "just fine"...

with slavery. Isn't it?

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 07:39am

Sort of. The Bible is "just fine" with slavery the way it is "just fine" with war, famine, and disease. Slavery, war, famine, and disease are inevitable in the development of humanity. They are things we should strive to eliminate, just like lust, hatred, greed, and envy. The last four are private feelings that in the individual are sins. Slavery, war, famine, and disease are not individual actions or feelings and are not individual "sins" but are not good.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 11:51am
To me the solution is simple, government shouldn't be in the position of granting anyone a "marriage", but rather allow all people to enter into civil union contracts and leave the term of "marriage", due to the religious overtones, to churches.

Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/14/2009 @ 11:16am

Religion has nothing to do with marriage, they have only in recent history co-opted the term. From wiki 'For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.'

More of a business agreement, which is really all that same sex couples are asking for. I am not religious, I am married. I do not have a civil union. If the religous need a special term they can create one. Otherwise they should get the F out of my life. In the past I have suggested some appropriate terms:

Canonical Conunubiality Sacerdotal Sacrament Piestic Merger

Granted these are just some suggestions, for terms that the religous can claim title to. Marriage is not historically a religous term, and I for one am not ok with the religous stealing it from the rest of society.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 12:03pm
It all seems like a hang up on terminology then. I really don't care who uses what name, but being pragmatic, given current cultural norms and looking to make this more palatable to the majority, what would be the harm in reserving the word "marriage" for religious use?

Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/14/2009 @ 12:11pm
nice post. agree with her or not, ms. harris-lacewell consistently contributes well thought out, interesting, in depth, and thought provoking posts.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:11pm
My letter to the SCLC:

The SCLC's threat to fire Rev. Eric P. Lee over his opposition to Prop 8 is disgusting -- it's neither Christian, nor supporting of Civil Rights.

I have both a gay brother and sister, each of whom has been with their partner over 30 years -- the denial of their civil rights has very real negative effect on their lives.

For instance, my brother may be about to lose his job of 15 years (they've already laid off 32 people in his firm) -- which means losing his health insurance at age 55, as an epileptic.

The only reason he can't be put on his partner Larry's insurance is because they're prohibited from marrying in their state.

In other words, my brother's health is threatened simply because of prejudice, and denial of the basic civil right to marry.

My brother and his partner have owned a home for over 20 years, were forced to take out a second mortgage to make repairs on that 60 year old house, and they could lose their house because of the denial of basic civil rights.

Even though each has contributed to the Social Security system for over 40 years, if one should die the other can't collect Social Security benefits -- again, simply because of prejudice.

Coretta Scott King supported civil rights for all, including the gay community -- I am horrified that the SCLC would besmirch the name of one of it's founders to wallow in prejudice.

Posted by judybrowni at 07/14/2009 @ 12:12pm
Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 12:03pm

There are three definitions of marriage: 1) A life-long committment between two people; 2) A religous ceremony or sacrement; 3) A State-sanctioned contract

The first definition is a result of the biological prediliction humans (like many animal species) have toward life-long pair bonding. (The radical increase in life expectancy over the last two centuries has impacted divorce rates.)

Cleary, wiki isn't refering to the first definition when speaking toward, "most of European history". Most of European history is millions of years and there have only been written records for several millenia.

Now as to you statement that "religion has nothing to do with marriage", insofar as religion is a central organizing principle for cultural life, the life-long pair bonding is a central organizing principle for cultures and has everying to do with religion.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 12:12pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 11:51am

Absolute Poppy Cock! Maybe You should read the bible...

In Exodus 21 the guidelines for the buying, selling and treatment of slaves is given. God says in verse 4 that if a male slave marries, his wife and children shall remain with the master when the slave departs because technically speaking they belong to the master. Now if the slave is imprudent enough to protests because he loves his wife and children and wants to stay on, the consequences can be pretty drastic. In verse 6 the master is directed to "Bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever". This is all repeated with some minor alteration in Deuteronomy 15:16-17. Here the master is told to "Do likewise to your maid slaves." In Exodus 21:7-9 God even instructs men how they are to go about selling their own daughters into slavery. Here it is worth noting that many church officials including popes have owned slaves5.

In Joel 3:8 God warns that, "I will sell your sons and your daughters to the Judians, and they shall in turn sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off." In case you are still unconvinced, try 1 Tim. 6:1-2; "Let slaves regard their masters as worthy of all honor." Matthew 10:24 and John 13:16 remind us that slaves are never better than their masters. Women take note that in Titus 2:9-10 slaves are ordered to, "Be submissive to your master and give satisfaction in every respect." Also check Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22 which say, "Slaves obey your master."

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 12:13pm
MASK,

Somehow I doubt it. :)

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/14/2009 @ 12:14pm
as the proud anarchist pointed out above...

marriage sanctioned by your church, civil union by your civil authorities.

got it? solves a gigantic non-problem AND aligns more perfectly with our constitutional separation of church and state...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:19pm
In other words, my brother's health is threatened simply because of prejudice,

My brother and his partner have owned a home for over 20 years,

Even though each has contributed to the Social Security system for over 40 years,

Posted by judybrowni at 07/14/2009 @ 12:12pm

1) Your brother's health is threatened because our health system is tied to employment, not because of marriage.

2) If you own a home jointly, your marriage status has nothing to do with wether you keep the home or not.

3) For married couple a spouse gets the greater of his or her SS benefit or half of the spouse's benefit. If they have both paid taxes for 40 years, 100% of his own benefit should be greater than half of his partners so marraige is irrelevent.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 12:20pm
Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 12:13pm

I guess that's why I'm not a fundamentalist. I've been told fundamentalists believe each word in the Bible is equally important as every other word. I believe that some parts of the Bible are more relevant today than other parts.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 12:27pm
Now as to you statement that "religion has nothing to do with marriage", insofar as religion is a central organizing principle for cultural life, the life-long pair bonding is a central organizing principle for cultures and has everying to do with religion.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 12:12pm

Nice specious argument there. If x = b then b must = x. WRONG!

I personally don't care if the religous use the term marriage. It is there right. What bothers me is the attempted theft of the word. To attempt to alter its multiple meanings and uses so that they can claim ownership of it. The term marriage is a historical term, been around for thousands of years in various forms. Just because some religous have ideological issues with the gay and lesbian community does not grant them right to pee all over the term, marking it like a dog.

Just because the religous can't be open minded and accepting of others does not mean that society should have to give up the rights to a common term. If they want a term of their own, let them coin it. Have their blessed bindings, whatever.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 12:27pm
Nice homophobic try, but "1) Your brother's health is threatened because our health system is tied to employment, not because of marriage." is WRONG: my brother will need healthcare the day his COBRA (if he can afford it) runs out, not some theoretical day in the future when healthcare isn't tied to employment.

And he will be denied that healthcare NOW because their state denies them marriage (and even civil unions) and both their policies only allow the married to include spouses.

2) If you own a home jointly, your marriage status has nothing to do with wether you keep the home or not. WRONG AGAIN.

3) For married couple a spouse gets the greater of his or her SS benefit or half of the spouse's benefit. If they have both paid taxes for 40 years, 100% of his own benefit should be greater than half of his partners so marraige is irrelevent. WRONG AGAIN: one of their salaries is much higher than the other, so has contributed more to Social Security.

But nice homophobic try to ignore or obscure the denial of basic Civil Rights.

Posted by judybrowni at 07/14/2009 @ 12:34pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:19pm

Sorry, but no thank you. How about we solve it by giving the religous fanatics the term "regligous union"? That would be just as fair, no? Let society as a whole keep the term marriage.

How about this for a compromise. Let the term marriage be used by anyone who has joined in a union. Then as a sub-definition it would be more specific. Those joined for societal purposes would be civil union, those joined for religous puproses would be a religous union.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 12:37pm
Back in the dark ages, the main stream press did not report on the sexual activities of public officials or political activists. Their views on the issues or their political positions were the focus of reporting. Even Hollywood was relatively discreet. Gay rights did not come into focus, until gays came out of the closet, and started demanding their rights. The Civil Rights movement was mainly about bringing African Americans and minorities into the mainstream. Now is the time for gay rights. I think we can anticipate progress and success in securing those rights.

Posted by pjcasey at 07/14/2009 @ 12:41pm
Also: If my brother dies from no healthcare, because he's prohibited from marrying his partner of 35 years, and therefore can't be put on his partner's health insurance policy, YES AGAIN, his partner loses the house because of the loss of that second income (even if it's only unemployment insurance.)

So again, nice homophobic try to obscure the very real negative effects of the denial of basic civil rights for this specific gay couple.

Nice nitpicking, too. Really attractive the way you're willing to throw my brother's health to the wind, in order to try to make some homophobic point.

Posted by judybrowni at 07/14/2009 @ 12:44pm
Also: If my brother dies from no healthcare, because he's prohibited from marrying his partner of 35 years, and therefore can't be put on his partner's health insurance policy, YES AGAIN, his partner loses the house because of the loss of that second income (even if it's only unemployment insurance.)

So again, nice homophobic try to obscure the very real negative effects of the denial of basic civil rights for this specific gay couple.

Nice nitpicking, too. Really attractive the way you're willing to throw my brother's health to the wind, in order to try to make some homophobic point.

Posted by judybrowni at 07/14/2009 @ 12:45pm
Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 12:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

well, folks who were never officially married have been calling themselves "married" for a long time. common law marriage notions arose as a response to this situation early, but again today...the self identification of "marriage" does not necessarily translate into a state sanctioned marriage license...

what is RELIGIOUSLY important here is NO CONCERN OF THE CIVIL STATE, unless it infringes upon the constitutional rights of others...

the civil state of the couple is what concerns the civil authorities, and therefore simply remove the religiously charged word "marriage" and keep it "civil".

the beauty is that many christians opposed to gay "marriage" have little or no problem with a change in semantics and PREFER to have sole power over the institution of "marriage" within the context of their folds...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:46pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 11:51am

Oh?

Can you cite some Scripture that indicates a desire to end slavery?

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 12:46pm
the beauty is that many christians opposed to gay "marriage" have little or no problem with a change in semantics and PREFER to have sole power over the institution of "marriage" within the context of their folds...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

my question to folks on both sides is this...

do you want a solution, or do you want a fight? if a solution is possible without a fight, why not consider it?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:52pm
PREFER to have sole power over the institution of "marriage" within the context of their folds...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 12:46pm

Sorry, I am against a policy of appeasement. Marriage is a charged word, agreed. My wife and I are married, we were married by a judge, with little to no relavance to God, or religion. I do not consider myself civily united. I am married. I don't care if its not sanctioned by some silly church.

Just because a certain sector of society is bigoted and exclusive does not mean the rest of society should cave, just to appease them. At least I will be a voice against it. I see the religous assault on marriage as unwarrented and unecessary. While giving them the term marriage would appease them for now, it would not be the right thing to do.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 1:02pm
Posted by judybrowni at 07/14/2009 @ 12:34pm

You're new here, so I'll tell you I'm no homophobe.

Item #1, you're brother is free to purchase an individual policy. If he can't afford it, he should be eligible for Medicaid.

#2 if you brother's parnter were married to a woman who died, and he didn't have life insurance to protect against the premature loss of income due to early death, then he'd still lose his house. Again, marriage has nothing to do with the property rights of joint tennetcy.

#3 It is not enough to have a higher income. It must be at least twice as high, but less than the SS maximum of about $100K in order for the spouse's benefit to be twice as high as the individual's benefit.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 1:23pm
Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 1:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

i don't know if it matters, Ex. i'm advocating not only a compromise, but a compromise which i really believe would be closer to the nature of our system and ideals as well...

under my solution you can go on calling yourselves "married" all you want, and suffer no ill effects in terms of your relationship. you can even join or form an agnostic/atheist church of civil pseudo-religion or whatever and "marry" yourselves or obtain a piece of paper that says you are "married" to file away with the government issued "civil union" piece of paper...

or...we can fight fight fight like itchy and scratchy over semantics and miss an opportunity to resolve once and for all a distracting, divisive, and irritating non-issue.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 1:23pm
The word marriage has never been just a religious term that only referred to those joined by a religious ceremony and it never will be.What about gays who would want a religious ceremony?Would they be called married while the others not called married?The idea that we are supposed to ask everyone what kind of ceremony they had in order to know what to call them is silly and will not happen,either.I've known atheists who got married in a church to make their families happy so what would we call them?

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 1:31pm
Can you cite some Scripture that indicates a desire to end slavery?

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 12:46pm

No, I'm not good at citing scripture. I know Moses wandered in the desert for 40 years and never got to see the promised land because that's how long it took (two generations) to rid his people of their acceptance of slavery. I know the Bible implies this is a good thing, but I can't cite a scripture that supports it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 1:34pm
Also: If my brother dies from no healthcare, because he's prohibited from marrying his partner of 35 years, and therefore can't be put on his partner's health insurance policy, YES AGAIN, his partner loses the house because of the loss of that second income (even if it's only unemployment insurance.)

So again, nice homophobic try to obscure the very real negative effects of the denial of basic civil rights for this specific gay couple.

Nice nitpicking, too. Really attractive the way you're willing to throw my brother's health to the wind, in order to try to make some homophobic point.

Posted by judybrowni at 07/14/2009 @ 12:44pm

Your posts show that you are not agitating for civil rights. You have an anti-Jewish, anti-Christian agenda against the norms of traditional marriage.

BEHAVIOR IS NOT A RIGHT. Free speech is a right, secure in your possessions is a right, assembly is a right, firearms are a right, a speedy trial by your peers is a right, no forced self incrimination is a right. but healthcare and marriage are not rights. Healthcare is a service and marriage is a religious sacrament that in recent history has been adapted as a contract by each of the states.

You want to change the laws of states regarding contracts between individuals, then push to change the contract laws in your state. But stay out of trying to destroy religious traditions that date back over 4000 years.

Pastor Larry Robinson

Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 1:51pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 1:23pm

We may be closer on this than it appears. I am not concerned with the legalease used. If no one recieved a marriage certificate from the state I could accept that. If instead all people recieve is certificate of unification or whatever. But I have issues if only those who are married under "god" receive 'marriage' license or certificates. I don't care what the state calls it as long as it is universal for all.

What I have issues with is a fundamental change in the definition of our vocabulary soley to appease bigots.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 1:53pm
antisocialist-You have not shown that being pro gay marriage is anti Jewish or anti Christian nor have you shown that marriage is strictly a religious tradition and have been provided facts that show that many Protestants viewed marriage as a civil matter and not religious making your claim dishonest,but I find it amusing to see protestants suddenly claiming that they always loved Catholic sacraments.Making it up that marriage has only been a religious thing is dishonest and will only work on those ignorant of history and religious traditions.Even in the Bible marriage is not a religious matter which is why many Protestants did not make it a religious matter or believe it to be religious matter..

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 2:04pm
Item #1, you're brother is free to purchase an individual policy. If he can't afford it, he should be eligible for Medicaid. BULLSHIT: Yeah, because health insurance companies are lining up to insure 55 year olds -- his COBRA alone would be $1,2000 a month -- and do you fucking know how difficult it is to get on Medicaid? Apparently not, or 47 million Americans uninsured would be insured. Even those who qualify for disability have to wait TWO YEARS sick and with not enough money to pay for health care before they can get Medicaid.

#2 if you brother's parnter were married to a woman who died, and he didn't have life insurance to protect against the premature loss of income due to early death, then he'd still lose his house. Again, marriage has nothing to do with the property rights of joint tennetcy. BULLSHIT: The point is, MY BROTHER WILL BE DENIED BEING PLACED ON HIS PARTNER'S HEALTH INSURANCE SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE GAY AND DENIED THE BASIC CIVIL RIGHT TO MARRY. MY BROTHER WILL BE DENIED HEALTHCARE (AND POSSIBLY, HEALTH ITSELF) BECAUSE HE'S GAY.

MY BROTHER AND HIS BOYFRIEND HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM FOR OVER 40 YEARS , YET BECAUSE THEY'RE GAY, THEY WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO THE SAME BENEFITS AS THE HETEROSEXUALS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED THE SAME AMOUNT.

THESE ARE JUST TWO EXAMPLES OF THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON REAL LIVES FROM THE DENIAL OF BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS FOR GAYS.

(Sorry for the caps BUT Mr. I-swear-i'm not a homophobe is trying to bury us in irrelevancies for SOME reason, to obscure the real points, and deserves to be shouted at.)

Posted by judybrowni at 07/14/2009 @ 2:04pm
Can you cite some Scripture that indicates a desire to end slavery?"---Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 12:46pm

"No, I'm not good at citing scripture.....I know the Bible implies this is a good thing, but I can't cite a scripture that supports it."---Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 1:34pm

No expert, yet you KNOW that "The Bible is "just fine" with slavery the way it is "just fine" with war, famine, and disease."----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 11:51am

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 2:04pm
"You have an anti-Jewish, anti-Christian agenda against the norms of traditional marriage."---Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 1:51pm

Curious, Larry....what is the "logical progression" between two people, two men or two women, wanting to have the same right to be a legal couple...

and them "hating Jews and Christians"?!?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 2:06pm
I think we have an agreement then.... how simple it is not to have to pander to interest groups, right or left and come to a sensible solution. A civil union contract for all and leave it up to people to call their union whatever they please.

Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/14/2009 @ 2:12pm
But stay out of trying to destroy religious traditions that date back over 4000 years.

Pastor Larry Robinson

Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 1:51pm

A totally faulty and incacurate statement. Marriage starting with the greeks, was not religous. It was not religous with the romans, it was not religous with the first christians. As I stated earlier its foundations and history is one more as a business arangement. The first involvment by the churches was just to register marriages, not to condone or sanction them.

So Larry, why don't you read a little history and try not to be such a bigot.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 2:19pm
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/14/2009 @ 2:12pm

Agreed.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 2:22pm
Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 2:19pm

I think he's going to "up the ante" and go back even farther to a "garden" in Mesopotamia...heheh

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 2:22pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 1:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

i'm sure that were my perfect solution, above, instituted...the term "marriage" would in common vernacular, be regularly substituted for and confused with the term, "civil union"...

what i find eminently hopeful and "cool" is that my perfect solution actually appeals to a broad ideological cross section of our political spectrum, from traditional christians like larry (ANTISOC), to vaguely religiously defined or a-religious anarcho-libertarians like PROUDLIB, as well as squishy secularist lefties galore...

if a redefining of terminology can result in a more harmonious and secure society...what's the problem?

with some 50% of "marriages" crashing and burning regardless...i truly wonder just how sacred and seriously most folks approach the institution regardless of sexual orientation or religious belief...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 2:27pm
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 2:22pm

Right but then he will have to explain how god condoned all the incestual relationships that must have occured if Adam and Eve were truly the first man and women.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 2:32pm
Wow, never been referred to as "vaguely religiously defined or a-religious anarcho-libertarians like PROUDLIB"

I'm actually a recovering Catholic that is bored with organized religion, due to its sole interest in squeezing money from me at every turn. I somehow doubt that God (however he/she/it is defined) selected a group of people who's sole purpose is to tell me how to relate to him/her/it and decide if I've lived a good life or a bad one. I believe in the tenets that Jesus (the philospher)laid out (treat others as you would be treated, charity, compassion, etc) and I try (though sometimes fall short) to be a decent person

Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/14/2009 @ 2:39pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 2:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

While I agree with your solution as being the way to get what everyone wants technically, I think I have to side with Extraneous because allowing the religious fanatics to lock up the term marriage for themselves so they can feel more "specialer" is like giving into a two year old everytime they whine and it doesnt help anyone in the long run.

Posted by horselover-fat at 07/14/2009 @ 2:40pm
And your posts, "Pastor Larry Right" reveal you're a homophobe, and a liar, to boot.

And your bias is showing: I haven't written about my religious viewpoints one way or the other, and yet you tar me as "anti-Christian and anti-Jewish." And in the face of many Christians and Jews, ministers and rabbis, who support gay civil rights.

You also have no real understanding of religious history: the institution of marriage predates Judaism, the Jews of the Old Testament were both polygamists and slave owners, and the Bible upholds those "values."

The early Christian Church did not concern itself with marriage between men and women for several hundred years, considering it a secular matter.

But there is historical evidence for some sort of Christian committment-like ceremony between men, well before Christianity began to include marriage between men and women as a sacrament.

You're an ill-informed, and ill-educated and yes, a bigot, using your own narrow twisted view of religion as a mask for your bigotry.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by judybrowni at 07/14/2009 @ 2:41pm
ibb-Redefining terminology in order to separate one group from another excludes equality.The KKK does not recognize mixed race unions and wants those called something different and this would be no different.Humans have always used the same word for the different unions and trying to get to people to change that will not happen unless we are forced to and that I cannot go with.What would you call gays joined in a church?The divorce rate is through the roof and the anti gay marriage crowd should focus on their own marriages rather than worry about whether or not others can get married.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 2:43pm
Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 2:32pm

"Where did Cain's wife come from?"

Apparently it wsa okay with God to nail your sister in the Early Early Days (Pre-Moses).

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 3:06pm
Curious, Larry....what is the "logical progression" between two people, two men or two women, wanting to have the same right to be a legal couple...

and them "hating Jews and Christians"?!?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 2:06pm

Because as I have often stated, if this was merely about having "equal" rights, then the homosexual lobby would be pushing to have all states issue civil union contracts to everyone whom they wish and leave the term marriage to religious organizations. But many in the homosexual lobby say that is not enough. They want to be considered the "same as heterosexual couples" in a traditional marriage. Repeatedly, I have seen homosexual organizations and spokespersons note that they want to tear down the intrusion of traditional faiths into defining marriage.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 3:10pm
antisocialist-Your explanation made no sense nor were you able to show any anti Jewish or anti Christian views on the part of people in favor of gay marriage.The term marriage has never been only applied to those who have been joined by virtue of a religious ceremony nor have religious people referred to the different unions by different terms and use the word marriage, like everyone else.You are a Protestant and Protestants do not have a history of viewing marriage as a strictly religious thing which has been proven to you.You are revising history in order to make your case.Every time we turn around we discover that another conservative Christian is committing adultery or getting a divorce so concern yourself with your people and get your own backyard cleaned up because it is the divorce/adultery rate that has cheapened marriage and not gays.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 3:23pm
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/14/2009 @ 2:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

i consider libertarianism a highly devleloped form of anarchism, which is also the highest level of political organization the frontal lobe challenged adolescent brain can conceive of...

sorry for the cheap shot, just showing you the respect of honesty...

;)

but as a bad buddhist i'm a firm believer in action/reaction.

if anyone goes into marriage under self serving "happy-ever-after" delusions (and most do), the natural reaction will be disillusionment and if one insists upon holding onto sweet lies, fantasies, and unrealistic expectations...

don't matter one iota what you call it, "marriage" or "civil union" or whatever...probably not going to last and nothing sacred about it in the first place.

--------------------------------------------

horselover and nobody -

again, first of all i think the term "civil union" simply more accurately describes the institution we refer to as "marriage", as defined by state sanctioned/recognized union...

beyond that, if you consider yourself "married" and some private citizen does not...

SO WHAT?

i mean really...everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs regardless of how repugnant you or i may feel about such...your outrage at their lack of acceptance of your lifestyle choices is probably obversely mirrored by their disdain for your lack of what they consider correct belief or doctrine...

but such considerations do not really matter when it comes to hammering out compromises in a democratic society.

changing other people's opinions is a tricky business. changing your own approach to dealing with obstacles is ultimately your surest option and in the long run can change others...

but not all...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 3:25pm
Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 2:32pm

"Where did Cain's wife come from?"

Apparently it wsa okay with God to nail your sister in the Early Early Days (Pre-Moses).

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 3:06pm

And the issue arose again when Noah's three sons, Shem, Japheth and Ham began to repopulate the earth.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 3:32pm
ibb-The anti gay marriage crowd is free to refer to such unions differently,but most people will not.I'm not gay.I'm one of those who has ruined marriage by having so many wives.I love women and am a bit of a homophobe,but am working on that.I used to be homophobic to the extreme, like most bikers,but am becoming more enlightened when it comes to that subject.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 3:38pm
You're an ill-informed, and ill-educated and yes, a bigot, using your own narrow twisted view of religion as a mask for your bigotry.

Posted by judybrowni at 07/14/2009 @ 2:41pm

1. No Orthodox Jewish Rabbi nor any Christian Pastor that believes the Bible to be the Word of G-d upholds any legitimacy for homosexual behavior, much less marriage other than that of a man and a woman.

2. We know that the Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage dates back over 4000 years, and by the words of Jesus, it actually goes back many thousands of years earlier to Adam and Eve. The OT scriptures did not uphold either polygamy or slavery as G-d approved "values". G-d tolerated these behaviors more rather than approving of them. But as Jesus stated, this was not His ideal for mankind.

3. The early Jewish/Christians maintained the Jewish ceremonies including those for marriage. For Gentiles, they allowed local tradition to be controlling.

4. There is no such record of Christian homosexual marriages or of any other religion. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism to name the other 3 major faiths do not embrace homosexual relationships.

And like most leftist agitators, absent a compelling argument, you result to calling those who adhere to their faith as "homophobes". It's not fear of man, rather it is a reverent fear of G-d. And the Bible makes it clear that not only do those who practice homosexual behavior deserve spiritual death, but all who condone their behavior do likewise. I'd rather obey G-d then try and accomodate someone's perverse lifestyle choices.

I could be wrong, but I would safely guess that I am more informed and better educated than you are. I have over 40 years of study in this area. The bigotry charge seems more directed towards yourself.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 3:41pm
Ibb-Ludwig von Lichtenstein said all the questions of morality are really questions of linguistics. If he's right than this is the perfect example. Marriage, civil union semantics, honestly I think the whole institution of property management is running its course to obsolete. So even though the outcome has no hold on me and that i'm not homosexual, I'm just in it to support LBGT rights. And any chance to stick it to the religophiliacs you should take it in my opinion.

Posted by horselover-fat at 07/14/2009 @ 3:48pm
Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 3:32pm

Oh, sure, wasn't just ONCE at the start....at the "re-start" after the Flood, God was saying "Okay, boys, I know you've been eyeing your baby sis on that boat ride...now ...Go for it!"

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 3:54pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 3:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person

lol...

i'm a hetero-divorcee myself and a certain degree of homophobia is kinda natural in adolescents struggling to understand who they are and what their orientation/image is...

and habits learned early in life are hard to unlearn. the unlearning is ALWAYS harder than the learning...

i just came to know a lot of homosexuals over my life and firmly believe that for the majority, their sexual orientation really really really is NOT much of a choice...

certainly all possibilities exist - life is complicated - but i have a hard time denying to people who were probably born a certain way...something like "marriage" to the one they love.

honestly i sometimes wonder if increased rates of (open, accepted?) homosexuality may not be some nebulous form of natural population control. which is fine with me - WAY too many shaved apes farting on this world already, and the more gay males there are...

THE MORE STRAIGHT FEMALES FOR ME!!!!!

plus nothing like a cool gay dude to get a nagging malcontent of a wife off one's back from time to time..."sure, honey...i don't mind if you go out dancing with your gay male friend...really!"

so gay guys, please...FAG ON!!!!

HOOOOOWEEEE!!!!

lol...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 3:57pm
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 3:54pm

I know this is a terrible digression and I am living up to my moniker, but maybe there was some element of bestiality involved. Might be one of the reasons we are no longer living to 300 to 1000 years of age.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 4:02pm
I'll preface this comment with a statement that I have gay relatives and friends, I can't imagine the attraction of the same sex, but its their choice....

If homosexuality was indeed genetic and not a choice, wouldn't it have long ago been "bred" out of the species??

Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/14/2009 @ 4:14pm
ibb-I got to know some gays and concluded that it was natural for them no matter how I felt about it for me.I,too believe that over population is why we are seeing more gays.Nature does take care of itself as best it can and I do along with nature..

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 4:16pm
If homosexuality was indeed genetic and not a choice, wouldn't it have long ago been "bred" out of the species??

Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/14/2009 @ 4:14pm

Not if it were carried in a recessive gene or gene combination that determines sexuality. Where the recessive gene is only expressed in individuals that inherit soley the recessive alleles from their parents. It is potentially multiple genes that comprise sexuality and would help to explain bi-sexuality.

Additionally, if it is a choice, at what age did you choose to be hetero? Do you think it possible that one day you may just CHOOSE to be homosexual? This just not seem possible to me.

There is potentially an environmental component to the gene expression. For example the gender of reptiles is determined by the temprature at which their eggs are incubated at, although this has not been demonstrated for mammals. There nevertheless, could be an environmental component which affects sexual orientation.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 4:33pm
Cool, it was more of a question than anything else, never pretended to be a genetic expert

BTW - I know for a fact that I chose to be a heterosexual when I was given that awesome poster of Farrah Fawcett (may she rest in peace) in that red bathing suit! :)

Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/14/2009 @ 4:36pm
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/14/2009 @ 4:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

i ruined a few tube sox as a result of that poster myself...ah, middle school!!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 4:47pm
That was/is a excellent poster. Absolutely one of the all time greatest.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 4:54pm
Posted by horselover-fat at 07/14/2009 @ 3:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

so i gotta ask without getting too personal...talking about language and all (gettin' pretty recursive in here!)...

whats up with your handle? mine's pure da da nonsense from my hardcore college pot smoking days, but "horselover-fat"? huh?

lol

-----------------------------------------

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

it was a great photo - very artistic and iconic. nice lines and imagery.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 5:14pm
the name of the main character from a Philip k dick novel, Ivalice

Posted by horselover-fat at 07/14/2009 @ 5:24pm
should probably add it's an anagram for the character's real name Philip Gram, the roman equivalent Philip(the horse lover) gram(fat)

Posted by horselover-fat at 07/14/2009 @ 5:25pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 3:41pm 

Some of what you have just said I agree with, some of it (as you know by this point) I do not.

If Mask, for instance, wants a condemnation of slavery, he can examine two sources:

1) Plenty of sayings in the Gospels, and 2) The fascinating book of Philemon

The implication of the Gospel texts and indeed previous books, of all human beings (and yes, this will be important in a second) being made in the image of God, clearly entails that slavery is hideously immoral.

On the rest of the material, I will make just a few points. First, it would be a mistake to conflate "those who believe the Bible is the Word of God" with "those who believe the Bible is inerrant." They are not the same proposition; I affirm the former and reject the latter, and would be more than willing to get into that discussion at some point if you are so inclined.

Second, I'd argue (as I have before, with some response from jones but little from you) that until recently, society had virtually no concept of what homosexuality was. This answers your "why didn't gay marriages exist?" question. To beat a dead horse, you cannot define homosexuality strictly by a set of sexual acts; that's why those texts that DO reference certain acts don't prove your point.

Third, the nature/nurture debate is rather informative. If all human beings are created in God's image, your position must be that homosexuals were either not created by God or not wired to be homosexual. And no, this is not the same as someone who has the inclination to be a murderer or sociopath or any such thing. For many people, homosexuality is as fundamental a part of their being as heterosexuality is to the overwhelming majority of the population. Created by God, or no?

Posted by Thrawn at 07/14/2009 @ 5:33pm
#

should probably add it's an anagram for the character's real name Philip Gram, the roman equivalent Philip(the horse lover) gram(fat)

Posted by horselover-fat at 07/14/2009 @ 5:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

THAT'S it!!!!

never read that one, but i kinda wondered...was thinking something from science fiction, either dick, lem, wolfe, or a couple of other talents in the field.

dick was a great writer regardless of genre. simple stark language, amazing vision.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 6:00pm
That there are "no rabbis or ministers who support same-sex marriage" is a lie (one of many from the supposed "pastor" posting):

Plug "rabbi minister support same sex marriage" into Google, and the below are just three of the examples on the first couple pages (for some reason, the urls aren't being posted, but you can plug the words into google yourself to find them:

171 leaders of religious organizations, communities, congregations signed a statement of faith-based support for same sex marriage

The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Church of God Anonymous, ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Unitarian Universalist Association bless same-gender relationships as a matter of policy.

United Church of Christ Backs Gay Marriage.

There are too many examples to post here, but this illustrates how those perpurting to speak for religion are willing to lie and break that commandment to support their bigotry.

Posted by judybrowni at 07/14/2009 @ 6:00pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 6:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

check it out if you can find it, I highly recommend it, it's the depths of paranoia.

Posted by horselover-fat at 07/14/2009 @ 6:07pm
Posted by Thrawn at 07/14/2009 @ 5:33pm

I'll try and keep this to 3 points so as not to waylay the thread too far.

1. I think from your posts that you believe the Bible "contains" the word of G-d, rather than the more definitive "is" the word of G-d. As Paul stated, the scriptures are "G-d breathed" and thus carry as given to the writers and as they originally transcribed them without error. that is the position of the orthodox Rabbi's on the OT scriptures and Christianity was carried forward with the same understanding.

2. Our ongoing debate has no middle ground because we come from diametrically opposed points on the nature of homosexuality. You affirm it as natural and thus G-d given. I maintain that it is deviant behavior from G-d's holiness. As a theologian, I lay various causations for this behavior as primarily coming from several causes. 1) Since every individual is born with the defect of the sin nature, we all have particular sin inclinations, thus not everybody struggles with the same moral failings. 2)environment plays a significant factor with the parental environment being a critical factor. 3) the influence of demonic suggestion in exposure circumstances can and does lead people into lives they would not otherwise live out.

3. Given point 2, there just isn't grounds for debate to find either middle ground or consensus. In my theological view, homosexual behavior is just that. It is not G-d created. that would make G-d a liar.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 6:08pm
Posted by judybrowni at 07/14/2009 @ 6:00pm

You ignored my statement in proferring this rebuttal.

<No Orthodox Jewish Rabbi nor any Christian Pastor that believes the Bible to be the Word of G-d upholds any legitimacy for homosexual behavior, much less marriage other than that of a man and a woman.>

Reformed Judaism and some Conservative Judaism Synogogues doe recognize homosexual relationships. Orthodox Judaism does not.

And I clearly stated as shown above, that Christian denominations that hold the bible to be the word of G-d have not departed from Biblical truth. You can find liberal churches that state that either the Bible contains some words from G-d and that you are free to accept or reject as you wish, or in some liberal churches, merely a "nice" book, and they no longer even believe in Jesus or His words as truth to be obeyed.

As to Metropolitan, that was originated as purely a homosexual denomination and has little to do with actual Christianity. For that matter Unitarians no longer embrace Christianity as part of their doctrine.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 6:15pm
And let's not forget the Episcopal Church:

"Although the Episcopal Church has not explicitly established a position in favor of gay marriage, in 2006 the church stated its "support of gay and lesbian persons and [opposition to] any state or federal constitutional amendment" prohibiting gay marriages or civil unions."

Only a small, crazy faction, mostly out of Africa threatens to split from the Church on this, and good riddance to 'em.

And of course, there are numerous rabbis and ministers who support same gender marriage, even if their particular sect doesn't officially sanction it.

Posted by judybrowni at 07/14/2009 @ 6:28pm
There are too many examples to post here, but this illustrates how those perpurting to speak for religion are willing to lie and break that commandment to support their bigotry.

Posted by judybrowni at 07/14/2009 @ 6:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

well...they may or may not lie, but they often interpret their religion in only the narrowest, most literal sense.

for them all moral development, meaningful speculation and philosophizing about the nature of the divine, all human spiritual growth, discovery and divine inspiration died with the last prophet they credit.

they shuffle along mumbling mantras, delving into devilish details, dividing and judging, stamping out heresy and forcing all phenomena to fit within predetermined intellectual scaffolding.

according to them they are the elect few and others are simply wrong and that's that.

and they can quote scripture and prove everything they believe thusly and indeed sometimes the literal word's meaning is inescapable, but...

again many who follow religious traditions do not see them as corpses of knowledge and wisdom, but alive and vibrant. these are the guys who have no problem marrying a couple of dudes or chicks, see?

which is fine with me, and if we civilly sanction same sex unions anybody who wants to get "married" will easily be able to find some religion (from the liberal minded to the crazy-go-nuts) to get them "married".

and give them a piece of paper or trophy saying they are officially married under the eyes of the church of the ham sandwich or whatever.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 6:29pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Thank you for the comprehensive biblically correct Christian analysis of marriage that no devout biblical based Christian could disagree with. Enough said on that point.

Posted by BigPasture at 07/14/2009 @ 6:31pm
antisocialist-The only scriptures that existed during Pauls time was the OT and you guys ignore most of it making your claim there meaningless.If you do not wish to call gays married then do not do so in the same way that the KKK is not forced to accept mixed race marriages,but your desire to make all of us call these unions different things negates your claim of loving freedom.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 6:33pm
antisocialist-The only scriptures that existed during Pauls time was the OT and you guys ignore most of it making your claim there meaningless.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 6:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Hard to see any relevance in what you posted to anti's statements...so what actually is your point? He is evidencing the "theological correct christian standards" God presents in both the old and new testaments accepted by biblical based Christians who believe the bible is the "inspired" word of God concerning homosexual perversion!

Posted by BigPasture at 07/14/2009 @ 6:47pm
antisocialist-The only scriptures that existed during Pauls time was the OT and you guys ignore most of it making your claim there meaningless.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 6:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Hard to see any relevance in what you posted to anti's statements...so what actually is your point? He is evidencing the "theological correct christian standards" God presents in both the old and new testaments accepted by biblical based Christians who believe the bible is the "inspired" word of God concerning homosexual perversion!

Posted by BigPasture at 07/14/2009 @ 6:47pm

Rio,

I've learned to just ignore Imnobody on the topic of Christianity. postings like this one just demonstrate that his particular viewpoint and lack of knowledge about a religion he doesn't even believe in leave no room for honest debate. there is not middle ground for someone who believes that you cannot really be sure of what you believe or whether the facts have any basis.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 7:00pm
Only two people can define my marriage: My wife and myself.

Only two people can cheapen my marriage: My wife and myself.

Only two people can threaten my marriage: My wife and myself.

My marriage doesn't need the blessing of some self-proclaimed holy rolling busy-body. All my marriage needs is my wife and myself.

Posted by Balrog at 07/14/2009 @ 7:11pm
Posted by Balrog at 07/14/2009 @ 7:11pm

Amen.

Posted by Malcontent at 07/14/2009 @ 9:45pm
bigpasture/antisocialist-antisocialist said that Paul said that the scriptures are "G-d breathed" and I reminded him that the OT was the only scriptures around when Paul said that,but Christians do not live by OT law which means that you ignore most of it. The New Testament was not around at the time of Paul.My statement to antisocialist was correct.I'm quite aware that Paul may have condemned homosexuality,but there is question about that.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 9:51pm
antisocialist-As I have told numerous times,I am aware that your views represent conservative Christianity and I know what your views are which I have shown and I even have shown some knowledge of Catholicism and mainstream Christianity, and you know it.I simply dispute some of your beliefs,but that is not the same thing as not knowing what they are since I would have to know what they are in order to dispute them.I was a Christian up until 2002 which you,also have been told.I have never said that you cannot be sure what you believe,but that beliefs evolve which is different than not knowing nor have you presented facts showing that the Bible is literally true meaning that I have not ignored facts.It is you that leaves no room for honest debate and just tell people that if they disagree with you then we go to hell which ends honest debate.You adhere to strict dogma and have no middle ground.I am on a Mystical quest and have much middle ground because God is in the middle or center.You ignore me because you cannot answer the hard questions and run away and do not like to be reminded to clean yourself up, judgmental one..

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 10:04pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 6:08pm 

Likewise, I'll try and keep my analysis limited, though I think this clash is pretty central to the thread's topic. Most of the substantive debate on this issue is theological in nature, because outside of theological grounds, the resolution seems relatively clear.

1) Why the "containment" interpretation? To begin with, I'm not sure that "God-breathed" necessarily means what you claim it does. I don't think Paul means to say that every law in the Old Testament was justified at the time (ex: killing disobedient children), and certainly I don't think God condones genocide (despite the fact that the OT has him ordering it at least once). Did Paul think everything he wrote was infallible? Part of what he wrote was testimony that he was relaying, but if he thought he spoke infallibly, why bother check up with Peter or convey his thoughts by argumentation rather than simple statement? The fact that he argued suggests to me that he thought he could be wrong about some things.

2) Your analysis doesn't respond to my argument about the Bible not actually addressing homosexuality because there was no concept of what homosexuality was. You simply can't define it strictly as behavior; it's a fundamental aspect of many people, just as heterosexuality is for an overwhelming majority. Your causal factors are also out of whack. Environment often isn't a cause (see twins going different ways). Attributing it to demonic causation both conveys desperation and ignores those homosexuals who actively seek to serve God (and indeed, a huge number of homosexuals say their faith is important to them).

I think the "behavior" question is a crucial one. If homosexuality is something more than behavior, your position fails. It is.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/14/2009 @ 10:24pm
My marriage doesn't need the blessing of some self-proclaimed holy rolling busy-body. All my marriage needs is my wife and myself.

Posted by Balrog at 07/14/2009 @ 7:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Good luck with that, you'll need it!

Reminds me of so much many things such as; Pride goeth before a fall; Unless the LORD builds the house,They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city,The watchman keeps awake in vain.

Posted by BigPasture at 07/14/2009 @ 10:45pm
antisocialist-I agree with you that the views that you express are the views of your brand of Christianity so if I am wrong then you are wrong,too since our views on that subject are the same..

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 10:53pm
I reminded him that the OT was the only scriptures around when Paul said that,but Christians do not live by OT law which means that you ignore most of it. The New Testament was not around at the time of Paul.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 9:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Don't know what your problem is with Paul since he being divinely inspired only expands on what Jesus already said about Old Testament Law in Matthew 5th chapter?

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Posted by BigPasture at 07/14/2009 @ 11:05pm
bigpasture-Get back to me when Christians start to live according to OT law.Until then your quotes mean nothing..I do not believe that Paul was divinely inspired nor do you know most of what Paul said nor do you know the cultural implications of what he said.We do not have much of what Jesus said,either nor do we understand the time,place,and cultural references and the language Jesus spoke in is difficult to translate which means that you are making vast conclusions based upon little information, which always a bad idea...

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/14/2009 @ 11:31pm
My marriage doesn't need the blessing of some self-proclaimed holy rolling busy-body. All my marriage needs is my wife and myself.

Posted by Balrog at 07/14/2009 @ 7:11pm

i thought the same way.

then immigration canada stepped in.....

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 12:24am
Posted by Thrawn at 07/14/2009 @ 5:33pm

Actually Thrawn, I asked for some SPECIFIC passages in the Bible that condemn slavery....just saying "there are lots" isn't exactly detailed, is it?

Are there any?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 08:03am
Mask-It is interesting that most Jews and Christians have decided that something that their God tolerated is immoral and worth fighting against.What does that say about their view of their own God?If their God would tolerate something as immoral as slavery then their God will have no problems tolerating gay marriage.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 08:35am
I think the "behavior" question is a crucial one. If homosexuality is something more than behavior, your position fails. It is.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/14/2009 @ 10:24pm

I stand by my prior statements. Homosexuality is a behavior not a G-d created part of your being.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 09:07am
Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 09:07am

Is a heterosexual man desiring a woman to give him oral sex a "G-d created part of his being"?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 09:13am
Is a heterosexual man desiring a woman to give him oral sex a "G-d created part of his being"?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 09:13am

Oral sex is a part of the relationship between a husband and wife.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 09:47am
"Oral sex is a part of the relationship between a husband and wife."----Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 09:47am

So it's not really the "procreation" thing, then is it?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 10:19am
Homosexuality is a behavior not a G-d created part of your being.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 09:07am

If you truly believe that, then by all means, don't engage in homosexual behavior. It is the height of arrogance, however, to impose your view on others. How dare you be so presumptious?

Posted by Balrog at 07/15/2009 @ 10:40am
If you truly believe that, then by all means, don't engage in homosexual behavior. It is the height of arrogance, however, to impose your view on others. How dare you be so presumptious?

Posted by Balrog at 07/15/2009 @ 10:40am

I have not imposed my views on anyone. I'm not taking any legal action against homosexuals. I'm not stopping them from doing whatever they wish in the bedroom.

It less presumptuous than your statements. I'm making a statement that is not dealing with legality, but with what constitutes right behavior before G-d. It is thus consistent with thousands of years of moral standard by all of the major faiths in the world (not just Christianity).

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 11:03am
I stand by my prior statements. Homosexuality is a behavior not a G-d created part of your being.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 09:07am

Again we are back at the genetic controls or choice discussion about sexuality. Pastor Robinson believes that it is purely choice. I don't understand his basis for this belief. Is he internally actually a gay man who surpresses his urges? So thereby can claim it is all about choice, and he is making the the right/godly choice.

I believe for most people, sexuality is not something one decides. I never decided to be hetero, I have absolutely no sexual urges for men. So I can't fathom why some people think it is a choice. I think the only logical explanation for Pastor Robinson to think that sexuality is a choice is for he himself to be internally conflicted over his sexuality. Thereby enabling him to believe that there is a choice to be made. It could explain alot...

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 11:12am
Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 11:12am

"I choose..."?!??!? "To be a minority...to be disliked, even loathed by some, possibly even to face violence against myself....to risk my family ostracizing me....to have less rights.....to be told God condemns the way I love another person"?!??!?!?

Somebody would CHOOSE that??!??!??

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 11:16am
Somebody would CHOOSE that??!??!??

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 11:16am

Exactly. That one day a child wakes up and says, "Wow, gays sure are cool! I think I will be a gay when I grow up." That is insane (no offense implied). The only logical explanation to me for someone to believe it is a choice. Is that they themselves have repressed their true self in an attempt to live 'morally' in gods eyes. Thereby they actually made a CHOICE to go against their internal urges.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 11:30am
A totally faulty and incacurate statement. Marriage starting with the greeks, was not religous.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 2:19pm

If I told you the first resteraunt was in Greece would you tell me that eating began with the Greeks?

Moses gave us "the law" approximately 6000 years ago. One of the sins was adultery. Adultery isn't possible without marriage. Life-long pair bonding preceeded the Greeks.

The Greeks may have been the first to recognize marriage as a contractual arrangement, but prior to that, the life-long pair bonding arrangement of opposite sex couples was a central tennet to every culture that ever existed. These central organizing principle of society are the definition of religion.

To say that marriage (in the broader context of a life-long commitment) has nothing to do with religion is nonsense.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 11:53am
darin-To say that marriage only has something to do with religion is,also,nonsense.It has been a religious thing and a civil thing since we first showed up.In fact,the OT defines marriage as a business transaction between families and not as a religious thing..You were even allowed to have more than one wife and could easily dump one for another.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 11:59am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 11:53am

Your right. I did not mean to imply that marriage began with the greeks, and that is what my statment implies. So, point taken. I don't know when lifelong matings began. The point I was going for is that the institution that is marriage was not historically religouslly sanctioned. In all likelihood, life long matings probably predates religion.

So the argument that is made by some that marriage is a religous term is faulty.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 12:24pm
Many conservative/fundamentalist religious folks prefer to think of homosexuality as a "behavior choice" because it threatens their view of God, which they base on a literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm reminded also of anthropologist Mary Douglas' book "Purity and Danger," in which she claims that humans feel threatened by things which do not fit into specific categories - anomalies are considered dangerous. With all this rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" that is out to corrupt children and ruin marriages, I cannot help but wonder if this is being played out now.

While this ongoing debate as to the Biblical definition of marriage/damnation of homosexual behaviors is in many ways enlightening, I would suggest that the entire conversation is a moot point. Although I would love for everyone to be tolerant and loving towards each other, we are free to have prejudices based on race, religion, or sexuality if we so choose. However, we are supposed to have separation of church and state, no establishment of religion, and equal protection under the law, including equal access to rights. It doesn't matter whether or not Christianity or any other religion sanctions or condemns homosexuality; it is simply not grounds for denying an individual full equality under the law.

Posted by JBoogie at 07/15/2009 @ 12:32pm
Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 11:12am

Talk about your logical fallacies. This is much like the question, "when did you stop beating your wife"?

Condemning immoral behavior is NOT based upon hidden urges. Were that the case then we would have to declare that everyone who opposes pedephilia does so because they are supressing their own desires to molest children.

This is a common tactic by those who lack a substantive argument. Lay a personal attack that cannot be refuted given the anonymity of web blogs and thus you have a supposed unbeatable argument.

Try and come up with something better than a specious personal attack.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 12:55pm
Many conservative/fundamentalist religious folks prefer to think of homosexuality as a "behavior choice" because it threatens their view of God, which they base on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Posted by JBoogie at 07/15/2009 @ 12:32pm

Ah, the condescending liberal, welcome to the board.

adhering to our faith on the issue of homosexual behavior is no more done out of fear of a threat to our belief in G-d, than is the same repugnance for those who cannot be faithful to a spouse or who repeatedly steal from others.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 12:59pm
In fact,the OT defines marriage as a business transaction between families and not as a religious thing..You were even allowed to have more than one wife and could easily dump one for another.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 11:59am

While your statements are true, they are somewhat irrelevant. To addres the question, "What IS marriage?" That is, what is its fundamental nature, I reply it is three things: 1) commitment, 2) religous ceremony or sacrament, 3) contractual arrangement.

There is a related question: "What is the FUNCTION of marriage?" This doesn't address its nature but its purpose. The broadest purpose of marriage is to create a better environment for raising children relative to the model used by other species where the mother raises the offspring alone.

However, there is no reason to believe marriage can only have one function that is universal to all married folk. The OT practices you cite reference marriage's function of a status symbol in some cultures. Sultans and kings often had harems that were business arrangements between tribes and a status symbol of the king's wealth. But this function is really an outliers and only pertain to much much less than 1% of all marriages. In normal societies, one man and one woman has been the overwhelming majority of marriages due to the roughly equal number of males and females.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 1:35pm
it is a fallacy to think of hetero or homo sexuality as distinct groups. nothing could be further from the truth.

most people are bisexual, depending on their circumstances in life, such as prison or the army, or show business for that matter.

another factor is love, which has gone unmentioned. love will cause a mother of four to leave her husband and enter into a loving relationship with one of her own sex. this goes with men too, of course.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 1:45pm
darin-One did not have to be a king to have more than one wife under OT law,although it was not encouraged.The question is whether or not marriage is strictly been considered to be a religious matter and I pointed out that it has not always been viewed as just a religious matter since OT law defines marriage as the transfer of ownership of the woman from her dad to her husband and her virginity has a monetary value placed on it.Often the transaction was put in writing.All of that is the definition of a business transaction and the definition of marriage that your God came up with.Business transactions are a civil and not religious matter.Your God defines marriage as a civil matter.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 1:48pm
"This is a common tactic by those who lack a substantive argument. Lay a personal attack that cannot be refuted given the anonymity of web blogs and thus you have a supposed unbeatable argument. "----Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 12:55pm

"Since most liberals are mealy mouthed, they think that is a good trait. they resent strong authority figures. Pyschologists would say it's because they had no strong father figure when they were growing up."-----Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 09:09am

Cheney Joins Grand Old Party of Limbaugh posted by John Nichols on 05/10/2009 @ 12:39pm

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 1:59pm
darin-One did not have to be a king to have more than one wife under OT law,

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 1:48pm

Agreed, a rich business man could also have multiple wives, but again that arrangement functioned primarily as a status symbol rather than a model for the broader culture to emulate.

My point is that opposite sex, life-long pair bonding probably has a history millions of years longer than contract law has been around. The primary function of this arrangement has been to produce better, stronger, healthier offspring.

So there have been billions of marriages over the last 100 million years. Maybe 1 million have been with multiple wives as a status symbol.

There have been billions of hammers made. Perhaps 1 million have been used to murder people. So, even though hammer can murder people, that is really an abberation in the history of hammers and we shouldn't routinely classify hammers as primarily murder weapons when that function is really a abberation.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 2:24pm
Talk about your logical fallacies. This is much like the question, "when did you stop beating your wife"?

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 12:55pm

No Pastor Robinson your missing the point entirely. Your claim that homosexuality is a choice it what I find fault with. Sexual behavior is an inherrant biological function, if animals did not have an instinct to mate with the opposite sex all non asexual species would have died out long ago. wife beating and pedophiles have nothing to do with biological imperatives. Sexuality on the other hand does. If your maintain that sexuality is a CHOICE, you must have some logical basis for that assertion. You offer nothing than ideological rhetoric about morality. I could see no reason why any logical person would think sexuality is something other than a trait that is hardwired. Thus the proposed hypothesis in that you had to make a choice about your own sexuality, it is not a personal attack as there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

But for you to admit that it is not a choice would be too great of breach of your CHOSEN ideological religous beliefs. Is that your reason? If so it completely lacks logic.

Maybe you could provide a logical explanation of why someone would CHOOSE to be a homosexual?

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 2:32pm
There have been billions of chairs made; maybe 1 million haven't had four legs.

There habe been billions of forks made; maybe 1,000,000 haven't had four tines.

So the point is, there are non-traditional exceptions to the rule. A fork can have three tines and still serve it's function of getting food into you mouth. A chair can have 3 legs and still serve as a tool for supporting you body when you sit.

However, if a "fork" doesn't transport food to your mouth, it is not a fork. If a chair isn't sat upon, it is not a chair.

If a "marriage" isn't a life-long commitment (of a sexual nature) for the purpose of raising strong children, In my opinion, that is not a marriage.

(Those who know me, know that I include same-sex marriage in this category because same sex marriage is beneficial to the children of homosexuals.)

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 2:33pm
darin-Gays are not hammers,but are humans who deserve equal rights under the law and a marriage license is a civil matter.Albinos are born different.Should they be not allowed to marry?Nature creates differences that are not common and that is a fact and it is not up to you to decide for them what is natural for them since you do not know..Like you pointed out.They are a small percentage of the population so who cares if a small group gets married.It will not harm you.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 2:34pm
darin-Two straight people who cannot have children are not married according to you?That is fine.No one is going to force you to accept a gay marriage or childless straight marriages.Freedom means that you can do that.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 2:37pm
Anti, if it's a choice what do you say to other species that mate with the same sex? Dolphins have sex with other males dolphins? Is it a choice for them?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 2:40pm
No one is going to force you to accept a gay marriage or childless straight marriages.Freedom means that you can do that.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 2:37pm

He just said that he includes same sex marriage in the possible forms of approved marriage because it is beneficial to same sex marriage children. So he has accepted same sex marriage.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 2:43pm
it is a fallacy to think of hetero or homo sexuality as distinct groups. nothing could be further from the truth.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 1:45pm

I could not disagree more. Prison, army, show business? I don't know what your talking about. What occurs in prison I would argue is more a issue of social dominance and the release of sexual pressure and not that those who participate are in actuality homosexuals. Show business...what?

A person who leaves a family and starts a homosexual relationship (Larry Craig) I would propose was allways a homosexual or bisexual. I believe bisexuals are a third group, however a group that more often than not exists below most peoples radar screen as they are able to take on either role. I would also argue that this is not a choice but part of their hard wiring. If sexuality is comprised of several genes it could be the expression of only one recessive allele, while homosexuality is the expression both. I say this with the caveot that genetically, it is likely far more complex, than my simplifications.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 2:49pm
Ccc-He accepts it if they decide to raise a child or so is how I understood it which excludes straights and gays without children.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 2:50pm
No Pastor Robinson your missing the point entirely. Your claim that homosexuality is a choice it what I find fault with. Sexual behavior is an inherrant biological function, if animals did not have an instinct to mate with the opposite sex all non asexual species would have died out long ago. wife beating and pedophiles have nothing to do with biological imperatives. Sexuality on the other hand does. If your maintain that sexuality is a CHOICE, you must have some logical basis for that assertion. You offer nothing than ideological rhetoric about morality. I could see no reason why any logical person would think sexuality is something other than a trait that is hardwired. Thus the proposed hypothesis in that you had to make a choice about your own sexuality, it is not a personal attack as there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

But for you to admit that it is not a choice would be too great of breach of your CHOSEN ideological religous beliefs. Is that your reason? If so it completely lacks logic.

Maybe you could provide a logical explanation of why someone would CHOOSE to be a homosexual?

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 2:32pm

In your 1st paragraph, you make my argument for me. We are wired to procreate and keep our lines going.

Every human being has some weakness in their moral capacity that they struggle with. Thus, we are all capable of murder, yet most people don't murder because our moral capacity in that area is stronger than our weakness.

As a pastor and theologian, I maintain that the root of these pulls towards moral failing come from some combination of our specific weak moral area(s), the influence of satan to act on these impulses and the right circumstances to push us over the edge into action vs contemplation (opportunity).

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 2:50pm
Anti, if it's a choice what do you say to other species that mate with the same sex? Dolphins have sex with other males dolphins? Is it a choice for them?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 2:40pm

Animal behavior has no relationship to this topic. Animals lack souls and are thus incapable of obeying or disobeying G-d.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 2:55pm
I could not disagree more. Prison, army, show business? I don't know what your talking about. What occurs in prison I would argue is more a issue of social dominance and the release of sexual pressure and not that those who participate are in actuality homosexuals. Show business...what?

the release of sexual pressure and not that those who participate are in actuality homosexuals.

this is an absurd assertion. they may not THINK themselves to BE homosexuals but their conduct says otherwise. Gore Vidal says that there are no homosexuals but homosexualists.

the army is a similar situation. the show business thing was a joke.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 2:59pm
Ccc-He accepts it if they decide to raise a child or so is how I understood it which excludes straights and gays without children.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 2:50pm

His point is not irrational. He accepts them as married but doesn't except the marriage as true. What is the meaning of a species? The purpose of every species on this planet is to propagate the species. Marriage is our method of quality control of our children. It ensures that fathers can train their children to grow up strong. So it makes sense whether I agree with it or not.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:07pm
Animal behavior has no relationship to this topic. Animals lack souls and are thus incapable of obeying or disobeying G-d.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 2:55pm

Actually it has everything to do with it Larry. For one second let's remove the obey God part. If an animal is homosexual, and it does not have the ability choose it's action then it shows that that homosexual behavior is based on it's genetic makeup. So it would then be able to follow that it's a possibility that the human behavior ir not a choice it is a genetic predisposition.

Now if we add back in the choice after we make the supposition, we are now saying that they are genetically predisposed to be gay and people who are deniers of homosexuality are FORCING them to make a choice to deny a part of themselves.

If you believe that God created everything then it must follow that God does not disapprove of homosexuality. This may be a leap but if he built homosexuality into the genetics of animal like dolphins he can't think too lowly of it. I know you will come back and say cannibalism is genetic but it is genetic because it helps the animal survive in a harsh environment and improves quality control of others in their species. Homosexuality does not aid survival. In fact it serves no other purpose than to affirm a beings needs.

So I think animal behavior has everything to do with it because it is used to affirm that it is genetic. Because if homosexual behavior was nothing more than a choice then animals would not also show the same behavioral traits. So now you bring you choice into it and you are asking people to choose to be something that God did not make them to be.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:14pm
darin-Two straight people who cannot have children are not married according to you?

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 2:37pm

For the first 99.9999999% of the last 100 million years, men and women would pair off because of biological urges and sometimes they didn't have children. Yes there was divorce, abandonment and sometimes spouses murdered one another. And sometimes there were multiple spouses. But the overwhelming majority of pairings produced children and the overwhelming majority of children benefited even if there were examples of shitty parents that sometimes killed their children.

But widely available birth control avilible to the general public is a phenomenon of the last two generations only. And in two short generations, people have forgotten that the primary function of marraige is related to procreations and raising children. To answer your question, 50 years ago, a hypothetical couple would marry young and they would have sex and they would expect children. If they never had any, it didn't mean they weren't married. Today, because of birth control, people can choose not to have children. I would still say they are married because they can always change their mind later and throughout history, the pair bonding preceeded the offspring.

Finally, the suggestion that opponents of gay marriage do so because they are afraid gay marriage will "hurt" their marriages is a cannard. "How will it hurt your marriage?" is a question asked by same-sex supporters who think they are being clever. They are not. Claims of damage to existing marriages is non-existent on the pro-traditional marriage side.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 3:17pm
"In your 1st paragraph, you make my argument for me. We are wired to procreate and keep our lines going. "

Actually he didn't. He made a completely different argument. He said sexuality is genetic. Which mean homosexual and heterosexual. He isn't saying we are all hard wired to procreate. He is saying our sexuality is hardwired no matter what form it takes.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:18pm
Claims of damage to existing marriages is non-existent on the pro-traditional marriage side.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 3:17pm

Wouldn't this mean that they ARE being clever because they are right.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:21pm
Here's a question for you Larry. Would you say that consumption of food and drink is a genetic predisposition or simply a choice?

I think the belief that human sexuality is a choice stems from a fear of equating humans to animals. We like to think ourselves above animals. I think that most things people do are genetic predispositions. Even war I think is genetically hardwired into us. If you look at the things we generally fight over and break it down we are no better than animals. We fight for resources. It just happens that our resources are no longer just food and water.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:27pm
darin-We were created to have strong sexual urges whether or not the woman was ready to be impregnated, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom.That means that for humans sex was meant for more than procreation and your religion teaches that people should be married in order to have that sex.If we were to only have sex to have babies then we would only desire sex when the woman was ready to be impregnated,like my dogs.God created a wonderful way to express love and relieve stress and not to just have babies.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 3:29pm
There was another point further up that I wanted to address. It presented the false choice between choosing homosexuality and genetic. The argument was that it must be a choice because if it was genetic, it would be bred out of existence by now. Even that is a logical falicy. I forget the details but I read a study suggesting that homosexuality could benefit neices and nephews.

But the main point is that this is a false choice. Homosexuality can be "biological" without being "genetic". Again, I forget the details, but I read something once about the precence of high concentrations of testosterone in the womb being linked to homosexuality.

On one level, the "choice" argument is ... I guess "accurate" is the word. "Lust" creates a desire for sex the way hunger creates a hunger for food. Having sex and eating both require conscious decisions to engage in purposeful behavior. No one is "forced" to have sex just like no one is forced to eat. There have been people who have ingored their hunger and have starved themselves to death on hunger strikes. So in this sense it is accurate to describe eating as a "choice".

Actually, this might be a better analogy than I first thought. Some people consider eating meat to be a sin just like some people consider anal sex a sin (both homo and hetero). I have no desire for the latter, but I would rather live the life of a sinner than forego the former. These are "choices" and some are easier to forego than other.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 3:32pm
Wouldn't this mean that they ARE being clever because they are right.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:21pm

No, it is a non-sequitur; it is being dishonest. It's kind of like asking, "Why do you hate America?" to someone who opposes the Patriot Act.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 3:34pm
I think that everything we do in life, is predisposed base on two aspects. Nature and Nurture working in combination. I think choice is an illusion. It is it just a coincidence that the majority of people in prison for child abuse related crimes were abused by their parents? Is it a coincidence that crime rates are higher in impoverished neighborhoods? I think that it is all an illusion, as Buddhism teaches.

Choice is a deception you create for yourself to make you believe you have the power. But you don't I would argue that every choice you have made in life was predestined because of how your life has turned out and how you are genetically made up. Everything. All the way down to what foods you like or dislike or what kind of underwear you prefer. I think there is more evidence in this world to show that correlation than there is to show that everything we do is a choice.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:36pm
No, it is a non-sequitur; it is being dishonest. It's kind of like asking, "Why do you hate America?" to someone who opposes the Patriot Act.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 3:34pm

Those are different things though. Why do you hate america is supposing a behavioral choice. How is it hurting your marriage is supposing empirical evidence. I mean I see your point but I don't think the example is the poignant.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:37pm
Now if we add back in the choice after we make the supposition, we are now saying that they are genetically predisposed to be gay and people who are deniers of homosexuality are FORCING them to make a choice to deny a part of themselves.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:14pm

Having just stated that I think homosexual desire is a biological process, not a consious choice, I would like to point out that I have URGE to kill about 90% of the other drivers on the road. I suppress that urge. Is that denying a part of who I am?

The question is, "what is the consequence of pursuing gratification of urges?"

The advent of birth control radically changed the consequences of pursuing the gratification of urges.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 3:41pm
darin-Looking at whether or not something causes harm is quite relevant when considering any new idea.It is quite meaningful that legalizing gay marriage will not harm you because if a large group of people can show that legalizing something will cause them some great harm then the rest of society should take that into account,but if no harm can be shown then you have no case.Your personal religious views have no meaning when it comes to what laws should exist in America.So the only argument that you have is if you can show harm,but,as you stated,you cannot.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 3:48pm
BTW, everybody, keep in mind...

Darin is "pro-gay rights"...he just doesn't like "the way" it's being done.

LOL

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 3:52pm
So the only argument that you have is if you can show harm,but,as you stated,you cannot.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 3:48pm

We have obscenity laws, yet vulgarities on televison do not harm me. We have drug laws, yet other people smoking pot does not harm me. We have laws that against beastiality and cruelty to animals, yet if my neighbor tortures his dog that doesn't hurt me.

In the past there have been laws against adultery and premarital sex (not to mention interracial sex.)

The libertarian ideal that laws may only prevent force and fraud does not gibe with the reality that many Americans have lobbied for and won community standards laws.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 3:55pm
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 3:52pm

Mask is correct. I think the state legislatures should pass marriage laws that include same-sex marriage.

I do not think that courts should impose same-sex marraige through "rights" claims.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 3:57pm
In your 1st paragraph, you make my argument for me. We are wired to procreate and keep our lines going.

Every human being has some weakness in their moral capacity that they struggle with. Thus, we are all capable of murder, yet most people don't murder because our moral capacity in that area is stronger than our weakness.

As a pastor and theologian, I maintain that the root of these pulls towards moral failing come from some combination of our specific weak moral area(s), the influence of satan to act on these impulses and the right circumstances to push us over the edge into action vs contemplation (opportunity).

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 2:50pm

So you believe that like murderers, homosexuals are just giving into a moral weakness?

This just is not logical to me. To use your comparison with murderers. The vast majority of murderers have a underlying cognitive reason for their action. Such as anger, hate, jealousy, greed, fear, etc. The majority of people have a stronger constitution (moral fiber) and can easily push aside any serious contemplation of murder or other immoral/illegal acts.

Homosexuality is just not comprable. As it is not defined by an act that one does, but that at the core of their being they are attracted to and fall in love with their same sex. As with Emile above we should not confuse a persons sexual acts with a persons sexuality, as they are different topics.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 4:09pm
darin-Where did I mention only you being harmed?You can show that animal cruelty causes harm to the animal,harder drugs do cause harm,and we do have laws and have had laws that should not exist because they cannot be shown to cause harm to any particular segment of society.Gays are already in the community and so community standards are irrelevant since they will be there whether they are married or not.You have no argument against gay marriage except a religious one and those have no meaning when it comes to laws in America.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 4:10pm
If demonstration of harm is needed to oppose something, I can envision an argument to oppose same-sex marriage.

We have universal truency laws. I could ask, "how does it hurt you if my kid doesn't go to school?" Well, it doesn't hurt you, directly, but an uneducated person is a drag on society so it hurts indirectly.

Right now 70% of black children are born out of wedlock. The reason for this is that there is less emphasis on marriage and greatly reduced social stigma to out-of-wedlock births. Statistics show that single parent homes are more likely to created welfare dependent adults, adults incarcerated in the prison system, high school drop outs, and a host of other social problems.

(Although I don't) One could make the arguement that officially sanctioning same-sex marriage further removes the link between marriage and child rearing. This will have deliterious effects on society.

I know Mask likes to laugh at me and suggest that I am a hypocrite, but that is why I am so adament about the method that same-sex marriage is implemented. I think we need a national focus on the importance of marriage to children. By explicitly stating that the purpose of gay marriage is to benefit the children of homosexuals, we will reaffirm the imporantace of marriage for children's development.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 4:24pm
Having just stated that I think homosexual desire is a biological process, not a consious choice, I would like to point out that I have URGE to kill about 90% of the other drivers on the road. I suppress that urge. Is that denying a part of who I am?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 3:41pm

I agree that it is a biological process, you referenced about about the genetic or choice. I would agree that it may not be genetic, but potentially of some biological derivation, so maybe a better statement would be biologic or choice. I don't know, I don't think it really matters.

But to address the urge to kill other drivers. That derives from heightened angst while doing something physically and/or pyschologically stressful. The urge to mate with ones same gender would derive from a biologic impulse to breed.

I don't think murder and homosexuality are comprarable. To simplify you have to murder someone to be a murderer, you don't have to have homosexual sex to be a homosexual.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 4:27pm
Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 4:24pm

I think you raise interesting points about child rearing and marriage. However, I would think that it is irrelevant to the child if their parents relationship has been sacntioned by the state, or religous group. What matters more is the relationships, care, and rearing that is provided. Irregardless of legal status.

I think the a key factor in child rearing is one that is more cultural than legal. I am not convinced that fatherless homes are the problem (my father passed when I was four), but more the love and values that are instilled by the parent and community.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 4:38pm
darin-Allowing more people to marry discourages people from marrying and raising a family?I do believe that allowing more people to marry encourages people to get married and it would encourage gay couples to raise a family and as well as everyone else.You have to show harm and not some possible scenario.It is your opinion that marriage and sex are just related to the subject of children,but that is not how most view it even within your own religion..

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 4:39pm
The urge to mate with ones same gender would derive from a biologic impulse to breed.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 4:27pm

Well, technically, the biological impulse isn't to "breed". I doubt other species understand the connection between copulation and procreation. The impulse or urge is physical gratification just like eating produces physical gratification when one is hungry.

Humans alone have the concept of sin; that is pursuit of physical gratification for "wrong" reasons.

Much is made of the fact that in very rare instances, humans have witnessed homosexual coupling in other animals. I wonder, have we ever witness other animals engaging in oral sex? Have scientists every witnessed on animal bring a partner to climax through oral stimulation?.

If not, one could make the argument that oral sex is more of a sin than homosexual sex.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 4:40pm
I am amazed at how you guys keep making the wrong argument to the wrong people. You will never get the support of religious folks by castigating their faith (especially when you are seen as irreligious to them anyway does not to be considered or taken serious on matters of faith) and lecturing and talking down to them. But please keep banging your head against the wall. look at the thread, basically you have a bunch of contemptuous of a faith decrying it for not agreeing with them. You make a human rights appeal about the fairness laws and you leave challenging religion out of it. My very catholic grandmother doesn't believe in same sex marriage but she does believe in pardner health care and other rights given herto marrieds going to gay couples because it is the RIGHT thing. Challenge her doctrine you lose, challenge her heart you win.

Posted by Lalareina at 07/15/2009 @ 4:42pm
Allowing more people to marry discourages people from marrying and raising a family?

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 4:39pm

Here's another technical point I have to bring up. The reason current (opposite sex) marriage laws are not a violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee to equal protections is because they do not prohibit homosexuals from marrying.

"Any single man, past the age of majority, can marry any single woman, past the age of majority, who is not a blood relative." (The blood realative proscription stuff is to prevent birth defects.)

So technically, marraige is allowed and available to homosexuals; it is just not apealing to them.

By expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage, it becomes more appealing to more people.

I believe the State has a vital interest in procreations. If there isn't another generation of healthy, emotionally well adjusted children, then our Social Security system is fucked.

While I do not think it is wise, it is Constitutionally permissible for a community to base marriage on procreation. That is why I reject the civil rights argument to having judges impose sam-sex marriage. However, I think it is smarter to base focus on the rearing, rather than the creating. In this sense, same-sex marriage is beneficial to the children of homosexual and I think legislators should amend state laws to reflect this.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 4:56pm
As with Emile above we should not confuse a persons sexual acts with a persons sexuality, as they are different topics. Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 4:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

this is nonsense. a person's sexual acts ARE their sexuality. what else?

Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 5:00pm
The urge to mate with ones same gender would derive from a biologic impulse to breed.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 4:27pm

Well, technically, the biological impulse isn't to "breed". I doubt other species understand the connection between copulation and procreation. The impulse or urge is physical gratification just like eating produces physical gratification when one is hungry.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 4:40pm

Apparently you did not read the sentence you cited. Let me spell it out. The URGE to mate (being the seeking of physical gratification, to use your words) DERIVES from a biological impulse (need) to breed (procreate). In the same manner that the urge to eat to is derived from the biological impulse (need) for energy, nutrients, etc.

As to your question:

"I wonder, have we ever witness other animals engaging in oral sex?"

I have in fact observed this between my two neutered male dogs. Red rocket and all. I should have filmed it and put it on You Tube...

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 5:03pm
darin-If a community wishes to only perform marriages on people who are known to be able to reproduce then that community may do so,but that has nothing to do with laws for the rest of America.You wish to deny others freedom of religion,privacy,and few other things.Gays are prohibited from marrying which is why we are having this discussion.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 5:40pm
this is nonsense. a person's sexual acts ARE their sexuality. what else?

Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 5:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

You are ignoring human nature Emile. If a gay man represses his sexual desires, due to idk, religous reasons, fear of social rejection, etc. You would suggest he is not gay? Or if two women in college have a sexual encounter, even if neither would ever do it again, their now bisexuals? What would a celebate monk be? according to you he would have no sexuality because he does not express it with actions. That is what you are suggesting, and that is nonsense.

It is attitudes like yours that cause people to think they can forcibly break homosexuals of the "sinful" nature. Because if all they have to do is quit acting upon it an have sexual relations with the opposite sex they are CURED. Hallelujah!

Sorry, but it is just not that simple

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 5:50pm
If a gay man represses his sexual desires, due to idk, religous reasons, fear of social rejection, etc.

how do you know he's gay?

It is attitudes like yours that cause people to think they can forcibly break homosexuals of the "sinful" nature.

c'mon now, don't come to me with this shit. I have been working in a field that is "dominated" by homosexuals, two of my four best friends, for 40 years, are gay. a fifth is bi. how did they cope with the AIDS epidemic? by being celibate.

the two gals you mentioned can only be described as bisexual in nature.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 6:00pm
extra, you are not arguing with Darin here, so, a little more respect, nor strawmen.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 6:01pm
Posted by Lalareina at 07/15/2009 @ 4:42pm

I am not trying to garner support from the religous communities. I know that many like your grandmother will never accept gays. Just like a generation before them never would accept equal rights for blacks. Future generations are more tolerant, more accepting. I don't know why, maybe the walls that people have erected are slowly eroded, various aspects become more accepted. It really is only a matter of time before gays have equal rights.

Anyways, I am youg. I can wait. For me having these discourses actually writing down my oppinions helps me to hone my oppinions and to see the different facets of a topic. I do it for that and for intellectual entertainment.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 6:05pm
I do it for that and for intellectual entertainment. Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 6:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

I am no longer youg. opinion is not spelled with two Ps.

I do it for the intellectual entertainment.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 6:16pm
emile-Spelling has nothing to do with intellectual ability or enjoyment.Cheap.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/15/2009 @ 6:25pm
extra, you are not arguing with Darin here, so, a little more respect, nor strawmen.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 6:01pm

I apologize if I have not been respectful, but statements like "what nonsense. a person's sexual acts ARE their sexuality. what else?". or "this is an absurd assertion. they may not THINK themselves to BE homosexuals but their conduct says otherwise." I would suggest your responses were less than respectful.

As for the strawman, I must build your case since you don't provide one. Give me the logic based reasoning behind your blanket statements and I would happily discuss it. All you provide are statements of opinion, without the reasoning or nuance.

"the two gals you mentioned can only be described as bisexual in nature."

To address this statement and attempt to decipher your reasoning. Do you believe that someone can try something and not like it? I would suggest that the two girls are not bisexual in nature but at that point in their life's they were experimental in nature. There is a profound difference.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 6:49pm
1.Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:14pm

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:27pm

Until you can demonstrate that animals make moral choices, your analogy with animals just goes nowhere. It is not a fear of equating humans to animals, it is acknowledging that G-d created mankind in His image; meaning with an eternal spirit. That spirit is our connection with G-d and is what enables us to understand and know Him and to know right from wrong. There is no such connection with the animal kingdom.

So for what ever reasons that animals exhibit behavior that you want to identify as human, it is not a human emotional response.

G-d never made one person homosexual.

Frankly, as was noted by Lalareina, there is no possibility that I will ever deny G-d and accept the Darwinian denigration of mankind that you embrace. No disrespect, but it just will never happen CCC.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 6:54pm
CCC,

Here is some additional data for you regarding your supposed examples of animal homosexuality.

<Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.>

Antonio Pardo, "Aspectos mŽdicos de la homosexualidad," Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 7:09pm
I do it for that and for intellectual entertainment. Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 6:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

I am no longer youg. opinion is not spelled with two Ps.

I do it for the intellectual entertainment.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 6:16pm

Thanks for pointing out my spelling errors and typos, it sure is helpful.

Does it make you feel superior? You state I am not respectful? I don't think I am the one who needs a manners lesson.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 7:19pm
<<G-d never made one person homosexual.>>

You have highlighted the precise point upon which your position relies, and the one upon which it falls. What does that statement you made mean? It means that no one was made homosexual, i.e. no one was born that way (in the same respect as someone being born heterosexual). This means that if even ONE person is homosexual not by choice, not by environmental pressure, but by innate inclination, your position collapses.

And that's why your position simply can't stand up to scrutiny. First, you have arguments from Extraneous (never responded to) which call into question the notion that someone would choose homosexuality. Second, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence from homosexuals saying that they did not choose their sexuality (and remember, that only has to be true for ONE of them for your position to fail). Many homosexuals are who they are because it is within the very fiber of their being. It is not a choice to go have sex with another man or another woman; it is an attraction to those of the same sex that is no different in kind from the attraction the majority of us feel towards the opposite sex. Both you and emile dubois are mistaken; it is not a set of actions that you choose. Heterosexuality can't be reduced to the choice to have sex with the opposite sex, so how can you say that homosexuality can be reduced to the choice to have sex with the same sex?

Because homosexuality, contrary to your claims, cannot be reduced to a specific pattern of behavior, the Biblical texts have virtually nothing to say about it. You can point to no statements that address it as it is AND are explicitly exclusive of it. Not one of the statements you haev used as evidence before does this, and for that reason your position fails.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/15/2009 @ 7:30pm
Having just stated that I think homosexual desire is a biological process, not a consious choice, I would like to point out that I have URGE to kill about 90% of the other drivers on the road. I suppress that urge. Is that denying a part of who I am?

The question is, "what is the consequence of pursuing gratification of urges?"

The advent of birth control radically changed the consequences of pursuing the gratification of urges.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 3:41pm

Once again you are taking to wildly different things. You are not genetically predisposed to kill other drivers on the road. Their actions lead to anger which lead to thoughts of murdering them. I don't think you actually want them dead. If someone put a gun in your hand and said there are no consequence to this action you wouldn't kill the person because you are not actually genetically wired to murder people. If you were I would think you would have killed someone by now.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 8:05pm
"Here is some additional data for you regarding your supposed examples of animal homosexuality. "

This person is basically making the point that you can't define it as homosexuality. But what do you define it as when something only has sex with something else of the same sex?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 8:10pm
"Until you can demonstrate that animals make moral choices, your analogy with animals just goes nowhere."

This is exactly my point. Animals DON'T make moral decisions. Which means their urge to have sex with something of the same sex isn't stemming from a choice, but from genetics. Something in their behavioral coding predisposes some animals to have urges to have sex with animals of the same sex. Which is precisely my point.

"It is not a fear of equating humans to animals, it is acknowledging that G-d created mankind in His image; meaning with an eternal spirit. That spirit is our connection with G-d and is what enables us to understand and know Him and to know right from wrong. There is no such connection with the animal kingdom. "

This has nothing to do with choice. And actually we are in fact not granted the ability to know right from wrong. Cannibals don't think their action is wrong. It is not from the grace of God that we know right from wrong it is from societal teachings. If you are told all your life that cannibalism is ok you will be ok with eating people.

"So for what ever reasons that animals exhibit behavior that you want to identify as human, it is not a human emotional response. "

Which is precisely my point. Everything you are saying is simply reinforcing my point that it is not a human choice, it is a part of the person. As much as eating or drinking sexuality is who we are.

"G-d never made one person homosexual."

Do you claim to know what God is thinking?

Here's an experiment. Larry did you choose to love your wife? Or did you just find one day that you were in love with her? If I told you tomorrow to stop loving her could you choose to stop loving her? Could you choose to stop loving your children?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 8:15pm
If who we love is a choice Larry, then you should be able to choose to stop loving your wife or your kids because to be homosexual isn't to JUST have sex with someone of the sex, it is to love some sexually of the same sex. So Larry, if God made who we love a choice, can you choose to stop loving your wife tomorrow?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 8:17pm
Here's an experiment. Larry did you choose to love your wife? Or did you just find one day that you were in love with her? If I told you tomorrow to stop loving her could you choose to stop loving her? Could you choose to stop loving your children?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 8:15pm 

Bingo. Probably a more straightforward articulation of the point I was trying t make.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/15/2009 @ 8:54pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 12:55pm

"This is a common tactic by those who lack a substantive argument. Lay a personal attack that cannot be refuted given the anonymity of web blogs and thus you have a supposed unbeatable argument."

How would knowing you in person, allow us to see things which you may or may not be lying to yourself about. I think you misread extras hypothesis, as a personal attack, rather than the trying to make rational sense of your position, that I took it as.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 2:50pm

"Every human being has some weakness in their moral capacity that they struggle with. Thus, we are all capable of murder, yet most people don't murder because our moral capacity in that area is stronger than our weakness."

Then why do some of us display this weakness, exclusively with the opposite sex and some, exclusively with the same sex?

If you (not saying you would) decided to break your wedding vows, would you do that with another woman, or a man?

Would it be your superior moral fortitude that, at least, keeps you from doing it with another man? Or is that something that is not an option with you?

Are these "alleged gays" just saying, "F**K it, as long as we're sinning, lets go all the way and do it with the same sex"?

Thank god your parents did such a good job raising you up proper. Or just imagine how many men you would have slept with.

Or, perhaps...it's not a "choice"?

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 7:09pm

" All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."

Exactly.

Posted by Malcontent at 07/15/2009 @ 9:04pm
Does it make you feel superior? Posted by Extraneous at 07/15/2009 @ 7:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

I do it for the intellectual entertainment.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 9:38pm
Both you and emile dubois are mistaken; it is not a set of actions that you choose.

Thrawn, I never said that. what I said is that your actions define you. you have sex with someone of your own sex you are by definition a homosexualist, no matter how you define yourself.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 9:41pm
Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 9:41pm 

If you're defining "homosexualist" as something different from "homosexual," I guess that's true; if you're creating a new term, you get to define it. However, if they're synonyms, you're mistaken. A girl does not become a lesbian simply because she has sex with another girl on one occasion. Though our actions may shape our character to a large degree, and may often be better indicators of who we are than our words are, you cannot define someone simply by the sum of their actions. That includes the realm of sexuality.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/15/2009 @ 9:46pm
I credited Gore Vidal for the expression homosexualist.

"you cannot define someone simply by the sum of their actions."

you cannot define them WITHOUT their actions. someone who has sex with another of the same sex is by definition a homosexualist or bisexual(Gore did not set a new word on that to my knowledge)

we must remember that homosexual acts, as well as many heterosexual acts, were against the law, which would tend to make homosexualists wary of "coming out".

Posted by emile duBois at 07/16/2009 @ 07:31am
to borrow from Brillat Savarin: you are what you eat.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/16/2009 @ 07:32am
extra, you are not arguing with Darin here, so, a little more respect, nor strawmen.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 6:01pm

No he's not arguing with me because I would never say something as dumb as,

this is nonsense. a person's sexual acts ARE their sexuality. what else?

Posted by emile duBois at 07/15/2009 @ 5:00pm

According to you if a woman has one same sex encounter she's a bisexual for the rest of her life. What if a lesbian is raped by a man, does that make her bisexual for the rest of her life?

You are conflating action with desire.

Desire is the root of urges. It is undertood for this discussion that homosexuality is defined by desire, not actions. Perhaps you were trying to draw a distinction between action and orientation, but you failed.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 09:13am
Here's an experiment. Larry did you choose to love your wife? Or did you just find one day that you were in love with her? If I told you tomorrow to stop loving her could you choose to stop loving her? Could you choose to stop loving your children?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 8:15pm

Real love is a choice. We choose to love just as G-d chooses to love us. The Christian definition of love is much different than that of the world. People fall in and out of love when it's based upon an emotion. When it's based upon the criteria G-d sets, then love is a commitment based upon choosing to love.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:15am
Posted by Thrawn at 07/15/2009 @ 7:30pm

As I've stated before Thrawn, we are coming from two different worlds on this topic. You are aligned with those like CCC who find this to be just another animal response.

You should know after several years of this debate that NO Christian who believes that the Bible is the word of G-d will EVER take your position on homosexuality. It is a behavioral choice, whether demonically influenced or merely the reaction to character weakness impulses.

There is no scientific evidence to the contrary.

This response also goes to CCC and others who share the opposing view.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:20am
Since I haven't seen the point made yet, many commenters have brought up the issue of same-sex encounters in prision.

According to Andrew Sullivan, this is described as situational homosexuality. Being incarcerated does not change one's desire, but it does limit the opportunity for heterosexual encounters.

A person who has same-sex encounters in prison because there are no available females isn't a homosexual (that is, he is not driven by same-sex desire); he is a heterosexual who engages in homosexual activity for physical gratification because that is his only opportunity outside of masturbation.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 09:22am
antisocialist-Christian love is not defined differently nor is it different which is why no one can tell the difference between Christians and anyone else in the real world.If what you say was true then you guys would stand out and there would not be people who believe in other religions or no religion who are just like you and look and act just like you nor would you have the divorce/adultery rate that you have.You are humans just like everyone else and you not do view love or anything else differently as is proven by reality..Nor do people choose to love since love is an emotion and we do not choose our emotional responses which is scientifically proven..There is tons of scientific evidence that shows that people do have genetic or biological predispositions to be different than the norm..

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 09:35am
Real love is a choice. We choose to love just as G-d chooses to love us. The Christian definition of love is much different than that of the world. People fall in and out of love when it's based upon an emotion. When it's based upon the criteria G-d sets, then love is a commitment based upon choosing to love.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:15am

I agree with this.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe desire is a choice, but I have yet to meet the person who claims he or she is only attracted to one person in the entire world. Hetero and homo indicate an attraction or desire for one sex or the other, but that doesn't mean you are attracted to every man or woman or only one man or woman.

Most people will be attracted to dozens or even hundreds of people throughout their lives. For 99+% of the people in the world all of those dozens or hundreds of people will be of the same sex.

But leaving attraction asside for the moment, love is something different. The best wedding homily I ever heard was that love is a verb. The love of marriage is not a noun. It is not a thing that you fall into. It is not a thing that happens to you. Love is a verb. Love is how you act. It is how you treat your spouse every day of your life. It is how you treat your spouse when you are happy and angry and anxious and when you are feeling ill.

We choose our actions. Sometimes are actions are not choices we are consciously aware of, but our actions are choices. By choosing fidelity and kindness and understanding, love does become a choice.

There are a limited number of people toward whom you are attracted enough to choose to love, but make no mistake; most people pick a partner intending to make a life-long commitment to that partner. That is definitely a choice.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 09:50am
darin-You,like antisocialist,are confusing emotions with actions.Love,itself,is an emotion that comes from a physical brain response that you do not choose to have.What you do with that response is where choosing comes into play.So,love is something that we fall into,but what we do with that is where choice comes into the equation.Nor can you show that Christian love is different anymore than antisocialist could because we know from the real world that it is not.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 09:58am
antisocialist/darin-Christians have their brain responses to emotions,like love,in the same part of the brain as everyone else and have the identical responses,brain waves,chemicals released,etc as everyone else.No differences can be found based upon religious belief when it comes to emotional responses in any scientific test..

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 10:05am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 09:50am

Nice post Darin

Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 10:48am
You are conflating action with desire.

Desire is the root of urges. It is undertood for this discussion that homosexuality is defined by desire, not actions. Perhaps you were trying to draw a distinction between action and orientation, but you failed.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 09:13am

I absolutely agree with Darin here. Just because one does something does not mean that is who they are. If I go to church with my in-laws and pray, I take part in the ceremonies. Does this make me a christian?

Emile, 'you are what ya eat'... Good grief what a pitiful argument, oh maybe you were only joking?. Totally without nuance or logical progression. I am sorry to break it to ya Emile, but arguments (no make that discussions) with Darin are far more polite and interesting than with someone who thinks that if they can quote a bisexual writer, then the discussion is finished. And then when they have nothing intellectual to add resort to sophomoric nit picking about grammar. It is rather pathetic. I think you are followed rather closely by Nietzsche's dog.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/16/2009 @ 11:32am
Most of what goes on in prisons is rape and not sex.Someone is confusing these two things.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 11:34am
Most of what goes on in prisons is rape and not sex.Someone is confusing these two things. Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 11:34am | ignore this person | warn this person

how do you know this?

Posted by emile duBois at 07/16/2009 @ 11:50am
extra, enjoy your discussion with the intellectually challenged Darin.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/16/2009 @ 11:51am
emile-I am a biker and have hung out with 1%ers and other such types thorough out most of my adult life and have known numerous hardened criminals and am quite familiar with life behind bars.I,also,worked in locked psychiatric facilities where we frequently got criminals coming in.I have,also,been in jail.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 11:55am
I think what Vidal means is that homosexual is an adjective rather than a noun. Vidal is always worth reading, on any subject.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/16/2009 @ 11:57am
darin-You,like antisocialist,are confusing emotions with actions. Love,itself,is an emotion that comes from a physical brain response that you do not choose to have.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 09:58am

I appreciate your point, but I think that by the definitions I'm using, I'm being consistent in describing the love of marriage as a choice.

Certainly there are many types of love. We love our parents and syblings and cousins and friends in a different manner than we love our spouse. This type of love is emotional. I guess it could be described as an involuntary response or feeling related to repeated, past, pleasant interactions with parents, syblings, cousins and friends.

At a bare minimum, I would describe a personal relationship as "love" if I would be sad if he or she died. I wasn't sad when Reagan died, even though I admired him greatly; it was more like disappointment. But I never had any personal interactions with him.

Before I got married, I dated many girls and some of them I loved. But it wasn't a love where I was prepared to make a life-long commitment to honor and obey in sickness and health to death do us part.

With the woman I did marry, there was initially a very strong attractions. We dated for a year and then broke up but ultimately still loved each other even when we weren't together so got back together and dated for another year and then got engaged and married a year after that.

So, there is attraction and I am still attracted to her. (That's probably a lot harder for her now that I'm fat and bald.) And there is the emotional love that is a result of having lived together through many good times over the last 20 years.

But for me the verb-type love of marriage is the constant decision to keep living my vows.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 12:04pm
nobody, you cannot remove sex from rape.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/16/2009 @ 12:08pm
darin-What I stated was scientifically proven facts.All love is emotion and our emotional responses are involuntary.What you do with the love after you have had the emotional response is where choice comes in and humans have varying degrees of choice depending upon how much control we have over our emotions and other such factors..That varies from person to person. You can fall in love with another while married and cannot control that,but you can decide whether or not to act on it.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 12:12pm
emile-rape involves sex,but the motivation is different.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 12:13pm
what lurks in heart s of men is not always obvious. there are many motivations for sex. I imagine that is true in prisons. you can of course only speak about male prisons.

both black and latino culture are anachronistic where homosexual sex is concerned. sweeping the issue under the rug is one aspect of this. denial is another. when married black homosexualists go on the low down, they expose their families to great risk, as the extraordinary high rates of AIDS have shown.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/16/2009 @ 12:25pm
emile-Female to female sex is far more socially acceptable so from I have have been told by females who have been in prison is that the sex there tends to be consensual and love frequently results,although some of the power and control motivation that most of the men have does exist in womens prisons..In the jungle it is about power and control because that equals survival.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 12:34pm
You can fall in love with another while married and cannot control that, but you can decide whether or not to act on it.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 12:12pm

If it's not obvious, I don't believe in "love at first sight". I think sight trigers desire but love is the emotional response related to pleasant past intereactions. Speaking of which, sexual intimacy is a factor that heightens emotional love within marriage. I've read an article that speculated about the chemicals released during orgasm creating a stronger emotional bond.

I think it is very difficult to fall in love with another while you are married. The sight of another may cause desire or longing, but it will not cause love. In order to feel love, one must decide to spend time interacting with another. In the case of a workplace romance, that decision might simple be the result of deciding to go to work and being assigned to a new project.

But that is the emotional love. When I speak of the love of marriage being a verb, perhaps I am referring to commitment. If one is truly committed, he will constantly remind himself that the exciting woman at work is absolutely positively off limits and the lustful thoughts are sinful and should be avoided at all costs and if I fail to curb my desire I have to be re-assigned to a new project or find a new job all together because my marriage relationship is the most important relationship in the world and I made a vow to honor it and be faithful.

That love is a choice.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 12:48pm
So now that we know what each other means by "love" how does this relate to civil marriage?

In my humble opinion, the issue of choice is irrelevent. I desire steak and ice cream. If I were a better man, I would be able to will myself to desire fruits and vegetables, but I can't. Likewise, I don't think homosexuals can will themselves to desire the opposite sex. But that doesn't matter.

If the community wishes to define marriage as being related to procreation, since the State has a vital interest in procreation, since homosexuals can't procreate, it is not a 14th amendment violation to restrict civil marriage to a man and a woman.

Homosexuals are still free to choose to form life-long committed relationships with the partners they love.

However, I think our community should define marraige as being vital to rearing children and should expand marriage to cover same-sex couples because it is good for the children of homosexuals.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 1:00pm
sophomoric nit picking about grammar. It is rather pathetic. I think you are followed rather closely by Nietzsche's dog. Posted by Extraneous at 07/16/2009 @ 11:32am | ignore this person | warn this person

there are only two things you can do about this.

one: you can put me on ignore. be my guest.

two: you can proofread your "work"

thazzit.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/16/2009 @ 1:14pm
Real love is a choice. We choose to love just as G-d chooses to love us. The Christian definition of love is much different than that of the world. People fall in and out of love when it's based upon an emotion. When it's based upon the criteria G-d sets, then love is a commitment based upon choosing to love.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:15am

No, you are talking about getting married or commitment. I am talking about the emotion of love. You are trying to remove emotion from the equation. So I ask again, did you CHOOSE fall in love with your wife? Because THAT is what determines who you are willing to mate with. Whether or not that emotion is based on something about God is irrelevant to my question.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/16/2009 @ 5:28pm
Real love is a choice. We choose to love just as G-d chooses to love us. The Christian definition of love is much different than that of the world. People fall in and out of love when it's based upon an emotion. When it's based upon the criteria G-d sets, then love is a commitment based upon choosing to love.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:15am

This isn't to be confrontational, but are you saying that the only real between two people is Christian love?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/16/2009 @ 5:30pm
You should know after several years of this debate that NO Christian who believes that the Bible is the word of G-d will EVER take your position on homosexuality. It is a behavioral choice, whether demonically influenced or merely the reaction to character weakness impulses.

There is no scientific evidence to the contrary.

This response also goes to CCC and others who share the opposing view.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:20am

But I don't think you actually fully believe the Bible is the word of God. For instance you believe that the world isn't 6,000 years old. Those who staunchly believe the Bible is truth tend to believe the world is 6,000 years old because they take everything to be literal. But that's neither here nor there.

There IS no evidence in the Bible to condemn homosexuality. It takes a few people interpreting the Bible in order to condemn behavior they are uncomfortable with.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/16/2009 @ 5:33pm
So I ask again, did you CHOOSE fall in love with your wife? Because THAT is what determines who you are willing to mate with. Whether or not that emotion is based on something about God is irrelevant to my question.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/16/2009 @ 5:28pm

I would say I did make a conscious choice to love my wife. Like I said earlier, when we met, there was a strong physical attraction and we started dating. I chose to spend lots of time with her so that we could fall in love. And we had a number of fights, and I chose to work things out rather than leave. I even mentioned that we broke up after a year. I (well really all of these "I's" should be "we's") we chose to start dating again after we broke up. After another year of dating, we decided to make the commitment a life-long one and got engaged and planned our wedding.

There were girls that I dated that I had a deep affection for and a sexual relationship, and yes, I loved them, but I wasn't ready for a life-long commitment at that stage of my life and we eventually stopped dating.

So I would say I made a conscious decision to invest the time with my wife so that attraction could develop into affection and affection could develop into love of a life-long commitment type of love.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 5:48pm
No, you are talking about getting married or commitment. I am talking about the emotion of love. You are trying to remove emotion from the equation. So I ask again, did you CHOOSE fall in love with your wife? Because THAT is what determines who you are willing to mate with. Whether or not that emotion is based on something about God is irrelevant to my question.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/16/2009 @ 5:28pm

It may be irrelevant to you, but it is the only basis I care about. As I said, emotional love is something that is so subjective and subject to change.

I chose to love my wife. I did not go the emotional route of fleeting emotions.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 6:00pm
darin-You can believe what you want,but it is a fact proven by science that you did not choose to love your wife.Fight or flight,love,anger,etc emotions are caused by biochemical reactions and that is a fact and these reactions are involuntary and that is a proven fact.You only chose to act on the emotion of love.You did not choose to have the emotion of love and that is a proven fact.It is not until the emotional reaction is over and we are in balance are we capable of rational choice and actions.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 6:00pm
darin-The only people who can choose what emotions to have are known as sociopaths,people with certain border line personality disorders,and other such ailments and it is interesting that you and antisocialist are putting yourselves in with those people.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 6:05pm
This isn't to be confrontational, but are you saying that the only real between two people is Christian love?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/16/2009 @ 5:30pm

As I said, I separate out emotional love which is purely subjective and thus has no sense of permancy.

The only love that I care about is the love we learn from G-d as Christians.

As Christians we learn that we didn't just choose to love G-d. He loved us first and causes us to know His love and thus we then choose to love Him. Likewise Husbands and wives are taught by scripture to love each other as Christ loves the Church. It is a decision and a commitment. Any emotions are just icing on the cake so to speak.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 6:07pm
There IS no evidence in the Bible to condemn homosexuality. It takes a few people interpreting the Bible in order to condemn behavior they are uncomfortable with.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/16/2009 @ 5:33pm

We've had this argument often and you are completely wrong. The condemnation of homosexuality is direct and without ambiguity.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 6:08pm
antisocialist-It is a proven fact that Christians have the same emotional love response that non Christians have and that Christians do not have better relationships than non Christians or express love differently so while you may claim to have a different view of love that is meaningless since it has no bearing in the reality of actions.If a space alien read your posts they would assume that they would notice a difference in the real world,but,as you know,they would not know the Christians from the lions in terms of actions.So,while your philosophy of Christian love is pretty it means nothing since your relationships do not stand out because there are atheists who can match the love in your relationships.When it comes to love and sex we humans are the same.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 6:24pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:20am 

I realize that we're coming from different worlds, but that doesn't mean my arguments are ones for which no direct response is possible. They are; it's just that very little in the way of direct response has actually been made.

Your scientific claim is simply wrong, leaving aside the issue of demon possession being impossible to ever test empirically; it defies virtually all evidence that exists, both broad-spectrum and anecdotal. In many cases, homosexuality is NOT a choice. My argument here isn't "it's just an animal drive"; that's a strawman. My argument is instead that homosexuality is a precise flip-side to heterosexuality in that it differs only in which sex you are attracted to. I've talked to a lot of people, some of whom in fact wished they weren't gay because of the stigma, etc., but knew nonetheless that that's how they were, and that they could never be attracted to someone of the opposite sex. That is fact.

You may deny that central fact as much as you choose, but it remains no less factual. It has two implications:

1) The claim that "God did not design a single person homosexual" is dubious at best, and even more important...

2) The Biblical texts which appear to address homosexuality...don't.

By the way...your continual conflation of "word of God" with "inerrancy" is both unwarranted and dangerous. Since I affirm that there are universal moral standards which are categorically true, I'm not sure how I can affirm that when the Bible makes different moral claims at different times. Was there a point in time and place when killing a child for disobedience was not only acceptable but morally obligatory? Anyone I talk to today, especially ministers, would call it murder.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/16/2009 @ 7:08pm
Posted by Thrawn at 07/16/2009 @ 7:08pm

And the circle goes round and round.

1. There is no scientific evidence or it would have been presented long ago. So your answer to my statement is itself a non response.

2. I did not say demon "possession". I said demonic influence. ALL PEOPLE are exposed to demonic influence, that is the basic daily function of the devil and his demons. Nor did I say that it is the cause in every instance

<It is a behavioral choice, whether demonically influenced or merely the reaction to character weakness impulses.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:20am>

3. As I've said before, what is obvious to most biblical scholars and the historic record is something quite different to you.

you separate out homosexuality as a polar opposite of heterosexuality and that is only true as regards the actual activity. We obviously will never agree that someone can be "born" that way as naturally and normally as heterosexuals.

4. As to the Word of G-d and inerrancy, that is a judeo-christian terminology that is defined equally by both orthodox Jews, the early church and the predominant view today in Christianity despite your protestations otherwise.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 7:52pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 7:52pm 

I think we've agreed on at least one thing: your position hinges on the proposition that homosexuality is always a choice, and therefore that no one can be born a homosexual. If that proposition is false, your position falls. I've given at least three independent warrants for it:

1) Scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is inconclusive about whether homosexuality is generally/always a choice. But that's not your position; your position is that it ALWAYS is. I know of no credible science that supports that.

2) Anecdotal evidence. I've actually talked to people who are gay, some of whom are good friends of mine.

3) Reason. Put simply...why on Earth would someone choose to be gay? They have a much smaller "pool" of people to connect with, they face stereotyping and discrimination, and in most states they can't marry (or sorry, can't marry someone they could actually love).

Also...any kind of "giving into lust" argument is silly, and if anything, proves my point. The only way that homosexuality= giving into lust is if they're already inclined that way to begin with. In which case your position still fails.

As for inerrancy:

1) I'm not sure it's still the predominant view, but more importantly

2) I don't see how it's tenable. I already gave you one reason that met with no response: different books of the Bible express support for mutually-exclusive moral standards, and the only way you can reconcile them is to affirm that moral principles themselves evolved over time. The problem is...that destroys the notion of objective moral values.

One such morphing by the way came with ritual purity; Peter was effectively told by God that nothing/no one is intrinsically unclean. Interesting, no?

Posted by Thrawn at 07/16/2009 @ 8:15pm
I want to hit something else while I'm on the Peter story, because I think it's quite fascinating.

Peter gets a vision of certain foods coming down from heaven. The story makes it pretty clear that books of the Old Testament would have described said foods as unclean.

Here's the interesting part. Jesus in the Gospels and God in Acts don't say "remember these things that your texts say are unclean? well, they're not anymore." That's not what they say. What they say is "these things ARE NOT unclean." In other words, they don't alter the law such that X was unclean before and it no longer is. They're effectively saying that these things were not and are not unclean. I don't know how else to interpret "what comes into the body can't defile" except as a statement that X and Y foods are inherently not unclean.

In other words, when the statement "X and Y foods make one ritually impure/defiled" was written down/passed down...it was false. It didn't eventually BECOME false; it was false AT THE TIME.

And for the extra kicker...I think Peter's effective conclusion that no category of persons should be treated as unclean has some very interesting ramifications on this discussion. I'm not pinning my entire position on it, but I'd wager a guess that "everyone" includes homosexuals. You cannot, cannot, cannot reduce homosexuality down to a specific set of acts that one has an inclination to carry out, anymore than you can do so for heterosexuality. That's why I remain convinced, just as many rabbis (probably not Orthodox, granted, but I don't know why that's decisive) are, that the Old Testament simply doesn't address homosexuality, and without that Old Testament foundation, your position can't survive.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/16/2009 @ 8:23pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 5:48pm

No Darin you are conflating two things. You are conflating making the decision to love someone, and making the decision that makes loves possible. You chose to spend time with your current wife and work out problems. That is not choosing to love a person, that is choosing to put yourself in a situation where love can happen. You guys working it out after you broke up is not choosing to love someone, it is choosing to preserve the love that was already there. I figured Larry would come up with this but my point is love is not chosen. The circumstances to create love are but you don't sit down and say "Ok I'm going to love this person now", that just happens.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/16/2009 @ 8:51pm
Posted by Thrawn at 07/16/2009 @ 8:23pm

There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible and it is fascinating that people can then say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God when the errors are so blatantly there to be seen. He has yet to point out scripture that has pointed directly to homosexuality as a sin.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/16/2009 @ 8:57pm
Can you refresh my memory Larry and point to which scripture actually condemns homosexuality?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/16/2009 @ 9:02pm
1) Fight or flight,love,anger,etc emotions are caused by biochemical reactions and that is a fact and these reactions are involuntary and that is a proven fact.

2) You only chose to act on the emotion of love.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/16/2009 @ 6:00pm

I'm not disputing anthing you contend in part 1. Yes, emotion is a biochemical recation in the brain. My disagreement is with your conclusion in part 2. I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

The biochemical reactions in the brain are involuntary and cannot be willed.

(Short aside, I'm reading "Predictibly Irrational" and I'm on the chapter regarding the placebo effect, which is real. So, we can affect what happen in our brains with our expectations, but it is on a subconscious level, not a consious one.)

But the word, "reaction" has two meanings: there is the chemical reaction, but the chemical reaction is itself a response (or reaction) to stimuli.

I choose the stimuli that I position myself in proximity to. Like I said regarding homosexuality, I can't will myself to find men attractive. So the attraction I felt upon first meeting my wife was involuntary, but that was not love. If she were a crack head, I wouldn't have associated with her and I wouldn't have fallen in love. It was the conscious choise to date that caused the love. In this, I made a conscous discion to place myself in proximaty so that I couls fall in love.

Without that conscious choise, I would not have fallen in love.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/17/2009 @ 07:08am
darin-It was the emotional reaction to your wife that caused you to want to date her.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/17/2009 @ 08:33am
antisocialist-The church did not exist at the time of Jesus so no one knows how He feels about the church so it would make no sense to base your marriages on something you are unsure of and if the divorce rate amongst Christians is a reflection of how Jesus feels about the church then you may wish to find a new church.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/17/2009 @ 08:37am
Like I said regarding homosexuality, I can't will myself to find men attractive.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/17/2009 @ 07:08am 

For many homosexuals, the precise opposite is true: they cannot will themselves to find members of the opposite sex attractive. This is one reason why antisocialist's position is simply mistaken. It vastly misperceives homosexuality.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/17/2009 @ 08:39am
darin-It was the emotional reaction to your wife that caused you to want to date her.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/17/2009 @ 08:33am

But that's not love; that is attraction.

If my wife had gotten run over by a bus the day after I met her, I would have thought, "Gee, that's too bad." (Lack of attachment. When someone you truly love dies, it takes months or years for the grief to subside.)

If she'd asked to borrow $500 the day after we met, I wouldn't have loaned it to her. (Lack of trust.)

If she'd said, "Hey, let's have a baby together the day after we met, I'd have said, "No, but we can practice." (Lack of commitment.)

In order to truly love a person you need attachment, trust, and commitment. Those things cannot develop unless you spend the time together to develop those things.

Now, simply spending time together does not guarantee that those things will develop. You need to be compatible. The person has to earn your trust. But it is impossible for those things to develop without yout conscoius choices.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/17/2009 @ 09:06am
The circumstances to create love are but you don't sit down and say "Ok I'm going to love this person now", that just happens.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/16/2009 @ 8:51pm

Previously, I'd made the point about different kinds of love (immediate family, extended family, friends) and this is specifically about the marriage-type of love.

When I met my wife, there were lots of other girls that I found attractive. I still find lots of other women attractive, but I don't put myself in the type of proximity required for love to develop.

I guess the other issue is timeing. I met my wife during the summer before my Sr. year in college. We broke up a month before graduation and got back together a couple months after graduation. I was acutely aware that I needed to grow up and it was time to settle down and find a wife.

Now I'll grant that I may be atypical. On the Myers/Briggs Personality Type Indicator there is a dimension that measures whether you make decisions based on thinking or feeling. The most extream score possible on the thinking vs. feeling dimension was 35 - 0 and I scored 34 - 0.

I still say, I chose to fall in love with my wife.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/17/2009 @ 09:27am
The circumstances to create love are but you don't sit down and say "Ok I'm going to love this person now", that just happens.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/16/2009 @ 8:51pm

Previously, I'd made the point about different kinds of love (immediate family, extended family, friends) and this is specifically about the marriage-type of love.

When I met my wife, there were lots of other girls that I found attractive. I still find lots of other women attractive, but I don't put myself in the type of proximity required for love to develop.

I guess the other issue is timeing. I met my wife during the summer before my Sr. year in college. We broke up a month before graduation and got back together a couple months after graduation. I was acutely aware that I needed to grow up and it was time to settle down and find a wife.

Now I'll grant that I may be atypical. On the Myers/Briggs Personality Type Indicator there is a dimension that measures whether you make decisions based on thinking or feeling. The most extream score possible on the thinking vs. feeling dimension was 35 - 0 and I scored 34 - 0.

I still say, I chose to fall in love with my wife.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/17/2009 @ 09:28am
darin-It has been shown that the attraction we initially feel for one another is the same love that we develop.It is just that the biochemical reaction that we first have is not as strong.It does not matter what you say.It is a fact that you did not choose to fall in love with your wife or stay in love with her.You only chose to act on the love.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/17/2009 @ 09:35am
I just want to point out this rather amusing gem from Darin:

<<If she'd said, "Hey, let's have a baby together the day after we met, I'd have said, "No, but we can practice." (Lack of commitment.)>>

Posted by Thrawn at 07/17/2009 @ 10:29am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/17/2009 @ 09:28am 

By the way, what you have described isn't choosing to fall in love with your wife. I agree with you that love as a verb is a choice (ex: loving someone even when the emotino isn't there), but to say that you can choose to fall in love seems incoherent.

What you really seem to be describing is...choosing to create the preconditions for falling in love.

Though I agree with both you and antisocialist that relationships should not and cannot be based strictly on emotions that may wax and wane, I think it's unfair to say that they shouldn't rely on them at all. First of all, many people who have been married for a long time still feel an emotional connection, but it's much quieter and deeper. Second, why would you ever want a relationship in which emotion did not factor? Is a relationship in which pure reason dominates a good thing??

Now, maybe that isn't what you were saying (or at least, not what antisocialist was saying). If not, however, I'd be grateful if you articulated what it is you're defending.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/17/2009 @ 12:58pm
""No, I'm not good at citing scripture. I know Moses wandered in the desert for 40 years and never got to see the promised land because that's how long it took (two generations) to rid his people of their acceptance of slavery. I know the Bible implies this is a good thing, but I can't cite a scripture that supports it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 1:34pm ""

Moses did not wonder in the desert for 40 years and then never see the promise land because it took too long to rid his people of their acceptance of slavery!!

The people he was leading were slaves from Egypt.

He never saw the Promise Land because of his lack of faith, he lost faith that God would ever get them there and started to turn against God.

ON THE GAY MARRIAGE ISSUE:::

There is NO Biblical evidence that being a gay person in a loving committed gay relationship is wrong.

I say this because, the Sodom and Gomorrah story was talking about ""homosexual offenders"" as in rapists and pedophiles, NOT loving gay couples.

Secondly, if you are a Christian you believe that the Old Testament was done away with. It no longer applies.

We do not still, as Christians, adhere to Sukkot, wearing clothing made of ONLY one fiber, or banishing women from the village for the duration of her monthly menstruation.

SO, why then, as Christians, would we stick to the ONE line where it says that man should not lie with another man like they lie with their wives???

The argument that homosexuality is a sin is a crock and a sham.

God created us all, and God DOES NOT make mistakes.

Posted by nataniasmom at 07/17/2009 @ 2:19pm
I figured Larry would come up with this but my point is love is not chosen. The circumstances to create love are but you don't sit down and say "Ok I'm going to love this person now", that just happens.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/16/2009 @ 8:51pm

No but the Christian approach is to commit to love a person and is independent of any emotional attachment. Any subsequent emotions are as I said before, icing on the cake.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 2:52pm
Posted by nataniasmom at 07/17/2009 @ 2:19pm

If you had posted here for any length of time, you would find that I never cite Leviticus in my arguments against the immorality of homosexuality.

In Matthew 19:4-7 Jesus makes it clear that G-d created men and women and the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Matthew 15:18-20 Jesus declares that adultery and fornication (which is all sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman) makes you defiled. To be defiled means in the text to be in a state of unholiness. And nothing that is unholy can come into the presence of G-d.

Orthodox Judaism restricts sexual activity to a legally permissible marriage between a Jewish man and a Jewish woman. A man and women are even prohibited from being in a closed room alone together if they are not married, a law called yichud, nor are they allowed to have physical contact (a law referred to as negiah).

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Now what He is specifically referring to is the requirements or demands of the law for right standing with G-d. All the requirements for falling short of G-d's standards is satisfied by the work of the cross.

But that doesn't mean that we can continue to engage in behavior that the law condemns. In fact, as Paul noted, we treat the work of the cross with contempt when we say we repent and trust in Christ and then continue in the sinful behavior.

No one is created a homosexual by G-d.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 3:26pm
No but the Christian approach is to commit to love a person and is independent of any emotional attachment. Any subsequent emotions are as I said before, icing on the cake.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 2:52pm

I know you like to believe that that is solely Christian but marriage takes place in many many faiths. Or commitment ceremonies, whatever you want to call it. But that is not a choice to love someone again, that is a choice to commit yourself fully to someone and deepen the love that is already there. If you weren't already in love you would never go through with this.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 4:52pm
No but the Christian approach is to commit to love a person and is independent of any emotional attachment. Any subsequent emotions are as I said before, icing on the cake.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 2:52pm

I know you like to believe that that is solely Christian but marriage takes place in many many faiths. Or commitment ceremonies, whatever you want to call it. But that is not a choice to love someone again, that is a choice to commit yourself fully to someone and deepen the love that is already there. If you weren't already in love you would never go through with this.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 4:52pm

I disagree. When I conduct pre-marital counseling with couples, I let them know in my 1st meeting with them that they are not "in love". I tell them that they may be infatuated, they may care a lot for someone, but they are not in love.

I then proceed to explain the Christian concept of love in marriage just they way I have here.

So, what I have been defending here is exactly what I teach and counsel in my ministry.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 5:00pm
"In Matthew 19:4-7 Jesus makes it clear that G-d created men and women and the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman. "

This has nothing to do with marriage only being between a man and a woman. They are talking about divorce.

"Matthew 15:18-20 Jesus declares that adultery and fornication (which is all sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman) makes you defiled. To be defiled means in the text to be in a state of unholiness. And nothing that is unholy can come into the presence of G-d."

This is built on the precept that the first passage is actually about marriage between a man and woman which it's not it's about divorce.

"Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. "

This is a false starter. Do you sacrifice goats? We have alreay discussed this. We don't follow the law. Do you only eat kosher food? Do you eat sea food that is not scaled? These are all apart of the Law and yet you probably don't follow them and most every Christian doesn't. I found an interesting article that pointed out this contridiction that basically showed that in the Law certain foods were prohibited. But then in the New Testament Jesus said these foods were never prohibited. Which means the Law was wrong to begin with which then destroys the meaning of this passage,

"No one is created a homosexual by G-d."

You are making judgements you are incapable of making. You don't know everyone, and you aren't God.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 5:25pm
For instance LVL do you propose that we should stone adulterers?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 5:28pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 3:26pm 

Some of this we've already been through:

1) The commandments of Orthodox Judaism aren't a standard unless you think Christianity also prohibits singles from being in a room alone together (it doesn't).

2)You claim that nothing unholy can be in the presence of God. This is false, and even if true, it's irrelevant. It's false because (a) Jesus was God and (b) he was in the presence of fallible, sinful people. It's also irrelevant because according to your own Atonement theology, Jesus took that all (and yes, ALL; see, as in Adam all die, in Christ, ALL are made alive) onto himself. At the point he took it all onto himself...that's it. That doesn't mean doing bad is OK; it means doing bad doesn't condemn one to hell.

3) You're claim that God doesn't create people homosexual is not only an assertion, but is plainly contrary to evidence. I gave you three independent reasons for this, none of which you've responded to. Not only is there solid scientific and anecdotal evidence that at least SOME individuals were effectively born homosexual, it's also been argued that virtually no one would choose to be homosexual if given a choice from some mythical void. Your argument, then, is failing on three levels.

You also haven't responded to my criticisms against inerrancy, coming from both Peter and Jesus, about the very concept of ritual purity to which you partially refer. Jesus' statements make plain that certain foods NEVER WERE ritually impure (also, he disboeys Sabbath law; clearly he didn't meant to leave it unchanged). Leviticus says these foods are ritually impure. Those statements are therefore mutually exclusive. Inerrancy is thus incoherent because mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/17/2009 @ 8:12pm
antisocialist-The fact that you tell some couple that they are not in love does not mean that they will suddenly be out of love and then live what you tell them because no one has that level of control over their emotions except for a sociopath and other such people.Science has proven that they are in love.It does not matter what you teach and counsel because no one can tell the difference between Christian couples and other couples because you do not live it and live just like the non Christian couples because we humans pair up and stay together or end our marriages for the same reasons regardless of your religious beliefs or lack of belief and we act the same when we are in a relationship...

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/18/2009 @ 09:53am
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/18/2009 @ 09:53am

Not to be pesky, but...that last sentence was pretty long. I might have passed out trying to read it out loud without catching a breath.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/18/2009 @ 10:26am
Thrawn-I wrote that right after having a cup of my very strong coffee.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/18/2009 @ 10:53am
Haha fair enough.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/18/2009 @ 11:08pm

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)

SCLC and Marriage Equality

posted by Melissa Harris-Lacewell on 07/13/2009 @ 7:59pm

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

SCLC and Marriage Equality

posted by Melissa Harris-Lacewell on 07/13/2009 @ 7:59pm

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