Marriage in Maine: Losing Forward

Last night, in a voter referendum, Mainers narrowly, nail-bitingly voted to repeal the law extending marriage rights to same-sex couples, with the Bangor Daily News now reporting a margin of 53 to 47 percent.

It wasn't only bad news for LGBT rights on election night--voters in Kalamazoo, Michigan, approved an anti-discrimination ordinance adding sexual orientation and gender identity to existing civil rights law in their city, and Washington state's referendum to approve everything-but-the-M-word protections for same-sex couples is winning, though the race hasn't been called yet.

Still, on a morning after like this, you could be forgiven for thinking that it's the elite institutions in American life--courts and state legislatures (although, are you noticing, the sphere of what's "elite" keeps expanding?)--that are ready to contemplate marriage for gay people, and that Americans themselves (Liz Lemon's insistence that no Americans are any more real than any others notwithstanding) aren't. The State Supreme Court extends marriage rights to same-sex couples in California. Californians use a ballot initiative to take the right away. Maine's state legislature passes marriage equality legislation, and voters take the right away. In some jurisdictions (namely, Maine and California), public policy may be slightly outstripping public opinion. But the New York Times has recently taken a close look at whether public opinion on gay rights issues leads or lags behind public policy in all 50 states, sparked by a paper in the American Political Science Review (via Nan Hunter's indispensable blog). Only in Iowa does partnership recognition (in that state's case, marriage) outstrip public support. (In fact, illustrating the vagaries in polling and voting, in this survey, just over half of Mainers support the right to marry.) But the study does not stop at examining attitudes on marriage. Over 50 percent of residents in almost every state (Oklahoma and Utah being the two exceptions) support health benefits for same-sex partners, and yet only 14 states offer this protection. A few more states have enacted workplace and housing discrimination protections, but again, virtually all states see a majority supporting this protection. In fact, average Americans want gay people to have protections--not necessarily marriage, yet, but we're getting there.

Still depressed? Consider, first, that Maine didn't even have a basic anti-discrimination law until 2005--and had a number of false starts there, too, with voters twice repealing existing protections. And, on the federal level, news is better. Last week Obama signed the hate crimes bill, which, as the National Center for Transgender Equality points out, is the first time the federal government has enacted protections for transgender people. Meanwhile, Nan Hunter reports, ENDA is "chugging along;" Senate hearings are coming up this week, House hearings have already happened, and House members are planning mark-up "soon."

And on the subject of looking on the bright side: at TAPPED, Adam Serwer has a rundown of LGBT candidates who did well running for office--some--Mark Kleinschmidt in Chapel Hill and Charles Pugh in Detroit--even won! (And another, Annise Parker in Houston, heads to a run-off election.)

Comments (317)

1. http://baselinescenario.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/marriage1.jpg

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 09:53am

2. I read somewhere that in ALL 31 states where same-sex marriage had been voted on state-wide, it has lost! No wonder the PEOPLE is fed up with politicians!

   Posted by Happy at 11/04/2009 @ 09:55am

3. "I read somewhere that in ALL 31 states where same-sex marriage had been voted on state-wide, it has lost!"

   bigots obviously have a great deal of motivation.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 10:11am

4. "I read somewhere that in ALL 31 states where same-sex marriage had been voted on state-wide, it has lost!"

   bigots obviously have a great deal of motivation.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 10:11am

   So says the bigot ms darla.

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 10:26am

5. And contrary to your claims Darla, what this reflects is the right of the people to maintain traditions that cross the major world faiths and have lasted for over 5000 years. To have 2% of the population attempt to redefine a core element of the major faiths in the world is the tyranny of the few.

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 10:30am

6. "what this reflects is the right of the people to maintain traditions that cross the major world faiths and have lasted for over 5000 years"

   slavery and rape used to be a tradition, too.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 10:35am

7. " To have 2% of the population attempt to redefine a core element of the major faiths in the world is the tyranny of the few."

   antisocialist (aka legal expert), please tell us how fitting homosexuals into the existing legal parameters of marriage would "redefine a core element of the major faiths in the world"?

   of which "core element" do you speak?

   and, if you're oh, so concerned about the constitution, ever heard of.....i dunno.....a little thing called 'separation of church and state'?

   and "tyranny of the few"? homosexuals are a "tyranny of the few"???!!!!!! wtf?!

   Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 10:38am

8. antisocialist would rather:

   a) homosexuals just go away and die; or

   b) homosexuals convert to heterosexuality.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 10:39am

9. "what this reflects is the right of the people to maintain traditions that cross the major world faiths and have lasted for over 5000 years"

   slavery and rape used to be a tradition, too.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 10:35am

   Other than in Islam, what world religion approved of rape?

   Slavery was indeed a tradition in Islam but is not promoted or encouraged in Christianity or Hinduism. Judaism had an entirely different meaning for slavery including the right of servants to buy out their contract and to be released in the year of Jubilee.

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 10:50am

10. antisocialist (aka legal expert), please tell us how fitting homosexuals into the existing legal parameters of marriage would "redefine a core element of the major faiths in the world"?

    of which "core element" do you speak?

    and, if you're oh, so concerned about the constitution, ever heard of.....i dunno.....a little thing called 'separation of church and state'?

    and "tyranny of the few"? homosexuals are a "tyranny of the few"???!!!!!! wtf?!

    Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 10:38am

    You're attempting to redefine the religious tradition of the major faiths.

    Again, states can issue civil union contracts to all people who want a legal relationship. Just don't call anything other than a male/female marriage, marriage.

    I want separation of church and state. So, have the states quit using a religious sacrament term for a civil contract.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 10:54am

11. Sorry anti, but religious people don't own the institution of marriage. Marriage existed as a civil tradition in Roman law independently of the Abrahamic tradition. Further, American law has long allowed figures of civil authority to officiate at marriages. To argue that "marriage" is only a religious term is simply flat out wrong, unless you plan on arguing that civil marriages between heterosexuals don't count.

    There is nothing in the gay marriage proposals that changes one jot of religious doctrine or requires any church to officiate a gay marriage ceremony; consequently, the argument that such laws would change religious traditions is so ridiculous as to be an obvious red herring.

    Your issue isn't religious freedom, it's that you're a bigoted hater.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/04/2009 @ 11:02am

12. the bible is full of slavery and rape. christians have raped and enslaved millions.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 11:02am

13. I read somewhere that in ALL 31 states where same-sex marriage had been voted on state-wide, it has lost! No wonder the PEOPLE is fed up with politicians!

    Posted by Happy at 11/04/2009 @ 09:55am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Exactly, governors, legislatures, and the judiciary have "perverted" the will of the people in 15 states, and you can not ignore that the people of 31 states have voted that the acceptance of sexual perversion in defining marriage is unacceptable.

    Any politician elected or appointed to represent the will of the people deserves to lose that office if he does not pursue that trust! This is what the right to vote is about! ONLY where the peoples right to vote on a matter is DENIED does the evil of sexual perversion win.

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 11:02am

14. "I want separation of church and state. So, have the states quit using a religious sacrament term for a civil contract."

    oh, NOW you are concerned. but before gays wanted to get married? not so much.

    but you're not a bigot. you're just a very concerned person.

    "Your issue isn't religious freedom, it's that you're a bigoted hater"

    which is not difficult when your entire life revolves around some ancient, poorly-written book.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 11:05am

15. "you can not ignore that the people of 31 states have voted that the acceptance of sexual perversion in defining marriage is unacceptable"

    i didn't realize that a particular sexual act defined marriage.

    i think bigpasture inadvertently revealed his problem with homosexuals: that men stick their penises in other men's assholes.

    that's what the issue is for bigots: they can't accept the fact that men would do something so "filthy."

    Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 11:10am

16. And contrary to your claims Darla, what this reflects is the right of the people to maintain traditions that cross the major world faiths and have lasted for over 5000 years. To have 2% of the population attempt to redefine a core element of the major faiths in the world is the tyranny of the few.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 10:30am

    "tyranny of the few?" Please. I don't think I've ever heard a more moronic statement than that. You make gays sound like Caesars or something.

    As for the actual fight for civil rights (and the word "marriage" IS a civil right in the United States whether you like it or not Larry), I am tired of the state by state approach. If they had gone the state by state approach back in the sixties, blacks and whites still couldn't marry in the South (and not just Louisiana), and Obama wouldn't have had a shot at the Presidency. Now, I am sure the racists like Happy would be happy if things went that way, but I think it's time to take it onto the Federal level. Enough with this state by state crap.

    There is no denying that marriage is a civil right under Federal law, because married people are granted certain rights upon getting married. Federal law prohibits the influence of the church on the state. Therefore, if it gets to the Supremes, they must decide in favor of equality for all, including all federal rights and privileges granted to married couples. It is simply a matter of having a group of people (gays) who are not treated equally under the law; therefore it is unConstitutional, plain and simple. Religious traditions be damned.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 11:21am

17. the acceptance of sexual perversion in defining marriage is unacceptable. Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 11:02am

    Wow Big, that statement speaks volumes as to the extent of your mental illness. And stupidity.

    Sexual Perversion is described as "Acts or Imagery that are considered unusual within the culture".

    Problem with your analysis is that homosexuality is not "unusual" in any culture. In fact it has existed in every culture since the beginning of recorded history. And has been accepted in many cultures throughout recorded history. And is also widely encountered in the animal kingdom outside humanity.

    Between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit homosexual sensibility. And many people experiment with it at some point in their lives. It is not "unusal" by any definition of the word.

    Each to his own and mind your own damn business is my philosophy. Sexual activity between consenting adults is none of your damn business.

    And by the way, since Maine is being contrary anyone wishing to get married who happen to be of the same sex can come here to the Heartland. Iowan's don't care what your preference is.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/04/2009 @ 11:27am

18. "Iowan's don't care what your preference is"

    some do, i'm sure. it's not like it's the Castro, or anything.

    iowa city's cool tho'! that co-op is amazing...or gabe's oasis.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 11:31am

19. Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 11:10am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Thanks for being honest and giving the clear illustration of one who has been given over by God to a Reprobate Mind!

    Romans 1:26-27 (New American Standard Bible)

    26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

    27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 11:33am

20. There is nothing in the gay marriage proposals that changes one jot of religious doctrine or requires any church to officiate a gay marriage ceremony; consequently, the argument that such laws would change religious traditions is so ridiculous as to be an obvious red herring.

    Your issue isn't religious freedom, it's that you're a bigoted hater.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/04/2009 @ 11:02am

    Not at all. Delete the word marriage from all civil union contracts in each state and the issue goes away.

    But you and the pro-homosexual lobby won't do that because the agenda is to destroy the religious institution of marriage. If not, the homosexuals and the left would be agreeing to push state legislatures to delete the word marriage from civil contracts.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 11:37am

21. Romans 1:26-27 (New American Standard Bible) Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 11:33am

    Are you serious? What rational person really gives a shit what your stupid book has to say?

    Some of us are reality based. I mean, one of my favorite books is "Alice in Wonderland", but I don't structure my life and morality on it's content.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/04/2009 @ 11:42am

22. "But you and the pro-homosexual lobby won't do that because the agenda is to destroy the religious institution of marriage"

    (quote of the day)

    when you have no arguments left, and your worldview is crumbling around you, just pull the most outrageous claims out of your ass (see: glenn beck) and start professing them as truth.

    the institution of "marriage" is not religious, anti. and there is no mention anywhere that "marriage" is between two people of opposite chromosomes.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 11:46am

23. Ahoy!.... Cap'n Chaos,

    I've got a few questions fer ya in regards to the "rich coast" etc... if you don't mind.

    Here's an email address for off the blogs communication:

    dsmvwl@gmail.com

    Hope to jaw with ya soon. Best regards, ~B

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/04/2009 @ 11:52am

24. attrition is a very good filter, darla.

    humans may be dumb, but were getting less so.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 11:52am

25. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 11:37am |

    Civil union contracts do not afford the same rights as "marriage" does. And if two men or two women want to get "married" because that is their wish or because that is their interpretation of the sanctity of marriage, who in the hell do you think you are to stand in the way?

    You are a meddling old fool. And on top of that you are likely heretical. After all your Jesus even said, "Judge not, that ye be not judged".

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/04/2009 @ 11:59am

26. Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 11:33am

    Did some frat boy make out with you when you were drunk one night, BP?

    I mean, I know Oklahomos..I mean, Oklahomans...and those nights get awfully cold up there, sitting all alone in a bar.

    I mean, where does all this vitriol come from?

    "Methinks she doth protest too much."

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 12:02pm

27. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 11:21am

    You can keep saying it but marriage is not a constitutional right.

    States can indeed exercise discrimination in marriage laws constitutionally. They can and do prohibit marriage between brothers and sisters, first cousins, minors, those with blood incompatibility, parent and child, to name a few.

    BTW John Adams said; ""Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."  

    As I said before, this is not about civil rights or equal rights. If it was, the left, homosexuals and conservatives would agree on civil unions for everyone.

    This is about an assault on the religious institution of marriage. You like most on the left are simply not honest enough to admit it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:04pm

28. Civil union contracts do not afford the same rights as "marriage" does. And if two men or two women want to get "married" because that is their wish or because that is their interpretation of the sanctity of marriage, who in the hell do you think you are to stand in the way?

    You are a meddling old fool. And on top of that you are likely heretical. After all your Jesus even said, "Judge not, that ye be not judged".

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/04/2009 @ 11:59am

    they most certainly would be if ALL CIVIL UNIONS, no matter whom were the law of each state.

    As usual, an atheist (yeah I know you're a Buddhist, but even the Buddha was an agnostic at best), misuses a line of scripture. Jesus doesn't forbid Judging, He warns what standard to use for judging. If we as Christians judge by the Word of G-d, we are on solid ground with the Lord.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:07pm

29. the bible is full of slavery and rape. christians have raped and enslaved millions.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 11:02am

    Just because someone engages in morally reprehensible behavior does not mean that the religion endorses it. People who claim to be Christians have murdered, but that doesn't mean Christianity endorses it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:08pm

30. Slavery and rape are two aggressive crimes committed by one group against another.

    Nobody is DOING anything TO homosexuals here. A majority of the population is merely deciding to continue on with the same societal mores and values it has always had.

    Equating a desire to maintain our traditional social fabric to two criminal acts, slavery and rape, is intellectually dishonest.

    Using that formula, one could merely pick whatever new, radical departure from the established norm you would like (pederasty, necrophilia, polygamy, legalized heroin, honor killings, etc., etc.), then compare them to some hated past injustice and demand change.

    That being said, I think it will only be a matter of time until it does become legally accepted. Incrementalism works.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/04/2009 @ 12:10pm

31. Slavery and rape are two aggressive crimes committed by one group against another.

    Nobody is DOING anything TO homosexuals here. A majority of the population is merely deciding to continue on with the same societal mores and values it has always had.

    Equating a desire to maintain our traditional social fabric to two criminal acts, slavery and rape, is intellectually dishonest.

    Using that formula, one could merely pick whatever new, radical departure from the established norm you would like (pederasty, necrophilia, polygamy, legalized heroin, honor killings, etc., etc.), then compare them to some hated past injustice and demand change.

    That being said, I think it will only be a matter of time until it does become legally accepted. Incrementalism works.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/04/2009 @ 12:10pm

32. antisocialist-You have been given ample historical proof that marriage has never been just a religious thing and it is you that needs to get honest rather spew paranoid nonsense about attacks on religion.You claim to love freedom,but then state that people should be forced to use the terms you want them to use.Not going to happen and you may as well accept that.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/04/2009 @ 12:12pm

33. If we as Christians judge by the Word of G-d, we are on solid ground with the Lord.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:07pm

    Glad you feel you are on "solid ground" with your mythical "Lord". I realize you speak with him on a daily basis and have the inside scoop on how he feels about this and that.

    When I was four or five years old I also had an imaginary friend whom I depended on for advice and guidance. But at some point during that time I grew out of childish things.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/04/2009 @ 12:17pm

34. Hope to jaw with ya soon. Best regards, ~B

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/04/2009 @ 11:52am

    Hey kool. I will be in touch. Talk at ya soon.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/04/2009 @ 12:22pm

35. I mean, where does all this vitriol come from?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 12:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    What vitriol? All I have done is state clear facts and truth and you cannot show otherwise.

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 12:23pm

36. Just because someone engages in morally reprehensible behavior does not mean that the religion endorses it.Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:08pm

    Hmmm.. Are you including the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition in that statement?

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/04/2009 @ 12:26pm

37. So I guess the Right are happy that Mary Cheney and her girlfriend can keep "living in sin" and raising those two "illegitimate" kids?

    I know Dick and Lynne seem to be.

    Posted by Mask at 11/04/2009 @ 12:27pm

38. You can keep saying it but marriage is not a constitutional right.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:04pm

    How have gay marriages in Massachusetts and Iowa (or those in California or elsewhere) hurt the institution of marriage?

    Have the divorce rates in those states among straight people risen dramatically?

    Have straight people suddenly started to seek marriage counseling because their marriages are falling apart?

    Have churches suddenly stopped doing heterosexual marriages?

    Have children stopped being born in those states?

    Have women suddenly stopped allowing their husbands to have sex with them?

    Have husbands started to seek sex outside of their marriages more than before?

    See, you can't answer any of those questions. You state that gays seek to "destroy" marriage yet you have absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion. Where's the destruction, Larry? Where's the desecration? Where are the millions killed by this horrible affliction known as gay marriage?

    As for "marriage" being Constitutional or not, you're right. However, in the years since the founding, the Federal government has seen fit to give straight married couples rights that are not available to gay married couples. That is unConstitutional right there, and since we KNOW that straights aren't going to give up their marriages for "civil unions" recognized by the government, ergo gays must be given the Federal right to Marry.

    It's a simple matter of equality and liberty. You DO believe in liberty, don't you, you homophobic neanderthal?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 12:28pm

39. Posted by chaoszen at 11/04/2009 @ 12:17pm

    Which is why you are so lost now, though G-d desires to see you saved, not lost

    Psalm 14:2

    The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.

    Jeremiah 29:13

    And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.

    Matthew 13:14-16

    Jesus declared ‘ Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,

    So that I should heal them.'

    Romans 10:17

    So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

    Proverbs 1:27-29

    When your terror comes like a storm,  And your destruction comes like a whirlwind,

    When distress and anguish come upon you.

    " Then they will call on me, but I will not answer;

    They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me. Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:37pm

40. but if people don't want to follow the manual on the side good,

    doesn't that also mean that people also ignore the manual on the side of bad?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 12:40pm

41. Hmmm.. Are you including the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition in that statement?

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/04/2009 @ 12:26pm

    The crusades were governments responding to the Islamist attempts to conquer the world. It was Islam, not Crusaders who invaded Africa, the ME, India, and Europe.

    The Inquisition represented the politics of Popes. It had nothing to do with the Bible or Christ.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:40pm

42. It's a simple matter of equality and liberty. You DO believe in liberty, don't you, you homophobic neanderthal?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 12:28pm

    You spout a lot of nothings just to get to your point, which is to continue to ignore my statement.

    Marriage is a religious sacrament where the states have adopted the terminology given the overwhelming Christian citizenry at the time.

    Given the fact that we do want separation of church and state and the attempt to redefine a term that has it's origins in this country from the Jews and Christians in it's founding; simply remove the word marriage from all civil contracts.

    That step is so simple but seems to be an obstacle to people like yourself. If you aren't trying to get in the face of Christians, Jews, Hindu's and Muslims, why not just change the civil license terminology?

    Thus, your slurs merely reflect your own inadequacies rather than the obvious truth that I do respect liberty and equality, while respecting the religious traditions of the major faiths, unlike yourself.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:49pm

43. antisocialist-marriage only has something to do with religion if the married couple happen to be religious.Each marriage is what the couple wants it to be and not what you want it to be.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/04/2009 @ 12:55pm

44. Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 12:23pm

    Guest at the BP home: "My, how nice that you decant your milk. Such an attractive pitcher, too!"

    BP's wife: "Yes BP just can't stand the words "homo milk" on the containers. He thought his wrists were growing limp for awhile there until I tried the pitcher. Yesterday he flew into a rage when the farmer next door began talking about his "corn holes." BP is so sensitive!"

    Posted by Sorelish at 11/04/2009 @ 12:59pm

45. The Dem victor in the NY23 race Bill Owens on same sex marriage

    On marriage equality, Owens said this to PolitickerNY:

    On the wedge issue of same-sex marriage, Owens is to the right of his Republican opponent Scozzafava. He does not support full marriage--he opposes any federal action on the "states rights issue"--telling me,

    "I fully support equal rights for everybody, and certainly civil unions are in that mix. For religious reasons, I have difficulty with the use of the word marriage in that process."

    http://tinyurl.com/yl86bra

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 1:04pm

46. It was Islam, not Crusaders

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:40pm

    COKE! PEPSI!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 1:04pm

47. "If not, the homosexuals and the left would be agreeing to push state legislatures to delete the word marriage from civil contracts.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 11:37am | ignore this person | warn this person "

    That is a complete non-sequitur and typical of your McCarthyite conspiracy-mongering. What homosexuals want is the same availability of civil marriage that heterosexuals have when they get married before a judge or a registrar.

    Wanting a civil marriage means that they can't consent to deleting the word "marriage" but it doesn't prove anything regarding religious marriages. You still haven't shown one iota of proof that homosexuals getting civil marriages would harm in any manner religious marriage ceremonies.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/04/2009 @ 1:05pm

48. Five other states have legalized gay marriage -- starting with Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa -- but all did so through legislation or court rulings,NOT BY POPULAR VOTE! In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 1:24pm

49. I'm curious when Darla, Stephen, and the other leftists who continually label conservatives like myself with slurs like

    bigot

    bigoted hater

    homophobic neanderthal

    So, when are you going to being saying the same thing about Obama and all of the other Dems who feel the same way?

    http://tinyurl.com/5h5xao

    this video shows Biden making my very same argument. I know that Stephen and Darla will vehemently now attack Biden and Obama for their bigotry and inequality

    Biden not only says that he and Obama believe this is a religious term, but that they agree with Sarah Palin on civil unions bringing the correct equality

    http://tinyurl.com/yf42l27

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 1:25pm

50. Wanting a civil marriage means that they can't consent to deleting the word "marriage" but it doesn't prove anything regarding religious marriages. You still haven't shown one iota of proof that homosexuals getting civil marriages would harm in any manner religious marriage ceremonies.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/04/2009 @ 1:05pm

    Why would I try and prove and argument I'm not making?

    I said that the term is a religious term that was adopted by convenience by the states given that few marriages were to atheists.

    It is about the term.

    Why do you have such a "need" to have the term marriage, rather than having the states simply make all such licenses be civil unions, including those of heterosexuals?

    Instead, you like the rest of the left engage in ad hominem attacks rather than address the substance of the issue.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 1:29pm

51. The crusades were governments responding to the Islamist attempts to conquer the world. It was Islam, not Crusaders who invaded Africa, the ME, India, and Europe.

    The Inquisition represented the politics of Popes. It had nothing to do with the Bible or Christ.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:40pm

    Yeah, no Christians in the Crusades ever raped anyone, and the Inquisition was certainly not run by people claiming to be holy men...only the popes.

    I've always wondered if Larry understands that without the bloodshed committed during the Crusades and by the Inquisition, his Protestant faith wouldn't even exist and he would, to this day, be a Catholic.

    But he's as anti-papist and he is anti-liberal.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 1:30pm

52. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:37pm

    Larry's getting a little gutless??? Come on, Lare...post some of the OTHER bits of Scripture on homosexuality???

    I'll help-

    Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)

    13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

    Posted by Mask at 11/04/2009 @ 1:32pm

53. antisocialist-The reason that people want to use the word marriage is because that is the word that people have always used to describe the various types of unions.If you want to use different words then you may.If others want to use the word marriage then they,too,have the freedom to do so.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/04/2009 @ 1:38pm

54. "Given the fact that we do want separation of church and state and the attempt to redefine a term that has it's origins in this country from the Jews and Christians in it's founding; simply remove the word marriage from all civil contracts."

    I would think that you, as a fiscal conservative, would know and understand that "simply" removing the word marriage from all civil contracts is neither simple, nor cheap. It's far less expensive to leave the words as they are and simply expand the definition of the people who are eligible; i.e. gay marriage.

    "That step is so simple but seems to be an obstacle to people like yourself. If you aren't trying to get in the face of Christians, Jews, Hindu's and Muslims, why not just change the civil license terminology?"

    Because it's the Christians who are causing the main fuss. You're the ones fighting over the word "marriage"; gays just want the rights that come with the word.

    "Thus, your slurs merely reflect your own inadequacies rather than the obvious truth that I do respect liberty and equality, while respecting the religious traditions of the major faiths, unlike yourself."

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:49pm

    You certainly don't respect my notion of liberty, which is to live life the way I want to, without being told by a church that I am not allowed to, regardless of who I shack up with. If I were conservative, I'd be more concerned about the 50%+ marriages that end up in divorce, rather than whether two men or two women seek a lifelong union recognized by the government with the word "marriage."

    And I respect your religion as long as you keep it out of my government. But that's never enough for you people.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 1:39pm

55. Yeah, no Christians in the Crusades ever raped anyone, and the Inquisition was certainly not run by people claiming to be holy men...only the popes.

    I've always wondered if Larry understands that without the bloodshed committed during the Crusades and by the Inquisition, his Protestant faith wouldn't even exist and he would, to this day, be a Catholic.

    But he's as anti-papist and he is anti-liberal.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 1:30pm

    Start with a non sequitor and your argment is instantly diminished.

    So, if a soldier in the Crusades stole a loaf of bread, does that make the Crusade about thieves instead of repelling an Islamic invasion?

    I won't make any excuses for the behavior of the Catholic Church. Most of their actions and teachings are not found in the Bible. And that is what led Luther to post his 95 Theses against the power of the papacy, penances and indulgences and the springboard to the protestant revolution. that and the Gutenberg Bible.

    http://tinyurl.com/yj677zq

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 1:43pm

56. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 1:43pm

    ...and yet the Catholic church is the only direct line to Peter and all the saints that were around when Christ walked the earth, isn't that the story?

    Without the Catholic church, Christianity wouldn't exist at all, Larry, so don't you think you owe them some loyalty? Or at least some respect?

    And I LOVE the fact that you both praise the brutal deeds of the Catholics (the Crusades) as some sort of spiritual holy war (re: jihad) declared by god, while in the same post you condemn the actions of the popes who led the church in all those anti-Jewish pogroms, wars, invasions and counter-invasions. That's a little schizophrenic, even for you.

    I think you are a far more fearful person than any liberal I know.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 2:02pm

57. I..... am sure the racists like Happy would be happy if things went that way....

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 11:21am

    Wow, watch your knees when they jerk! This thread, and my comment, was about the Maine vote on gay marriage.

    If you want to play your Race Card, and we know every Lib has got them by the dozens, use them at the right time, deal?

    Posted by Happy at 11/04/2009 @ 2:08pm

58. "Instead, you like the rest of the left engage in ad hominem attacks rather than address the substance of the issue"

    of course our resident legal scholar is ONLY interested in the "substance of the issue." that's why he asked this extremely substantive question:

    "Why do you have such a "need" to have the term marriage, rather than having the states simply make all such licenses be civil unions, including those of heterosexuals?"

    omg. talk about substance! (not)

    yeah, gays just want to be able to say they're "married," they don't really care about having the same benefits as straight people.

    dumb and dumber.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 2:48pm

59. antisocialist.

    how come you showed no interest in changing the definition of marriage BEFORE gays sought the right to marry?

    why are you now suddenly interested in this issue?

    oh that's right, you're a bigot.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 2:49pm

60. So, when are you going to being saying the same thing about Obama and all of the other Dems who feel the same way?

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 1:25pm

    pepsi!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 2:53pm

61. And contrary to your claims Darla, what this reflects is the right of the people to maintain traditions that cross the major world faiths and have lasted for over 5000 years. To have 2% of the population attempt to redefine a core element of the major faiths in the world is the tyranny of the few. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 10:30am

    you wouldn't be forced to marry a man if gay marriage was legal everywhere.

    dowry subservience of women to their husbands police not being allowed to interfere when a husband abuses his wife no divorce

    etc

    marriage has changed. it develops. but again, you don't have to marry a man if gay marriage is legal. denial of the "2%" does not keep marriage "sacred"...it only makes you look like a jackass.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 3:18pm

62. "Instead, you like the rest of the left engage in ad hominem attacks rather than address the substance of the issue.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 1:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person "

    Your bigotry is the substance of the issue, not in ad hominem attack.

    "I said that the term is a religious term that was adopted by convenience by the states given that few marriages were to atheists."

    That is simply ridiculous. States have always permitted civil marriage, which clearly doesn't involve religious anything. Justice Story, a leading 19th century Constitutional scholar described it as "an institution of society founded upon the consent and contract of the parties". Nothing there about a religious sacrament.

    "If you aren't trying to get in the face of Christians, Jews, Hindu's and Muslims, why not just change the civil license terminology? "

    Because you DON'T own the term marriage. Your insistence on the term is no different than the separate but equal rationale that use to prevail in this country. "The crusades were governments responding to the Islamist attempts to conquer the world. It was Islam, not Crusaders who invaded Africa, the ME, India, and Europe. "

    Not surprised that your history is off. The Islamic invasion of Spain was already being rolled back and the Ottoman conquests were centuries away. This was European religious fervor, not self-defense. That is evidenced by the fact that anti-Semitism became a much bigger force in Europe as the Crusades got underway.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/04/2009 @ 3:18pm

63. I want separation of church and state. So, have the states quit using a religious sacrament term for a civil contract. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 10:54am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --so you're pitching a fit over a word? por favor.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 3:19pm

64. I agree with anti at least on this: I also don't think that churches (or any other religious institutions) should have the power to bestow a civil right. When a minister pronounces the marriage of two people, the sentence "by the power vested in me by the state of Missouri" should never be spoken because it raises the question of whether this is a religious sacrament or a civil ceremony.

    I also think anti is probably right about the Constitution. I don't think the Constitution provides a right to gay marriage.

    That said, however, two thoughts. First, as I've said before, I think gay marriage should be legalized, at least so long as the state recognizes heterosexual marriage. So long as marriage is the dispersal of civil benefits, the state should treat it that way. Second, clearly the state cannot compel the church to conduct same-sex weddings; even if you think there's some Equal Protection argument to be made, the Establishment and Free Exercise clause concerns clearly outweigh it. That doesn't mean, of course, that an individual church OUGHT not marry same-sex couples; that's a wholly different issue.

    Finally, what puzzles me most is how active and enthusiastic about stuff like Proposition 1 many Christians are. Why? When you have a country, much less much of the world, where huge amounts of people can't even get a scrap of bread to eat during a day, how is it that this gets more attention and concern? Clearly you can't say "all evils are equal," not only because it's not true, but also because if it WERE true, other stuff would still get a whole lot more attention than it does right now. Jesus talked a whole lot more about poverty (a lot) than homosexuality (little to not at all). Priority issues, anyone?

    Posted by Thrawn at 11/04/2009 @ 3:21pm

65. There is nothing in the gay marriage proposals that changes one jot of religious doctrine or requires any church to officiate a gay marriage ceremony; consequently, the argument that such laws would change religious traditions is so ridiculous as to be an obvious red herring. Your issue isn't religious freedom, it's that you're a bigoted hater.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/04/2009 @ 11:02am

    Not at all. Delete the word marriage from all civil union contracts in each state and the issue goes away. But you and the pro-homosexual lobby won't do that because the agenda is to destroy the religious institution of marriage. If not, the homosexuals and the left would be agreeing to push state legislatures to delete the word marriage from civil contracts.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 11:37am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --you have an issue over a word? civil marriage licences granted to homosexual couples has nothing to do with any church. you're mixing religion and government--the constitution says "stop"

    can you hear it?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 3:25pm

66. That cricket sound is Darla, Stephen and the others like them who label us as bigots and homophobic neanderthals for having the same beliefs as Obama, Biden, Hillary, Kerry and others. Their rank hypocrisy is showing.

    I'll repeat my question until they take a stand.

    I'm curious when Darla, Stephen, and the other leftists who continually label conservatives like myself with slurs.

    When are you going to call President Obama, VP Biden bigots and homophobic neanderthals for holding the same view on homosexual marriage (and for the same reason as conservatives like myself, Rio, Citizen, and others)?

    http://tinyurl.com/5h5xao

    this video shows Biden making my very same argument. I know that Stephen and Darla will vehemently now attack Biden and Obama for their bigotry and inequality

    Biden not only says that he and Obama believe this is a religious term, but that they agree with Sarah Palin on civil unions bringing the correct equality

    http://tinyurl.com/yf42l27

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 3:26pm

67. If you want to play your Race Card, and we know every Lib has got them by the dozens, use them at the right time, deal?

    Posted by Happy at 11/04/2009 @ 2:08pm

    Happy, I enjoy your posts, mostly because they are consistent in their hatred of all things Obama and love of all things "Happy." However, in your hatred of Obama, you have shown time and time again that you are a racist, or at the very least, agree with the racist who originally used that terminology. Every time you call him "magic" you refer to Rushbo's "magic negro" comments and song, which were in and of themselves, racist. Your boy Rush has been proven a racist (no NFL team for Rush!) and since you admire and respect him so much, I assume you admire and share his racism.

    I apologize if I have offended you; but you have only brought it on yourself, since you play the "race card" in practically every single post. Hope that makes you Happy.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 3:27pm

68. You can keep saying it but marriage is not a constitutional right. States can indeed exercise discrimination in marriage laws constitutionally. They can and do prohibit marriage between brothers and sisters, first cousins, minors, those with blood incompatibility, parent and child, to name a few.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --ever heard of the 9th amendment? of course you have--you quote it to defend "rights" people have that aren't enumerated in the bill of rights.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 3:29pm

69. Hope that makes you Happy.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 3:27pm

    But you know, without 5-star Magic Devotees like you, and there are quite a few of you, I could never have gotten the kick out of the perfect nick for Dear Leader.....who is steadily, building up a nice archive of kids singing his praise.

    It's a riot that the Libs raise such a stink over "Magic"....it obviously have worked out well for your side, huh? The more you accuse, the more Magic falls.....my lesson learned is, I am on the right track and you, you're reacting in just the right way....throw out the racism card at will, it's working beautifully....LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 11/04/2009 @ 3:33pm

70. As I said before, this is not about civil rights or equal rights. If it was, the left, homosexuals and conservatives would agree on civil unions for everyone.

    This is about an assault on the religious institution of marriage.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:04pm

    Conservatives in some states want to do away with civil unions and bar LGBT folk from any public benefits or protections related to or similar to those afforded married people. As Richard Kim has noted here at The Nation, some of us on the left of the LGBT movement don't have much use for "marriage" in general and would have prefered to focus on domestic partnership and civil unions, but I don't see a lot of support on the right for these concepts, either.

    This fight is not about "an assault on the religious institution of marriage." As Kim and others have noted, not a few long-time queer activists were dragged into this issue by a combination of mainstream and conservative LGBT activists and funders and, especially, a groundswell of grassroots passion.

    Queer folk who have never been politically active have gotten energized by this issue because marriage, as a social institution and a guarantor of legal protections and rights, is so central to the meaning of personal and group liberty in a modern society. Most LGBT folk fighting for the right to marry are trying to integrate themselves into this institution, and while some would be happy to go through with the whole church wedding thing, it's not as if they are going to demand that Pat Robertson marry them.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/04/2009 @ 3:33pm

71. "I don't think the Constitution provides a right to gay marriage. "

    But is does require that state laws not be applied in such a way as to discriminate against protected classes under the Fourteenth Amendment. This was the thrust of the SCOTUS decision Loving v. Virginia, which struck down a miscengenation statute.

    "this video shows Biden making my very same argument. I know that Stephen and Darla will vehemently now attack Biden and Obama for their bigotry and inequality

    Biden not only says that he and Obama believe this is a religious term, but that they agree with Sarah Palin on civil unions bringing the correct equality "

    None of those people have called homosexuals "perverts", you have. None of those people, except maybe Palin, have referred to homosexuality as being intrinsically immoral, you have. That difference is what makes them either wrong or politicians and what makes you a bigot.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/04/2009 @ 3:34pm

72. That cricket sound is Darla, Stephen and the others like them who label us as bigots and homophobic neanderthals for having the same beliefs as Obama, Biden, Hillary, Kerry and others. Their rank hypocrisy is showing. I'll repeat my question until they take a stand. I'm curious when Darla, Stephen, and the other leftists who continually label conservatives like myself with slurs. When are you going to call President Obama, VP Biden bigots and homophobic neanderthals for holding the same view on homosexual marriage (and for the same reason as conservatives like myself, Rio, Citizen, and others)? http://tinyurl.com/5h5xao this video shows Biden making my very same argument. I know that Stephen and Darla will vehemently now attack Biden and Obama for their bigotry and inequality Biden not only says that he and Obama believe this is a religious term, but that they agree with Sarah Palin on civil unions bringing the correct equality http://tinyurl.com/yf42l27 Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 3:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --sadly, democrats are behaving with political expediency on this issue. they're afraid undecided voters will vote republican if they come out for gay marriage.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 3:41pm

73. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 3:26pm

    I'm sorry to say this (more than you know), but Dick Cheney's opinion on this is much closer to mine than where Obama, Biden, etc, are on the issue.

    So, if it will make you happy, Larry here goes:

    Obama, Cheney, Kerry, Hillary, etc. are all homophobic neanderthals on this issue. So, as far as I'm concerned, I like the company you keep. Probably more than you do.

    However, does that change how I feel about them as leaders of our country? No, because I'm not a single issue voter. I don't even vote on morals issues, as long as I believe the politician in mind at least HAS some morals (they don't have to be mine on everything).

    Morals are what is going on in your heart, not what is going on in your government. The fact that you cannot see the difference is proof positive that YOU don't like the separation of church and state. You want the church to be able to dictate to the state on things like equality. If you had your way, homosexuals and Muslims would be kicked out of your country to keep it "pure." You don't appreciate true diversity; you want everyone to be as purely "Christian" as you are, because you are here to save us all.

    You are as far from a lover of the Constitution as has ever been and deep down inside, you know it. You love the Bible first (nothing wrong with that) and the Constitution third (after some Capitalist manifesto from the 1900's).

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 3:47pm

74. None of those people have called homosexuals "perverts", you have. None of those people, except maybe Palin, have referred to homosexuality as being intrinsically immoral, you have. That difference is what makes them either wrong or politicians and what makes you a bigot.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/04/2009 @ 3:34pm

    Talking about the nature of the behavior is a separate issue from the issue of marriage or civil contracts.

    Adulterers and thieves are not stopped from marriage because of their behavior. That behavior is ancillary to the topic.

    The point remains and obviously you are just as much a hypocrite as Darla and Stephen.

    Let's get to the logical conclusion of why Obama and Biden say that same sex marriage is contrary to their faith......I'll let you think about it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 3:48pm

75. You are as far from a lover of the Constitution as has ever been and deep down inside, you know it. You love the Bible first (nothing wrong with that) and the Constitution third (after some Capitalist manifesto from the 1900's).

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 3:47pm

    You are so filled with hatred of conservatives that you seem obsessed with continually lying about me.

    1. For my personal life, the Bible does come first. But it is separate from my role as a citizen other than it tells me to submit to the authority of the rulers.

    2. My life as a citizen is guided by my love of the Constitution. That is second.

    3. I have no idea what the capitalist manifesto is that you speak of. My ideas on capitalism come mostly from our founders. Limited govt gives people the maximum opportunity to pursue their passions in financial security.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 3:52pm

76. what about divorce?

    what about adoption?

    what about a wife who never gives birth to a child (by choice or not)?

    the argument that "marriage" should only be between a man and a woman because of tradition implies two things: 1. children are being raised; and 2. that the best environment for rearing children is with their mother and biological father.

    what about divorce?

    what about adoption?

    what about birth control?

    what if the wife cannot give birth?

    what if the couple chooses not to have kids?

    seems to me if marriage is truly "sacred"--if that's what's really happening here--then divorce and birth control plainly have to be outlawed. Adoption is questionable given that if heterosexual couples can adopt--then why not homosexual couples?

    if a woman can't give birth--then what business does she have being married? she's a "freak of nature" or a "deviant" (to borrow some terms from some right-wingers from another thread) who doesn't deserve marriage.

    and most egregious would be a heterosexual couple who chooses NOT to have children. how can society justify allowing them to be married? they're making a total mockery of the institution.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 3:53pm

77. Quotes from antisocialist:

    "You like most on the left are simply not honest enough to admit it."

    "Instead, you like the rest of the left engage in ad hominem attacks rather than address the substance of the issue."

    "But you and the pro-homosexual lobby won't do that because the agenda is to destroy the religious institution of marriage."

    Larry, I don't think you have said anything bigoted about queer folk during this thread, unlike BigPasture. You have further stated that you are for legal equality as regards the substance of civil marriage, though not for sharing the word. I can live with all of that.

    But please, if you don't want to have stones thrown at you about being a bigot, etc., how about not making blanket statements about most leftists being liars or engaging in ad hominem attacks?

    And it really is silly paranoia - unsupported by any evidence, so far - to argue that the whole effort to win gay marriage is about destroying the religious institution of marriage.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/04/2009 @ 3:53pm

78. "Talking about the nature of the behavior is a separate issue from the issue of marriage or civil contracts. "

    That is utter nonsense and typical of your intellectual dishonesty on this issue.

    "Adulterers and thieves are not stopped from marriage because of their behavior. That behavior is ancillary to the topic. "

    Adultery and theft aren't something one is born with; sexual orientation is. Further, an adulterer or thief being married doesn't necessarily entail adultery or theft. Homosexuals being married does entail homosexual congress, that is what sticks in your craw.

    "Let's get to the logical conclusion of why Obama and Biden say that same sex marriage is contrary to their faith......I'll let you think about it."

    When I actually hear them fulminate against homosexuals as being perverts, then I'll infer that they have dropped to your level.

    "2. My life as a citizen is guided by my love of the Constitution. That is second. "

    It's a shame that is paired with a striking ignorance of it.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/04/2009 @ 3:57pm

79. And it really is silly paranoia - unsupported by any evidence, so far - to argue that the whole effort to win gay marriage is about destroying the religious institution of marriage. Posted by cka2nd at 11/04/2009 @ 3:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --people who get married in church divorce too. they cheat on their spouses. they use birth control. etc, etc, etc...

    the religious institution is being eaten from within...when pastors see that--they know they can't blame the flock...the flock will fly away...so they blame "society"

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 3:58pm

80. ...pastors like Larry think if people have "immoral" options (like gay marriage) they'll choose that instead of the "right thing" (i.e., marriage in a church).

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:01pm

81. ...pastors like Larry think if people have "immoral" options (like gay marriage) they'll choose that instead of the "right thing" (i.e., marriage in a church).

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:01pm

    Wow. that post indicates a complete lack of knowledge about the issue from the standpoint of Christians.

    I'm not worried about the country suddenly going homosexual. There's always been about 2% who engage in that behavior and it will stay that way.

    And I don't marry just anyone who asks me to perform a marriage. They must go through first an interview process about their faith and then a series of counseling sessions. If I think that their views and mine are not in harmony, I recommend that they seek someone else to marry them.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:06pm

82. ...pastors like Larry think if people have "immoral" options (like gay marriage) they'll choose that instead of the "right thing" (i.e., marriage in a church). Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:01pm Wow. that post indicates a complete lack of knowledge about the issue from the standpoint of Christians. I'm not worried about the country suddenly going homosexual. There's always been about 2% who engage in that behavior and it will stay that way. And I don't marry just anyone who asks me to perform a marriage. They must go through first an interview process about their faith and then a series of counseling sessions. If I think that their views and mine are not in harmony, I recommend that they seek someone else to marry them. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --interesting you respond to that post rather than my 3:53 post...

    haha!

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:08pm

83. what about divorce--immoral?

    birth control--immoral?

    getting married but not having children--immoral?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:10pm

84. Intresting how LIES are the bedrock of the homosexual lobby!

    A conservative military watchdog has released a report debunking the claim by radical homosexual activists who argue that military personnel losses due to homosexuality pose a "threat to national security."

    Homosexual activists who campaign for lifting the ban on homosexuals serving in the U.S. military repeatedly argue that the almost 13,000 discharges for homosexuality that have occurred since 1994 have nearly crippled the all-volunteer force.

    Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness, which has published newly released Defense Department figures documenting military discharges in the past five fiscal years. Those statistics, she says, show the same pattern evident in the previous decade -- that discharges due to homosexuality affect a minuscule number of troops and represent less than one percent of personnel losses that occur for other legitimate reasons.

    "The number and percentage of discharges for reasons of homosexuality are less than one percent," says Donnelly. "If you look at the numbers for all discharges, it is 0.337 percent."

    According to Donnelly, there are far more discharges for issues of pregnancy, for example. "There are three times as many of those," she shares. "There are more than four times as many discharges for weight standard violations, [and] there are seven times more discharges due to drugs."

    The military watchdog says the Defense Department confirms that most losses due to homosexual conduct occur among junior personnel with very little time in the military -- and the great majority of homosexual discharges are uncontested and processed administratively, with 98 percent receiving honorable discharges.

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 4:13pm

85. ". There's always been about 2% who engage in that behavior and it will stay that way"

    and what "behavior" is that, antisocialist?

    and if you're so concerned about the constitution:

    see: "2. My life as a citizen is guided by my love of the Constitution"

    then why do care about homosexual "behavior"?

    why is my personal behavior so important to you?

    i'll answer it for you: you are a bigot. you have an arcane, backwards understanding of gay people, and it shows.

    your love of the constitution is second to your love of the bible......

    and the bible has no business in government.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 4:16pm

86. Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 4:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --some dude boned you without lube and you've been carrying a grudge for a long time.

    let it go...

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:18pm

87. "I agree with anti at least on this: I also don't think that churches (or any other religious institutions) should have the power to bestow a civil right. When a minister pronounces the marriage of two people, the sentence "by the power vested in me by the state of Missouri" should never be spoken because it raises the question of whether this is a religious sacrament or a civil ceremony.

    I also think anti is probably right about the Constitution. I don't think the Constitution provides a right to gay marriage. "

    thrawn probably hasn't read 75% of antisocialist's posts.....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 4:20pm

88. my prediction is larry is done with this thread. he's not answering any more questions.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:21pm

89. and most egregious would be a heterosexual couple who chooses NOT to have children. how can society justify allowing them to be married? they're making a total mockery of the institution.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 3:53pm

    The teaching of Christianity on marriage does not center around having children. Jesus stated that it was instituted by G-d so that two people might become one. This oneness helps us to understand the nature of the Triune G-d who said "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" Genesis 1:26

    Matthew 19:4-6 And [Jesus] answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

    As the Father and the Son share the same nature, yet they are distinctly separate personages. Through the union of man and woman, we enter into a spiritual union that is unseparable. Marriage is the vehicle through which we grow in our knowledge of G-d. It happens through many aspects including the intimacy of sex.

    Homosexual marriage at it's root is another attempt by Satan to corrupt anything that G-d institutes. That does not mean that homosexuals are doing this to knowingly carry out Satan's wishes. That is the net result.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:24pm

90. Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 4:16pm

    1. Homosexual behavior is engaged in by about 2% of the population

    2. As a citizen, I don't care what you do Darla. I have no desire to interfere with what you do in the bedroom.

    As a pastor, I care about your soul as Jesus does and wish that you would turn from sin and death and embrace His love and forgiveness.

    3.I don't have any desire to integrate the Bible into govt. I don't want prayer in schools; I don't care about creation being taught. I don't want Christians to attend public schools and thus take away all religious conflict from the education system.

    4.I want govt to stay out of redefining a religious term

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:32pm

91. --interesting you respond to that post rather than my 3:53 post...

    haha!

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:08pm

    Is there a question in that post? I just that you were making general statements. Didn't see anything noteworthy.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:34pm

92. my prediction is larry is done with this thread. he's not answering any more questions.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:21pm

    I was out playing with the dog and watering the trees on the property.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:35pm

93. Homosexual marriage at it's root is another attempt by Satan to corrupt anything that G-d institutes. That does not mean that homosexuals are doing this to knowingly carry out Satan's wishes. That is the net result. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:24pm

    --your reasons against gay marriage are religious. the founding fathers say "stop"

    are you listening?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:38pm

94. --interesting you respond to that post rather than my 3:53 post... haha! Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:08pm Is there a question in that post? I just that you were making general statements. Didn't see anything noteworthy. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --classic Larry. He doesn't want to answer the questions so he pretends they're not "worthy" of his time. my 3:53 post asks numerous questions--Larry pretends he doesn't see them.

    I'll make this easy for you; I'll repost three questions I asked from my 4:10 post; all require only a yes or no answer; so it won't take up a lot of your time.

    what about divorce--immoral? birth control--immoral? getting married but not having children--immoral?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:40pm

95. antisocialist-If satan existed satan would have no reason to promote gay marriage since straight people already ruined marriage and turned it into a joke.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/04/2009 @ 4:41pm

96. what about divorce--immoral? birth control--immoral? getting married but not having children--immoral?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:40pm

    Divorce is a sin against G-d

    birth control is not a sin (I don't share the Catholic view)

    Not having children is not a sin (not immoral)

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:43pm

97. what about divorce--immoral? birth control--immoral? getting married but not having children--immoral?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:40pm

    Divorce is a sin against G-d birth control is not a sin (I don't share the Catholic view) Not having children is not a sin (not immoral)

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --so why don't you rail against divorcees on these threads? there are plenty of conservative politicians who've been divorced. yet you never call them perverted or sinners?

    --why don't you share the catholic view on birth control? what biblical text informs you that birth control is not wrong?

    more and more it's becoming clear you're against gay marriage for purely religious reasons...the founding fathers would disapprove.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:50pm

98. --your reasons against gay marriage are religious. the founding fathers say "stop"

    are you listening?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:38pm

    No, I'm against anyone except one man and one woman joining in marriage because that defies the majority of religious faith in this nation and would be the govt violating the separation of church and state and interfering in religion.

    If the states want to redefine what a relgious sacrament states, let the state use instead a secular terminology so they dont intrude into religion.

    How about if abortionists want to redefine abortion and call it baptism? After all, a secular person might suggest the similarity. To them, the minister or priest is trying to drown a baby.

    Obviously, you and others do not understand how offensive this homosexual marriage attempt is to people of faith. 10's of millions of Americans see this as intruding on our faith. Yet that seems to not penetrate your minds.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:53pm

99. --so why don't you rail against divorcees on these threads? there are plenty of conservative politicians who've been divorced. yet you never call them perverted or sinners?

    --why don't you share the catholic view on birth control? what biblical text informs you that birth control is not wrong?

    more and more it's becoming clear you're against gay marriage for purely religious reasons...the founding fathers would disapprove.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 4:50pm

    I have criticized people like Sanford and Ted Haggard and any others who divorce or cheat on their spouses. the difference is that they can repent, aknowledge their failing of their spouse, the covenant of marriage, and their failure before G-d, ask for forgiveness, and determine not to repeat the fallen behavior. If they do not, they remain separated from G-d and will go to hell just as much as the homosexual.

    I don't share the Catholic view on birth control because it is not based upon scripture, but the teachings of Popes. We are warned by Jesus and the apostles not to follow the traditions of men over the word of G-d. There is nothing in NT scripture to suggest that birth control is wrong.

    for the last one, see my post at 4:53pm

    <Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:53pm>

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:58pm

100. larry: "No, I'm against anyone except one man and one woman joining in marriage because that defies the majority of religious faith in this nation and would be the govt violating the separation of church and state and interfering in religion."

     --religion! hello! like I've said numerous times already...you reason against gay marriage is religious! the founding fathers are calling larry...pick up the phone.

     p.s.--the gov't allowing gay marriage would be interfering with religion? on what ground? what church would be forced to marry two gay people? you are so misinformed it's sad. usually i consider you of at least average intelligence....but wow! you're so wrong it's sad.

     larry: "If the states want to redefine what a relgious sacrament states, let the state use instead a secular terminology so they dont intrude into religion."

     --marriage, like most english words, has more than one meaning. marriage has a religious context; and a civil. like darla's said numerous times...this isn't about the gov't intruding on a religious term; marriage is also a civil term; and you have no problem with a man and woman getting a marriage license down at city hall...it's the man/man and woman/woman marriage licenses that drive you nuts...'cause it's against your religion for gay people to marry. well--we're not talking about religious "marriage"...we're talking about civil "marriage." SEPARATE THE TWO Larry, separate them.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:00pm

101. larry: "How about if abortionists want to redefine abortion and call it baptism?"

     --red herring riding down a slippery slope alert!

     larry: "After all, a secular person might suggest the similarity. To them, the minister or priest is trying to drown a baby."

     --lame attempt at humor alert!

     larry: "Obviously, you and others do not understand how offensive this homosexual marriage attempt is to people of faith."

     --i couldn't care less if it offends "people of faith." again--you're relying on religious reasons for why gay people shouldn't be granted civil marriage licenses. the founding fathers are calling larry...pick up the phone already!

     p.s. many people in the country's history were "offended" by black people not wanting to be slaves...by black people wanting to vote; by women wanting to vote...etc.

     larry: "10's of millions of Americans see this as intruding on our faith."

     --your bigotry is NOT a valid reason for gay people to be denied marriage licenses. if you claim it's not bigotry, but rather, religious reasons---then HELLO--THE FOUNDING FATHERS ARE CALLING--THEY WANT YOU TO PICK UP THE PHONE LARRY!

     Larry: "Yet that seems to not penetrate your minds."

     --what's penetrated your minds is the thought of male-on-male penetration...

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:06pm

102. larry: "If the states want to redefine what a relgious sacrament states, let the state use instead a secular terminology so they dont intrude into religion."

     --marriage, like most english words, has more than one meaning. marriage has a religious context; and a civil. like darla's said numerous times...this isn't about the gov't intruding on a religious term; marriage is also a civil term; and you have no problem with a man and woman getting a marriage license down at city hall...it's the man/man and woman/woman marriage licenses that drive you nuts...'cause it's against your religion for gay people to marry. well--we're not talking about religious "marriage"...we're talking about civil "marriage." SEPARATE THE TWO Larry, separate them.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:00pm

     NO, NO, NO, AND NO

     As long as homosexual activists attempt to intrude on religion by redefining this religious term, 10's of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith will say NO.

     Again, by your comments, you don't have the faintest idea how offensive this is to our faith.

     Simply change the licenses to read civil union or something similar.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 5:06pm

103. Urmy,

     there is no teaching in christianity to ban either marriage between 2 black people or an interracial marriage. that position had nothing to do with a religious argument.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 5:08pm

104. Larry: "Yet that seems to not penetrate your minds."

     --what's penetrated your minds is the thought of male-on-male penetration...

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:06pm

     that was a sick and offensive comment. I thought you at least had some class.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 5:09pm

105. larry: "I have criticized people like Sanford and Ted Haggard and any others who divorce or cheat on their spouses. the difference is that they can repent, aknowledge their failing of their spouse, the covenant of marriage, and their failure before G-d, ask for forgiveness, and determine not to repeat the fallen behavior. If they do not, they remain separated from G-d and will go to hell just as much as the homosexual."

     --funny...if a politician is gay you'll call him perverted and make pretty much the entire focus about his homosexuality. but if a politician's been divorced you don't make the focus about the sin against God. Whenever Ronald Regan is mentioned the first thing out of your mouth isn't "he's a sinner against God"

     funny the hypocrisy.

     larry: "I don't share the Catholic view on birth control because it is not based upon scripture, but the teachings of Popes. We are warned by Jesus and the apostles not to follow the traditions of men over the word of G-d. There is nothing in NT scripture to suggest that birth control is wrong."

     ---hmmm...maybe b/c condoms and pills weren't around back then...

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:13pm

106. Larry: "Yet that seems to not penetrate your minds." --what's penetrated your minds is the thought of male-on-male penetration... Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:06pm that was a sick and offensive comment. I thought you at least had some class. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 5:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --you have the nerve to say other people are making "sick and offensive comments"

     haha!

     por favor.

     and, of course, we've reached the other reason you're against gay marriage...the thought of two men fucking grosses you out. combined with your religious belief, obviously the civil rights of gay people will always take a back seat (pun intended!) to people like you.

     p.s.--larry, I couldn't care less if you find it "sick and offensive." you know why? I find it equally sick and offensive (and classless) that you call gay people "perverts." never mind your ceaseless name calling of leftists/democrats/liberals.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:16pm

107. NO, NO, NO, AND NO As long as homosexual activists attempt to intrude on religion by redefining this religious term, 10's of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith will say NO. Again, by your comments, you don't have the faintest idea how offensive this is to our faith. Simply change the licenses to read civil union or something similar. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 5:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --It's not just a religious term...it's a civic term as well. You will continue to deny this and be obstinante because you hate gay people.

     I DON'T CARE THAT IT'S OFFENSIVE TO RELIGIOUS PEOPLE! hello! don't you get that? don't you get how I don't care that a religion wouldn't approve? This is a government issue--not a religious. I'm pro-choice. I don't care that religious people are against abortion. Get it?

     you pretend you'd approve if the name was simply changed--but your bigotry is see through. and I'll prove it: you said earlier you won't marry every heterosexual couple that asks you to marry them. are you against them being granted a marriage license period?

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:20pm

108. Urmy, there is no teaching in christianity to ban either marriage between 2 black people or an interracial marriage. that position had nothing to do with a religious argument. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 5:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --plenty of christian people were against interracial marriage in this country's history. hello!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:21pm

109. No, I'm against anyone except one man and one woman joining in marriage because that defies the majority of religious faith in this nation and would be the govt violating the separation of church and state and interfering in religion.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:53pm

     Ahhh, so you want to stop the government from interfering in your religion, but have no problem with your religion interfering in everyone else's government.

     The definition of hypocrite; thy name is Larry.

     The Constitution guarantees that the religion (or religions) of the many shall not interfere with or determine the rights of the minority. How is yesterday's election in Maine NOT an example of a majority interfering in the rights given to all the people of Maine by the legitimately elected legislature of Maine?

     Do you deny the legitimacy of Maine's legislature when they had the hearings and the testimony and eventually created the law? Do you deny the legitimacy of the Governor's signature on the law? It will be interesting to see this go up through the Maine courts and see what the Maine Supremes decide.

     Yesterday, a small majority of people in the state of Maine took away rights given to them by their duly elected legislature, and you think the Constitution is OK with that? It is almost the same thing that happened in California: a majority of people denied rights given to them after a Supreme Court decision siding in gays' favor. And you think the US Constitution is OK with taking rights away from people after they have already been granted?

     If I were a lesser person, I would pray for you to have your rights taken away, but I am not that person. Evidently, you don't have a problem with rights being taken away after being given.

     And yes, marriage is a right in this country.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 5:28pm

110. You are so filled with hatred of conservatives that you seem obsessed with continually lying about me.

     1. For my personal life, the Bible does come first. But it is separate from my role as a citizen other than it tells me to submit to the authority of the rulers.

     2. My life as a citizen is guided by my love of the Constitution. That is second.

     3. I have no idea what the capitalist manifesto is that you speak of. My ideas on capitalism come mostly from our founders. Limited govt gives people the maximum opportunity to pursue their passions in financial security.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 3:52pm

     But Larry, you've made it clear, even in the relatively short time I've been posting to the Nation, that you don't know how to separate your personal life and your life as a citizen. THAT is why you don't understand the separation between church and state because you don't practice that separation in your personal life.

     I'm NOT saying that's a bad thing...for you...because you are a pastor. Religion is your gig. I wish you'd leave the politics out of it.

     And BTW, the reason I placed capitalism above the constitution for you is simply sue to your screen name. That, and the fact you have a warped view of freedom and liberty.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 5:37pm

111. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 12:28pm

     I can't speak for anti, but I don't think most social cons believe "the gays" are out to destroy marriage. They DO think that the far left wants to destroy marriage, along with basically every Judeo-Christian/Norman Rockwell tradition, and there is some evidence that they are correct. The LEFT tends to utilize the aspirations of minority groups to empower itself.

     "The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor..." Malcolm X

     Thanks Malcolm. That said, I think it is time for my conservative friends to consider the tradeoffs for keeping the trojan horse outside the gates.

     1) We are alienating decent people who want to embrace a conservative lifestyle in a time when nihilism and hedonism is on the rise.

     2) By delaying the inevitable, we stoke the culture wars which are a convenient tool for both the banking mafia and the statists.

     3) Homophobia (and misogyny) is a key component to the hyper-machismo that has festered in the ghettoes for so long and conscripts people into an early death or a lifetime spent in prisons while they are children. By surrendering ourselves for the homophobe label, we deflect constructive criticism from the communities that actually need it.

     I share the concern that the slope will indeed become slippery, and radical lawyers will salivate over legalizing all sorts of arrangements. But the costs of maintaing the social divisions caused by this issue for another twenty years are too high.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/04/2009 @ 5:40pm

112. I share the concern that the slope will indeed become slippery, and radical lawyers will salivate over legalizing all sorts of arrangements. But the costs of maintaing the social divisions caused by this issue for another twenty years are too high. Posted by gangpapist at 11/04/2009 @ 5:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --you mean like people will start getting divorced at a 50% rate for first time marriages?

     that kind of slippery slope?

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:58pm

113. SO THIS IS MY TAKE :1.there a people who don't want me to get married. ok don't ask me to contrubute to your childs education. don't ask me to contribute to any program that recieves federal money. it seems it's ok to use my cash but not give me what you have...how does that work. so in all fairness. My husband and i should be tax exempt. we should not pay for medicare. we should not be required to pay property taxes because we are the stuff bad people are made of and God knows you don't want freaks- degenerates- perverts contributing to your family or your childs life.. so you those of you who vote away my rights. help me help you. get the gays out of your life... make me tax exempt.

     Posted by TOMMYPSP at 11/04/2009 @ 6:07pm

114. --plenty of christian people were against interracial marriage in this country's history. hello!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:21pm

     But that was not based upon their faith. In fact their attempts to stop it were a sin against G-d. there is nothing in the bible that even suggests that people of different races cannot marry.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 6:18pm

115. THAT is why you don't understand the separation between church and state because you don't practice that separation in your personal life.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 5:37pm |

     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

     No, it is you who do not understand that there is NO invective to require believers to suspend thier faith at any time, any place, or in any manner as otherwise YOU are prohibiting the free exeercise of their religion. You have NO right to do so!

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 6:21pm

116. Intrestingly where intent is involved;

     Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' 1 The language was altered in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.'' 2 In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .'' 3 It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting'' phraseology. 4 Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison's position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, 5 but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 6:24pm

117. antisocialist-The KKK, quite effectively, quotes the Bible in order to show why they are against interracial marriage.There is no historical evidence that the word married has only been applied to those who were joined by virtue of a religious ceremony.I'm not sure why you guys keep revising history on this issue.Many protestants,like the pilgrims,believed that marriage was a civil matter.Many others who came to America came to get away from your type of Christian.The Bible does not allow you to judge others.Stop quoting the one teaching on the subject that you like and read all of them.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/04/2009 @ 6:25pm

118. I share the concern that the slope will indeed become slippery, and radical lawyers will salivate over legalizing all sorts of arrangements. But the costs of maintaing the social divisions caused by this issue for another twenty years are too high.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/04/2009 @ 5:40pm

     Instead of the "only a man and a woman" can get married rule, why not simply change the standard to "two consenting adults?" That ends the slippery slope argument dead in its tracks. NO ONE is arguing the idea of multiple people being recognized by the state as a marriage, except two people. Why does it have to be two people of different chromosome sets?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 6:28pm

119. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 5:28pm

     This seems so simple and yet for the liberal mind it is a bridge too far to cross.

     I'm not seeking to have religion interfere with govt. I just want the govt to not redefine what is a religious term.

     Since society is now trying to redefine traditional institutions, simply assign them a secular name that doesn't conflict with the religious.

     And yes Stephen, what happened yesterday was entirely constitutional and I have not heard one legal analyst suggest otherwise. Who is superior, the people or the legislature?

     I'm not seeking to have anyone's rights taken away. Call all civil union licenses by a name other than marriage. Let the states license all manner of relationships in whatever combination they wish. Just don't call it marriage. That is a relationship between a man and a woman.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 6:30pm

120. you pretend you'd approve if the name was simply changed--but your bigotry is see through. and I'll prove it: you said earlier you won't marry every heterosexual couple that asks you to marry them. are you against them being granted a marriage license period?

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:20pm

     It's a separate argument and does nothing to support your argument. While they meet the technical definition, pastors have an obligation on the spiritual side also. And any couple seeking to have me perform their marriage vows must meet the spiritual criteria independent of the state's requirements. I won't perform marriage services for nonbelievers for one. Likewise a divorced person seeking to remarry who doesn't exhibit the proper contrition and spiritual restoration with the Lord.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 6:37pm

121. p.s.--larry, I couldn't care less if you find it "sick and offensive." you know why? I find it equally sick and offensive (and classless) that you call gay people "perverts." never mind your ceaseless name calling of leftists/democrats/liberals.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:16pm

     And that is an impass we will continue. I doubt either of of us back down.

     Homosexuality is a moral perversion for Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims.

     And yes, I do know that there are those who call themselves Christians who do not find a moral issue on sexual behavior. That is their problem between them and G-d for which G-d says they stand judged equally guilty as those who commit the sin (Romans 1:32)

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 6:42pm

122. so you those of you who vote away my rights. help me help you. get the gays out of your life... make me tax exempt.

     Posted by TOMMYPSP at 11/04/2009 @ 6:07pm |

     I'd rather have you turn from your sins and turn instead to G-d who is ready to forgive you if you repent. He will give you His love and heal you of the deceits that have separated you from Him.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 6:45pm

123. The Bible does not allow you to judge others.Stop quoting the one teaching on the subject that you like and read all of them.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/04/2009 @ 6:25pm

     We've gone through this before. Christians are not prohibited by Jesus from judging. We are just warned that we must judge by G-d's standards and not our own.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 6:47pm

124. Just don't call it marriage. That is a relationship between a man and a woman. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 6:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     panties in a bunch over a word!

     yeah, right. he hates fags. it's that simple.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 6:50pm

125. you pretend you'd approve if the name was simply changed--but your bigotry is see through. and I'll prove it: you said earlier you won't marry every heterosexual couple that asks you to marry them. are you against them being granted a marriage license period? Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:20pm It's a separate argument and does nothing to support your argument. While they meet the technical definition, pastors have an obligation on the spiritual side also. And any couple seeking to have me perform their marriage vows must meet the spiritual criteria independent of the state's requirements. I won't perform marriage services for nonbelievers for one. Likewise a divorced person seeking to remarry who doesn't exhibit the proper contrition and spiritual restoration with the Lord. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 6:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --no, it absolutely supports it; because you're personally against marry certain heterosexual people; but not against them getting marriage licenses from the state. treat gay people the same way. while you don't personally approve, the state can allow it.

     see--you still get to be personally against it (just like the heterosexual couples you won't officiate).

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 6:53pm

126. p.s.--larry, I couldn't care less if you find it "sick and offensive." you know why? I find it equally sick and offensive (and classless) that you call gay people "perverts." never mind your ceaseless name calling of leftists/democrats/liberals.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:16pm

     And that is an impass we will continue. I doubt either of of us back down. Homosexuality is a moral perversion for Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims. And yes, I do know that there are those who call themselves Christians who do not find a moral issue on sexual behavior. That is their problem between them and G-d for which G-d says they stand judged equally guilty as those who commit the sin (Romans 1:32)

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 6:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --i'm sticking up for the minority. you thump your bible and vomit at the thought of gay sex.

     i'm satisfied with my morals.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 6:55pm

127. And yes Stephen, what happened yesterday was entirely constitutional and I have not heard one legal analyst suggest otherwise. Who is superior, the people or the legislature?

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 6:30pm

     So, why do we have legislatures, then? What is truly their purpose if everything could just as easily be put to a popular vote?

     Oh....then we wouldn't be a REPUBLIC anymore, would we?

     Are you now advocating the dissolution of our Republican form of democracy which is based on the Constitution you love so much? It sure sounds like it. Like I said, we'll see if the Maine Supremes agree with you or not. Two out of the three branches of government (the Legislative and the Executive) approved this measure; let's see what the third has to say.

     "Let's just put everything to a popular vote," says Larry.

     Legislatures are voted for by the People, and it is on third of the foundation of the Republic. The Constitution was written to prevent that very thing: the majority always getting its way over minorities.

     THAT'S why we have legislatures. To prevent tyrannical rule by the mob (or the majority).

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 7:00pm

128. Sodomites are seeking to redefine marriage in the courts and statutes to include same-sex unions. If their concern were just to obtain the same legal benefits enjoyed by traditional marriages, they would be satisfied with "domestic partnership" or "civil unions". But no, they want much more. They want to legislate the beliefs, attitudes, and values of people?everywhere! It is not just legal standing they seek; it is complete social and moral approval of their chosen, self-felt immoral degradation.

     Marriage, necessarily requiring a man and a woman, has by nature been an institution of exclusion from other "pairings" of people for sexual gratification. It has earned respect and honor as a sanctified and worthy institution, the place where future generations are incubated and nurtured. On the other hand, sodomy, by its nature, has historically been understood by all cultures to be an aberration, a perversion, unworthy of praise. Queers are tired of being queer. They want to escape the stigma their sin carries by joining the ranks of the holy--holy matrimony.

     Proponents of same-sex "marriage" regard it as a human right to be able to enter into "marriage" regardless of sexual orientation. I agree that Sodomites have a human right to do the wrong thing, to do harm to themselves, to be ignorant or stupid, but there is no human right to constrain others to approve or legally validate that choice. Just because one is free to choose does not render all choices appropriate. But it is not really the right to choose they seek; it is the denial of our right to choose otherwise that is at the forefront of their campaign.

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 7:03pm

129. Maggie Gallagher of the National Review says same-sex "marriage" advocates seek to use the law to "stigmatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with the government's new views on marriage and sexual orientation." Sodomites want you punished for making them feel ashamed or guilty. They will not rest until it is illegal to quote the Bible regarding the sin of sodomy. You can be certain that, within the next few years, homosexuals will be a protected species and heterosexuals the endangered species. They will use the courts to purge society of the last vestige of negative speech or discriminatory actions. There is no stopping it, short of a nationwide repentance of true saints for their faithlessness in praying for those in authority over them, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" (1 Tim. 2:1-4). And, God willing, that revival may be the spark that God will use to ignite another revival of the godless among us to repentance for their hell-worthy sins.

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 7:04pm

130. Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 7:04pm

     I fear we will see a repeat of G-d's judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah before these people repent of their perversions.

     And if America doesn't wake up and change, it will deserve G-d's wrath.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 7:12pm

131. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 6:28pm

     That's a reasonable suggestion. I like civil unions for everyone because it separates the legal arrangement from the concept of "holy matrimony" which is sacrosanct for many people.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/04/2009 @ 7:22pm

132. So, if a soldier in the Crusades stole a loaf of bread, does that make the Crusade about thieves instead of repelling an Islamic invasion?

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 1:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     No, no, no. That repelling thing was Jan III Sobieski at the Gates of Vienna!

     When men were men.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/04/2009 @ 7:48pm

133. "Sodomites are seeking to redefine marriage in the courts and statutes to include same-sex unions"

     this person appears to be living under the incredible delusion that straight people don't also engage in sodomy.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 7:56pm

134. Marriage, necessarily requiring a man and a woman, has by nature been an institution of exclusion from other "pairings" of people for sexual gratification. It has earned respect and honor as a sanctified and worthy institution, the place where future generations are incubated and nurtured.

     --so well respected and honored is it that 50% of first time marriages end in DIVORCE!

     On the other hand, sodomy, by its nature, has historically been understood by all cultures to be an aberration, a perversion, unworthy of praise. Queers are tired of being queer. They want to escape the stigma their sin carries by joining the ranks of the holy--holy matrimony.

     --wrong. it has nothing to do with being "holy" (religion). it's a marriage licence granted by the state. nothing more, nothing less.

     Proponents of same-sex "marriage" regard it as a human right to be able to enter into "marriage" regardless of sexual orientation.

     --darn tootin

     I agree that Sodomites have a human right to do the wrong thing, to do harm to themselves, to be ignorant or stupid,

     --your religious judgments don't rule the civic world.

     but there is no human right to constrain others to approve or legally validate that choice.

     --"human right"....hahahaha! you sound like a moron.

     Just because one is free to choose does not render all choices appropriate.

     --d-i-v-o-r-c-e

     But it is not really the right to choose they seek; it is the denial of our right to choose otherwise that is at the forefront of their campaign.

     --loosen your sphincter--no one's ever gonna make you take it up your ass!

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 7:03pm

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 8:16pm

135. Maggie Gallagher of the National Review says same-sex "marriage" advocates seek to use the law to "stigmatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with the government's new views on marriage and sexual orientation."

     --Urmygyro, of the anonymous comment section of The Nation, says you and others like you use the Bible and scare tactics to "stimgatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with your view on marriage and sexual orientation"

     Sodomites want you punished for making them feel ashamed or guilty.

     --you want homos punished for making you feel ashamed and guilty for your homophobia.

     They will not rest until it is illegal to quote the Bible regarding the sin of sodomy.

     --the red herring is sliding down the slippery slope...

     You can be certain that, within the next few years, homosexuals will be a protected species and heterosexuals the endangered species.

     --whites will be outnumbered soon too! you best start fucking some fertile white women!

     They will use the courts to purge society of the last vestige of negative speech or discriminatory actions.

     --you will always be free to call homosexuals "fags," "sodomites," "queers," "abominations," "deviants," etc. Name calling is constitutionally protected. You are free to use your speech to try to "stigmatize, marginalize, and repress."

     There is no stopping it, short of a nationwide repentance of true saints for their faithlessness in praying for those in authority over them, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" And, God willing, that revival may be the spark that God will use to ignite another revival of the godless among us to repentance for their hell-worthy sins.

     --the difference b/w you and an islamic hijaker is your afterlife virgin expectation

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 8:22pm

136. Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 7:04pm I fear we will see a repeat of G-d's judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah before these people repent of their perversions. And if America doesn't wake up and change, it will deserve G-d's wrath. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 7:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --whackadoos hard at work!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 8:23pm

137. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 6:28pm That's a reasonable suggestion. I like civil unions for everyone because it separates the legal arrangement from the concept of "holy matrimony" which is sacrosanct for many people. Posted by gangpapist at 11/04/2009 @ 7:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --like the 50% of first marriages that end in divorce?

     yeah, a flip of the coin is real "sacred"

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 8:24pm

138. "... traditions that cross the major world faiths and have lasted for over 5000 years..."

     Why do conservatives have such trouble telling the truth? Marriage hasn't been limited to one man and one woman for anywhere near 5000 years. In fact, same-sex ceremonies began in the Christian church at about the same time as opposite-sex ceremonies - around the beginning of the third century - and continued through the middle of the seventeenth century in both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. According to Boswell (Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe), these ceremonies were viewed as marriages. It's well known that same-sex weddings were celebrated in ancient Greece and Rome as well, and the Old Testament even says that King David exchanged vows with Jonathon "for he loved him as he loved his own soul" and later renewed those vows. The world hasn't been as small-minded as the small-minded would like to think.

     Posted by dtcarson at 11/04/2009 @ 8:46pm

139. antisocialist-Yes,we have gone over it before and you failed to prove that you can judge.It is impossible for a human to judge by Gods standards.We can only judge by human standards.Jesus did not give you permission to judge.You only use the one quote because you think it gives you permission to judge,but it does not.You ignore all of the other teachings on judging because they do not give you permission to judge.You cannot judge others until you remove the log from your own eyes and no human has done that.We all have logs in our eyes.What Jesus said was that only perfect people get to judge and none of those exist.Only those without sin get to cast the first stone.There are no sin free Christians.You do not have permission to judge,but that will not stop you.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/04/2009 @ 9:36pm

140. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 6:42pm </i>

     Hmm...so first of all, your assumption that this verse categorically tags homosexuality relies on the claim that all homosexuals operate by lust. That's a pretty bold assertion by itself, and you can't settle for anything less than that because otherwise the verse isn't inherently addressing homosexuality. Second, the verse only applies to "willful blindness," which means that you just assume that everyone who disagrees with you knows deep down that you're right.

     Oh, by the way, that verse destroys your view of hell. Why? Because death and hell are NOT the same thing. How do we know this? Because Paul also says "the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life." He's plainly contrasting a termination of finite existence with an eternal existence. Does this mean that Paul repudiates hell entirely? No, but it does mean that he doesn't seem to see hell as a specific punishment for sin. In Paul's use, death means death. That means that hell CANNOT, by definition, be punishment for sin.

     Finally, the religious freedom arguments with respect to gay marriage are really dumb. One, there's a double-bind. If marriage is a religious term, the state has no authority to pronounce or regulate. That which the state DOES regulate, it has to regulate without treating it as a religious ritual. You cannot have it both ways. If the state can do marriages, it should do them equally. Second, no one's religious view is being imposed on. No one's free exercise is being constrained, and no religion is being established. Gay marriage has literally no impact on religious freedom, especially because churches will never be told by the state that they have to perform same-sex weddings, and they shouldn't be.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/04/2009 @ 9:44pm

141. "I'm not seeking to have religion interfere with govt. I just want the govt to not redefine what is a religious term.

     Since society is now trying to redefine traditional institutions, simply assign them a secular name that doesn't conflict with the religious. "

     Again, marriage is not just a religious term. The long history of civil marriage in the Anglo-American legal tradition establishes that it belongs just as much to the secular world as the religious one.

     What this is about is that your religion's bigotry against gays leads you to attempt to force the civil law to enforce a particular theological viewpoint.

     Posted by brunowe at 11/04/2009 @ 9:55pm

142. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 7:12pm |

     PRS: Pat Robertson Syndrome.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 9:58pm

143. Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 6:42pm |

     Romans 2:1

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 10:02pm

144. Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 8:16pm | ignore this person | warn this personPosted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 8:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 8:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Speaks volumes when your only form of retort is perverted ridicule, you only make points supporting the arguments !

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 10:02pm

145. Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 8:16pm | ignore this person | warn this personPosted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 8:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 8:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Speaks volumes when your only form of retort is perverted ridicule, you only make points supporting the arguments !

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 10:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --"perverted ridicule"? define that.

     --I "make points supporting the arguments"--well, yes, if "the" refers to arguments for gay marriage.

     p.s.--there's very little doubt you've got the lowest IQ for regular posters here. you make barry25 look like a poet laureate.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 10:33pm

146. Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 10:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     1st Corinthians 6; 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 10:34pm

147. --I "make points supporting the arguments"--well, yes, if "the" refers to arguments for gay marriage.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 10:33pm | i gnore this person | warn this person

     Where were they? All I saw was hate filled ranting unsupported!

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 10:47pm

148. I was out playing with the dog and watering the trees on the property.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 4:35pm

     WITH SOCIALIST, STIMULUS WATER!!!!!!!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 11:09pm

149. "Gay marriage has literally no impact on religious freedom"

     it's almost sad that thrawn, an otherwise very intelligent person, has to say this for it to ring true. it was obvious to the rest of us for......a long, long time.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 12:15am

150. <i>Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 10:34pm </i>

     The saints will judge the world? I believe that much of what Paul said was deeply inspired, but I don't think this can be at all squared with anything Jesus said.

     <i>Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 12:15am</i>

     I'm...not sure I understand you here. Is your statement that it took me a while to reach that conclusion? The statement seems like a compliment...except for the "otherwise very intelligent person" part. Could you clarify?

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/05/2009 @ 12:40am

151. And as always, whenever Rio/Big Posture starts citing Scripture...ask him to cite

     Titus 3:2

     He can't.

     Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 07:18am

152. i didn't realize that a particular sexual act defined marriage.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 11:10am

     Really, you were unaware that until a married couple engaged in vaginal intercourse the marriage wasn't "consumated" and could be annulled as having never taken place until it was consumated?

     You really didn't know this? If true, you really don't have any business spouting your ignorant opinions on a topic you know virtually nothing about.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 09:01am

153. i didn't realize that a particular sexual act defined marriage.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 11:10am

     Further, didn't you know that if the INS suspects a marriage is only one of convenience for the purpose of permitting residence in the US, the INS will ask if the couple engages in regular sexual intercourse.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 09:03am

154. --I "make points supporting the arguments"--well, yes, if "the" refers to arguments for gay marriage. Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 10:33pm | i gnore this person | warn this person Where were they? All I saw was hate filled ranting unsupported! Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 10:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --then stop reading your own posts!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 09:06am

155. i didn't realize that a particular sexual act defined marriage. Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 11:10am Further, didn't you know that if the INS suspects a marriage is only one of convenience for the purpose of permitting residence in the US, the INS will ask if the couple engages in regular sexual intercourse. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 09:03am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --you mean besides the appallingly high divorce rate there's also heterosexuals getting married just to make one of them a u.s. citizen?

     marriage takes another hit!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 09:09am

156. It is simply a matter of having a group of people (gays) who are not treated equally under the law; therefore it is unConstitutional, plain and simple. Religious traditions be damned.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/04/2009 @ 11:21am

     Steven,

     Can a single gay man marry a single woman just like a single heterosexual man can?

     Can a single lesbian woman marry a single man just like a heterosexual woman can?

     The answer to both of these questions is, "yes". There is no discrimination. Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals.

     Before you start arguing about love, show me the marriage statute that mentions love.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 09:09am

157. --you mean besides the appallingly high divorce rate there's also heterosexuals getting married just to make one of them a u.s. citizen?

     marriage takes another hit!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 09:09am

     I agree. It is appalling when people defile marrage in this manner. I'm glad the INS is standing up for traditional marriage. I think people should only get married when they are prepared to make a life-long committment that might include raising children.

     (Note: my definition, which is differnet from most states, does not exclude gays. If a gay couple wants to make a life-long committment and they can envision raising children, the bonds of marriage will benefit those children. As such, I support allowing states to recognize thier committment with a civil marriage contract. Voters currently disagree with me, but given the chance to vote, I would vote to change.)

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 09:15am

158. Generational change will bring gay marriage. My kids and their friends are quite nonchalant when it comes to gay lifestyle and the issue of gay marriage. The slow pace of the "gay agenda" will overcome all obstacles. I am heartened by the attitude that the young generation shows toward people different than themselves. Give it time. There will always be shrill and intolerant voices in every struggle for change. Slowly but surely the world will be a better place.

     Posted by tomkovis at 11/05/2009 @ 09:18am

159. The problem is referendum voting on civil right issues.

     What would happen if they had a referendum vote in Alabama on white only drinking fountains or womens voting rights? These are civil rights issues that may well lose in a referendum vote in some places.

     So why are states being allowed to violate the civil rights of homosexuals? Equal rights are equal rights, either you have them or you don't. If gay's are forbidden to marry, then straights should be forbidden also. Marriage is a civil contract and nothing more. Even if you want to spice it up with religious ceremony, it is still nothing more than a civil contract that is created out of thin air by the state.

     Really no different than a corporation, which is also a creature of government..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/05/2009 @ 09:18am

160. http://baselinescenario.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/marriage1.jpg

     Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 09:53am

     Facinating picture. Update it in a few decades and you will get a dramatic visual of Malcom Gladwell's book, The Tipping Point.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 09:22am

161. Zen, the reason AL can't vote on segregated drinking fountain is that the US Constitution superceeds all state laws.

     Gay marriage is not protected by the US Constitution. Oh sure, if you pretend that some of the words mean something different today than they meant yesterday, you can convince yourself that your opinions about what the US Constitution should mean are better than the legal scholars who do this for a living.

     But there is a reason that GLBT goups haven't gone to the Supreme court. And that reason is they know they would lose and losing would mean one more hurdle to clear on the way to their goal.

     That's the reason they started at the state: They are hoping to get a win in the most friendly juristiction they can find. So far that hasn't worked very well except MA and IA. (In CA if blew up in their faces.)

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 09:30am

162. --like the 50% of first marriages that end in divorce?

     yeah, a flip of the coin is real "sacred"

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 8:24pm

     Your statistics are wrong.

     50% of marriages end in divorce, but only one-third of first marraige end in divorce.

     The advent of divorce for second marraige and third and some forth ...

     These are the things that push the divorce rate to 50%.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 09:33am

163. Really no different than a corporation, which is also a creature of government..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/05/2009 @ 09:18am

     And we all know how the so-called "conservatives" here feel about their godlike corporations. They want to give corporations 1st Amendment rights of free speech so they can be allowed to express that "free speech" in the forms of lobbyists, "contributions" and special interest groups that corrupt our politicians.

     Then they wail about "big government" and fight for "limited government". Which is nothing more than an attempt to weaken and destroy constitutional representation in order to allow the corporatists to rule with the iron fist of fascism.

     Their enemy is "Big Government". And the reason for that is that "Big Government" is the only entity that can control and prevent their inevitable capitalist abuses.

     Got off on a rant there. Sorry, I can't help it.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/05/2009 @ 09:41am

164. Keep in mind with Darin TT...

     He "doesn't oppose gay marriage...just opposes the way the activists are trying to get it!"

     That's his story...and he's sticking to it.

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 09:45am

165. One more thing on the US Constitution and tyrany of a minority. If 49% of the voters were spread around the country just right, they could re-institute slavery.

     Say none of them were in CA, NY, TX and FL. These are 52, 31, 30, and 23 house representatives for a total of 136 representatives.

     If the 49% spread themselves evenly in every other rep district they would have a 52 - 53% majority, they would have 299 reps and 92 senators after 6 years. The Congress could propose an amendment re-instituting slavery and they'd have the 2-3 supermajority to pass the proposed amendments out of the Congress to the state legislatures and they could control 92% (need ratification in 75%) in order to make it a constitutional amendment.

     It is theoretically possible.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 09:49am

166. "But there is a reason that GLBT goups haven't gone to the Supreme court. And that reason is they know they would lose and losing would mean one more hurdle to clear on the way to their goal. "

     You mean like they lost in Lawrence v. Texas when state consensual sodomy laws were stricken down...on, wait, they won! They won on the grounds that consensual homosexual activity was a liberty interest protected by the 14th Amendment.

     "you can convince yourself that your opinions about what the US Constitution should mean are better than the legal scholars who do this for a living. "

     And you've taken a thorough enough look to be able to say that these scholars have a consensus on this point?

     Posted by brunowe at 11/05/2009 @ 09:53am

167. Why is it that the people who are arguing that the government shouldn't redefine marriage on the grounds that it is a religious institution ignore the fact that some religious institutions in the US honor gay marriage and are performing them - even in places where such marriages are not recognized under the law? For the government to recognize the marriages of some religious institutions and not others is showing preference for certain institutions and violating separation of church and state.

     Furthermore, if marriage is only a religious institution then why, as an atheist, was I allowed to get married?

     Darin - your definition of marriage confuses me. If marriage is only to provide stability for the purpose of raising children, then once a couple has raised their children we'd need to dissolve their marriage since its purpose would have expired. People known to be barren would be excluded from marrying. We wouldn't want to allow two people to be married until they actually had a child to raise, either or we'd simply have everyone in line for a marriage license claiming intent to have children soon regardless of their actual goals. Marriage can provide stability to a couple (note that I am not claiming this is always the case) outside of the scope of raising children and thus provides a benefit to society whether there are children involved or not.

     Posted by fmtost at 11/05/2009 @ 10:41am

168. Posted by fmtost at 11/05/2009 @ 10:41am

     Not only is marriage about having kids...if you don't have ENOUGH kids, Darin thinks you're "self-centered".

     Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 10:47am

169. "The statement seems like a compliment...except for the "otherwise very intelligent person" part. Could you clarify?"

     i love reading your posts, thrawn. you, steven carver, and jakobfabian are three of the most reasonable people here.

     but your statement is a conclusion that many of us reached a long, long time ago. and i think that it's sad that YOU have to say it, because you probably knew it a long time ago, too.

     it was almost as if you were saying it for the rest of the people here.....

     "If true, you really don't have any business spouting your ignorant opinions on a topic you know virtually nothing about"

     oh, darin. are you still blogging in last week's underwear?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 10:53am

170. "Really, you were unaware that until a married couple engaged in vaginal intercourse the marriage wasn't "consumated" and could be annulled as having never taken place until it was consumated?"

     where/when does it say this? i notice you said, "were" unaware, presumably because this "law" doesn't exist anymore. and if even if it DID exist, it is obviously unenforceable.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 10:54am

171. hey everyone, darin, the resident expert on marriage law, claimed that homosexuals already have the right to marry (but they just can't marry the person they love). they'd have to marry a friend of the opposite sex, and pretend they're married.....

     free-dom!!

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 10:56am

172. Can a single gay man marry a single woman just like a single heterosexual man can? Can a single lesbian woman marry a single man just like a heterosexual woman can? The answer to both of these questions is, "yes". There is no discrimination. Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals. Before you start arguing about love, show me the marriage statute that mentions love. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 09:09am

     --by that rationale the gov't could close down every christian church and say "we're not violating the free exercise of religion...we're not stopping you from practicing islam"

     your "argument" is pathetic.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 10:56am

173. I agree. It is appalling when people defile marrage in this manner. I'm glad the INS is standing up for traditional marriage. I think people should only get married when they are prepared to make a life-long committment that might include raising children. (Note: my definition, which is differnet from most states, does not exclude gays. If a gay couple wants to make a life-long committment and they can envision raising children, the bonds of marriage will benefit those children. As such, I support allowing states to recognize thier committment with a civil marriage contract. Voters currently disagree with me, but given the chance to vote, I would vote to change.) Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 09:15am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --another, like larry, who pretends he's open minded...he only has a problem with a word (yeah, right)

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 10:57am

174. Generational change will bring gay marriage. My kids and their friends are quite nonchalant when it comes to gay lifestyle and the issue of gay marriage. The slow pace of the "gay agenda" will overcome all obstacles. I am heartened by the attitude that the young generation shows toward people different than themselves. Give it time. There will always be shrill and intolerant voices in every struggle for change. Slowly but surely the world will be a better place. Posted by tomkovis at 11/05/2009 @ 09:18am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --I hope you're proven right. Further, I think you will be proven right--most friends of mine (I'm 30, these are people in their late 20s/early 30s) support gay marriage; and even the ones who don't aren't against it don't really care.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 11:00am

175. 50% of marriages end in divorce, but only one-third of first marraige end in divorce. The advent of divorce for second marraige and third and some forth ... These are the things that push the divorce rate to 50%. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 09:33am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --ok, ONLY 1/3 of first marriages end in divorce. pardon me. 33% failure rate is VERY SUCCESSFUL and proves marriage is VERY SACRED.

     and the statistics for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th marriages only bolsters the sacredness of marriage!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 11:03am

176. One more thing on the US Constitution and tyrany of a minority. If 49% of the voters were spread around the country just right, they could re-institute slavery.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 09:49am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --so black people being forced to work for whites is the same as two gay guys getting a marriage license?

     here's a helpful hint to help you stop looking like a complete jackass: gay marriage would only affect gay people who CHOOSE to get maried. if you're not gay, it won't affect you.

     p.s.--slavery reinstuted by a vote? ever heard of the civil war?

     you're a top notch moron!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 11:09am

177. Boston Globe -- 14 March, 2006 -- John Garvey

     State Putting Church Out Of Adoption Business

     TITLE VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids employment discrimination on the basis of gender. It doesn't make an exception for churches. However, courts have interpreted Title VII to exempt churches. This is not surprising. Catholics, Mormons, and certain Orthodox Christians do not ordain women as priests. Orthodox Jews do not ordain women as rabbis. Traditional schools of Islam do not allow women to act as imams. The Constitution would not permit the government to change these church rules even if it wanted to....

     ...regulations caused a problem for Catholic Charities, because the Church believes that homosexual relationships are sinful and that it is wrong to place a child in such a family. The agencies refused to grant an exemption....Catholic Charities reluctantly decided to stop doing adoptions.

     http://www.boston.com/news /globe/editorial_opinion/oped/ articles/2006/03/14/state_putting_ church_out_of_adoption_business/

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/05/2009 @ 11:35am

178. I fear we will see a repeat of G-d's judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah before these people repent of their perversions.

     And if America doesn't wake up and change, it will deserve G-d's wrath.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 7:12pm

     Well, as your hero, George W. Bush once said, "Bring it on!"

     I have nothing to fear and neither do any of my gay friends.

     I wonder what it's like living your life in constant fear of ultimate judgment only to be found wanting.... as you do all the judging while still on earth.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 11:44am

179. I personally find it insulting and wrong that anyone should EVER get to vote on another persons Civil rights.

     Marriage is NOT protected by the Constitution, so under the equal protection under the law, if marriage is denied one, it should be denied to all.

     The fucking audacity of the right wing to believe their ability to inflame predjudice and fear to deny or repeal rights given to citizens in unbelievable.

     But hey, fear and hatered are all thet matter.

     And the Presdidents apathy in this is almost as insulting.

     Posted by SoundGuyChris at 11/05/2009 @ 11:48am

180. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 09:09am

     Darin, your inconsistency is showing again.

     In one post to Darla above, you mention the "fact" that marriages aren't legal unless consummated, then you ask me if gay and straight people can marry.

     Are you suggesting that law abiding citizens (both straight and gay), defraud the government by lying and stating that they are married when in fact they might never consummate their marriage due to their incompatible sexual natures?

     Why not just give married gay people the same rights as straights when married to another gay person and then no one has to lie to the government about anything, including consummation? Seems a lot easier to me that condoning illegal lying to the government.

     Married gay people in Massachusetts have all the same state rights as straights and the world has not collapsed. Married gay people in Iowa have all the same state rights as straights and we have not become Sodom and Gomorrah. (Children of the Corn? Maybe...heheh) Married gay people in many countries the world over have all the same rights as married straight people and the world has not stopped spinning. God has not come down and smite anyone.

     So what's the big deal, OTHER than religion in a nation in which religion is, by law, forbidden to interfere in civic policies?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 12:00pm

181. "I fear we will see a repeat of G-d's judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah before these people repent of their perversions"

     that's classic bigotry right there.

     if god created all things, then god created homosexuality.

     should bonobos repent, too? or any of the 1500 species who have homosexuals?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 12:02pm

182. Let the people rule!

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/05/2009 @ 12:10pm

183. Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/05/2009 @ 11:35am

     Good thing for Mary, Dick and Lynne Cheney aren't Catholic, huh?

     Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 12:15pm

184. Let the people rule! Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/05/2009 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --not when they're wrong!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 12:18pm

185. Posted by Thrawn at 11/04/2009 @ 9:44pm

     1.You continue to distort the plain meaning and compound by suggesting the words are mine instead of scripture. It's not my assumption, it's G-d's knowledge that all mankind are born with a sense of G-d and his Holiness. It is due to the sin nature and it's fruit of disobedience that people reject G-d's truth, just as you do also.

     All sin contains an element of lust, which is not purely a sexual term in the theological meaning.

     2. Where do you get that I have ever said that death and hell are the same? I don't know of any reputable theologian that believes that and I certainly don't.

     Hell has not been opened yet. It will not be opened until the Great Throne Judgment after the 1000 year reign of Christ and then the battle of Armageddon. The Satan and death along with all who are not sealed by the blood of the Lamb will be cast into hell.

     3.As to marriage as a religious term. I have already noted that when states began issuing licenses around the mid 1800's, they used the word marriage out of convenience to the fact that most Americansw were Christians or Jews. I doubt that they ever contemplated a time when our moral fabric would have disintegrated as much as it has in the last 30 years. Heck, most of us couldn't conceive of this breakdown happening so quickly, except by finding it predicted by Jesus and the apostles. That is why the majority of Christians indicate in poll after poll that it is likely that mankind is in the final days.

     If it comes to pass that homosexual marriage is permitted throughout the US, pastors like myself will be forced to recommend to Christian couples that they no longer get a state license, but still have the religious ceremony.

     continued

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 12:18pm

186. And the Presidents apathy in this is almost as insulting.

     Posted by SoundGuyChris at 11/05/2009 @ 11:48am

     No. I am DEFINITELY as insulted by Obama's apathy as I am by the posturing and biblical foaming at the mouth taking place on this blog.

     If a multiracial man elected as the President of the United States does not understand the fight for equal rights, then perhaps he doesn't need my vote, or my tax dollars to run his backwater, broke-ass country.

     I am tired of America stooping to the lowest common denominator (i.e Teabag Republicans in the South). It's time for higher standards.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 12:18pm

187. larry--the myths you buy into are scary

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 12:19pm

188. Posted by Thrawn at 11/04/2009 @ 9:44pm

     the requirement for pastors to keep Christians separate from what is profane

     As it says in Ezekiel 22:26

     Her priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean

     1 Timothy 1:8-11 We know that the law is good when used correctly. For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching that comes from the glorious Good News entrusted to me by our blessed God.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 12:19pm

189. If it comes to pass that homosexual marriage is permitted throughout the US, pastors like myself will be forced to recommend to Christian couples that they no longer get a state license, but still have the religious ceremony.

     Posted by antisocialist

     --homosexual marriage already is permitted in some states.

     time to start your recommendations against marriage!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 12:21pm

190. No. I am DEFINITELY as insulted by Obama's apathy as I am by the posturing and biblical foaming at the mouth taking place on this blog. If a multiracial man elected as the President of the United States does not understand the fight for equal rights, then perhaps he doesn't need my vote, or my tax dollars to run his backwater, broke-ass country. I am tired of America stooping to the lowest common denominator (i.e Teabag Republicans in the South). It's time for higher standards. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 12:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --here-here! political expendiency is more sickening when democrats engage in it.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 12:23pm

191. " I doubt that they ever contemplated a time when our moral fabric would have disintegrated as much as it has in the last 30 years"

     precisely the same time period in which republicans ruled the country, bombed and occupied numerous countries, killed millions of innocent people, tortured thousands of people, and gradually dismantled the new deal. funny how that worked out.

     so, basically, i'm in agreement with antisocialist. the moral fabric has disintegrated.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 12:24pm

192. obama's apathy on all manner of issues is getting pretty sickening.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 12:27pm

193. Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 12:21pm

     Wow....Larry going to embrace ...civil disobediance?!?!?!??

     He could be the antimartinlutherkingjr of his bunch.

     Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 12:27pm

194. I was being a little facitious, URMYGYRO, but to address your comment: And who decides when people are wrong? Leftnuts? Wingnuts?

     People need to make their own decisions about their lives. I personally think it is wrong, but if a same sex couple wants to be married, find a minister who will do it and do it. The hell with Government or "the people." Fighting for the legality of it should be secondary, frankly. Their lives together should be what matters, should it not?

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/05/2009 @ 12:27pm

195. Romans 2:1

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 10:02pm

     This is why it's harmful to a nonbeliever to quote scripture. They almost always quote it out of context.

     Romans 1:26-2:3

     For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

     And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

     Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?

     He is criticizing the hypocrites who judge others yet practice the same things or approve of them secretly

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 12:30pm

196. antisocialist-So,you preachers don't mind that murderers,adulterers,rapists,pedophiles,and other such straight people can get the same state license as you guys,but if gays can one then you will recommend that Christians no longer get them.You guys have such wonderful morals.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/05/2009 @ 12:34pm

197. antisocialist-Believers do not all interpret scripture in the same way so non believers can quote it just as well as believers.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/05/2009 @ 12:36pm

198. Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 12:21pm

     Wow....Larry going to embrace ...civil disobediance?!?!?!?? He could be the antimartinlutherkingjr of his bunch.

     Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 12:27pm | ignore this person |

     --larry, gay people do a lot of other things straight people do as well. they also buy a lot of the same things.

     don't ignore all that too!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 12:37pm

199. Which is why you are so lost now, though G-d desires to see you saved, not lost

     Psalm 14:2 etc, etc, blah, blah, blah...

     Posted by auntysocialist at 11/04/2009 @ 12:37pm

     If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

     Exodus 21:20-21

     All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.

     Leviticus 11:20-22

     If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.

     Deuteronomy 22:23-24

     He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

     Deuteronomy 23:1

     If his offering is a goat, he is to present it before the LORD. He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it in front of the Tent of Meeting. Then Aaron's sons shall sprinkle its blood against the altar on all sides. From what he offers he is to make this offering to the LORD by fire: all the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them, both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys. The priest shall burn them on the altar as food, an offering made by fire, a pleasing aroma. All the fat is the LORD's.

     Leviticus 3:12-16

     Posted by warn_this_person at 11/05/2009 @ 12:39pm

200. And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. Leviticus 15:19-30

     I love the bible quote game!

     Posted by warn_this_person at 11/05/2009 @ 12:41pm

201. I wonder what it's like living your life in constant fear of ultimate judgment only to be found wanting.... as you do all the judging while still on earth. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 11:44am

     I wouldn't know. I have no fear of death and facing the Lord.

     Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:37-39

     He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:12-14

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 12:45pm

202. "Fighting for the legality of it should be secondary, frankly. Their lives together should be what matters, should it not?"

     chip, clearly (!) gay couples in civil unions do not receive equal benefits from marriage.

     that is why the legality is not secondary, but primary.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 12:45pm

203. Posted by warn_this_person at 11/05/2009 @ 12:41pm

     Christians are not under the Law of Moses. However G-d will still judge nonbelievers according to the law of Moses.

     "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it." Luke 16:16

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 12:47pm

204. ' I am DEFINITELY as insulted by Obama's apathy as I am by the posturing and biblical foaming at the mouth taking place on this blog.' -- Stephen_Carver1

     'In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.' -- Martin Luther King

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/05/2009 @ 12:49pm

205. He is criticizing the hypocrites who judge others yet practice the same things or approve of them secretly

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 12:30pm

     and how do we know what's in your closet Larry? There have been many (too many to mention) religious leaders throughout history who have judged their fellow man while on earth (and I am sure there are more today). Only when someone finds out about their transgressions publicly, do they then repent of the sins and evil.

     Are you saying that you are without sin? Or just because you don't commit homosexual congress are you able to judge those who do?

     Back in the day, your own marriage would have been considered a biblical sin by most white pastors such as yourself (and they could use scripture to justify their beliefs, just as you do yours). So who are you to judge others...ever?

     Or will you make the claim, "Times change." Or perhaps what those people did all those years ago wasn't really about Christ and the Bible, but what you're doing today IS about Christ and the Bible. Your selective biblical judgmentalism is astounding to behold.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 12:51pm

206. Christians are not under the Law of Moses.

     Posted by auntysocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 12:47pm

     Excellent! We can ignore this one then?

     If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev.20:13

     Posted by warn_this_person at 11/05/2009 @ 12:52pm

207. I was being a little facitious, URMYGYRO, but to address your comment: And who decides when people are wrong? Leftnuts? Wingnuts? People need to make their own decisions about their lives. I personally think it is wrong, but if a same sex couple wants to be married, find a minister who will do it and do it. The hell with Government or "the people." Fighting for the legality of it should be secondary, frankly. Their lives together should be what matters, should it not?

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/05/2009 @ 12:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --this isn't about religion (find a minister who will do it)...it's about civil marriage.

     if it's just about "their lives together" than what does any straight person (esp. when they're basing their belief on religion) care? live your own life...ignore people you disagree with. two gay guys get married--how does that affect you?

     "the hell with government or gay people. fighting to keep gay marriage illegal should be secondary, frankly. focusing on their own straight marriages should be what matters to them only, should it not?

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 12:52pm

208. --larry, gay people do a lot of other things straight people do as well. they also buy a lot of the same things.

     don't ignore all that too!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 12:37pm

     going to work, buying a car or house, eating at a restaurant are not things linked to a religious sacrament.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 12:54pm

209. Back in the day, your own marriage would have been considered a biblical sin by most white pastors such as yourself (and they could use scripture to justify their beliefs, just as you do yours). So who are you to judge others...ever?

     Or will you make the claim, "Times change." Or perhaps what those people did all those years ago wasn't really about Christ and the Bible, but what you're doing today IS about Christ and the Bible. Your selective biblical judgmentalism is astounding to behold.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 12:51pm

     There is not a single word in the NT that speaks to interracial marriage or even speaks to a similar subject.

     Why don't you give me a verse that you "THINK" addresses this. As I said, those who made that claim were speaking out of their own racist bigotry, not from any backing of Christian scripture.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 12:58pm

210. Excellent! We can ignore this one then?

     If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev.20:13

     Posted by warn_this_person at 11/05/2009 @ 12:52pm

     Since you seem to be new here, I have never used the OT scriptures to defend my position from a Biblical standpoint. I don't have to as I have plenty from Jesus and the apostles.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 12:59pm

211. --larry, gay people do a lot of other things straight people do as well. they also buy a lot of the same things. don't ignore all that too! Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 12:37pm going to work, buying a car or house, eating at a restaurant are not things linked to a religious sacrament. Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 12:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --the government does not grant religious sacraments.

     two atheists, a man and a woman, can get a marriage license in any state. the gov't is not granting them a religious sacrament when they grant them a marriage license.

     and when people are voting against gay marriage; they (including you) are intellectually aware that religious marriage isn't what they're keeping gay people from partaking in--intellectually you know it's not religious marriage that's being sought--if you can't admit this, then you are INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.

     so, what's left is emotion. you just dislike the idea of gay sex. it's that simple.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 1:09pm

212. larry--keep quoting scripture out of one side of your mouth while claiming out of the other than you respect the constitution!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 1:11pm

213. I think Larry's conflation of religious marriage and civil marriage is a common, purposeful blind spot that allows homophobes to pretend they aren't bigots.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 1:12pm

214. Christians are not under the Law of Moses. However G-d will still judge nonbelievers according to the law of Moses.

     "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it." Luke 16:16

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 12:47pm

     Wow. So if we're not Christians, we'll all be judged as Jews. Kinda makes Jews secondary to Christians, or at least that how your post reads, Larry, but I know you wouldn't want us to think that you are antisemitic or anything.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 1:16pm

215. "you just dislike the idea of gay sex. it's that simple."

     antisocialist finds sodomy to be perverse, despite the fact that he knows straight couples also engage in it.

     and since when, i must ask, does a couple's identity hinge on what type of sexual intercourse they engage in?

     and these are the deeper (no pun intended) questions which homophobes refuse to entertain, because doing so would reveal the shallowness, nay hollowness, of their belief system.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 1:16pm

216. Since you seem to be new here...

     I have never used the OT scriptures to defend my position from a Biblical standpoint. I don't have to as I have plenty from Jesus and the apostles.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 12:59pm

     Been here for years, but only very occasionally post. Superstitious self-righteous bloviating buffoons bring me out of my shell though.

     Please provide the new testament scripture that forbids homosexuality.

     Posted by warn_this_person at 11/05/2009 @ 1:24pm

217. There is not a single word in the NT that speaks to interracial marriage or even speaks to a similar subject.

     Why don't you give me a verse that you "THINK" addresses this. As I said, those who made that claim were speaking out of their own racist bigotry, not from any backing of Christian scripture.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 12:58pm

     I don't quote scripture because I do not believe it is the literal word of god.

     Why don't YOU answer the question put to you. Back in the day, your own marriage would have been considered a sin (regardless of what the NT says) because of the CULTURE of the United States at the time. The NT says nothing about the culture of any country either, so you're saying that it was wrong of those pastors to condemn interracial marriage. However, it wasn't until the CULTURE changed (i.e. the law), that actually allowed your own marriage to be recognized by law. There are still pastors (and judges) that to this day, condemn your marriage as sinful.

     So, the culture of this nation and your religion have nothing to do with each other; ergo, gay marriage should be legal because interracial marriage is legal, and for the exact same reason: religion has nothing to do with civil matters!

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 1:28pm

218. "Iowan's don't care what your preference is"

     some do, i'm sure. it's not like it's the Castro, or anything.

     iowa city's cool tho'! that co-op is amazing...or gabe's oasis.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/04/2009 @ 11:31am | ignore this person | warn this person

     True Darla, some in Iowa do care - thankfully though, our judiciary applied a strict interpretation of the law in deciding Iowa's case in this matter.

     Iowa has a long tradition of progressivism. Our courts have historically viewed the law in these general terms - you are born completely free and in order for the State to deprive anyone of a liberty, the law must be able to demonstrate how an individual's exercise of a specific liberty injures others.

     All arguments in the case based on a religious prohibition of same sex unions were disallowed and stricken. Once that was done - the opposition had nothing. No way to demonstrate a compelling reason of how others were damaged.

     This is in keeping with the federal consitution's and Iowa's ant-establishment clauses. The Iowa Constitution would have to be amended to reverse this ruling and all I can say to those who would attempt this is.... good luck!

     Posted by lumenpro at 11/05/2009 @ 1:28pm

219. larry's hypocrisy on the matter of sodomy reveals another interesting question: if straights also engage in something perverse (sodomy), then what is it about homosexual sodomy that is sinful? presumably, because homosexual sodomy is engaged in between two partners of the same sex and/or gender.

     and we're only talking about sex here, not love or relationships or romance. those are presumably ok with antisocialist, because there is no sodomy. right?

     so the entire anti-gay rights movement comes down to an irrational fear of a type of sex in which straights also engage. they don't fear gay relationships, per se, unless they contain sodomy.

     which is irrational because straight men can have very deep relationships, and not fuck.

     b-i-n-g-o. nailed it. .

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 1:29pm

220. lumenpro, yeah iowa is a great state. great school system, and i always loved iowa city. been to the 720 many times...

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 1:34pm

221. Wow. So if we're not Christians, we'll all be judged as Jews. Kinda makes Jews secondary to Christians, or at least that how your post reads, Larry, but I know you wouldn't want us to think that you are antisemitic or anything. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 1:16pm

     Do you think that Jesus and the apostles who were all Jews were anti-semitic?

     No, you won't be judged as Jews. If you haven't received Christ as both Lord and Savior, you are then judged by the Law of Moses-in other words, without Grace, you must be judged according to your own perfection (or lack thereof).

     If you did receive Christ, but then still lived according to the world's standards, you are deemed by Jesus to have put yourself back under the Law.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 1:35pm

222. URMYGYRO,

     You're getting too exciting over the word "minister." Fine, find a ship captain or a justice of the piece. I wasn't trying to bring religion into it.

     And yes, if people are too wound up to accept the actions of other people when such action does not effect them (and being offended doesn't count) then you ignore them. The hell with them.

     Gays are wasting their time trying to gain "acceptance." Many people, including those who "tolerate" it, will never accept it, and like it or not, as long as they do not interfere with the gay's L,L or POH, it IS THIER RIGHT NOT TO accept it if they choose.

     The legality will come one day.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/05/2009 @ 1:39pm

223. "No, you won't be judged as Jews. If you haven't received Christ as both Lord and Savior, you are then judged by the Law of Moses-in other words, without Grace, you must be judged according to your own perfection (or lack thereof). If you did receive Christ, but then still lived according to the world's standards, you are deemed by Jesus to have put yourself back under the Law."

     can't argue with that. literally. hence the problem with our resident spiritual adviser.

     how can you argue with someone who believes in biblical fantasy?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 1:39pm

224. Come out and see us again soon Darla, we are always glad to have good friends visit!

     Posted by lumenpro at 11/05/2009 @ 1:43pm

225. This is why social cons need to give this one up. Most of the leftists probably know that Christians are not motivated by hatred, but as always the left NEEDS to affix labels to people in order to dehumanize them. In America, that label is "hatred." A huge proportion of the entire world's population is not ready to accept gay marriage, but the Left does not want to demonize traditionalists in Uganda or Sri Lanka, only here.

     Case in point: the most virulently homophobic hate speech in America is in, wait for it... dancehall reggae. Look up the lyrics of TOK's "Chi Chi Man." Yes, they are advocating murder. Look up Buju Banton's "Boom Bye Bye."

     While most of these artists are Jamaican, many of them practically live here in New York, and have concerts in Queens almost every weekend. Banton has played Madison Square twice in the last year. In London, some artists, like Bounty Killer have been disinvited for exactly this reason, but in the US, not a word of criticism. Why? Because the focus of the Left's hatred, and the target for the "hater" label must always be middle american Christian conservatives.

     This is one case where accepting the risk that the Left will use gay marriage as a bridge to other arrangements designed to degrade the institution is better than 1) driving gays into the clutches of the far left 2) facilitating the easy attachment of the "hater" label.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 1:46pm

226. Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 1:09pm

     larry--keep quoting scripture out of one side of your mouth while claiming out of the other than you respect the constitution! Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 1:11pm

     I won't keep going in circles with you. It is you who and other libs who keep conflating the moral vs the constitutional issues. I simply want the religious term removed since so many wish to profane it.

     It is not emotion at all. As a pastor, my first obligation is to speak with the authority of the believer and as someone responsible to G-d for speaking His truth to the lies of a sinful world. As a citizen, I am defending the constitutional separation to respect religions and not have the govt trample on their beliefs or traditions.

     You on the other hand exhibit what is common among unbelievers and that is a reprobate mind. The mind that embraces the world over G-d. It's not about what I believe, it's what all Christians and Jews are commanded by G-d to be faithful to, above all else and that is the Lord and His word. What the ungodly seem to always demand, is that we who believe deny the Lord and our faith to accommodate your unbelief. That is just not going to happen.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 1:51pm

227. Another thing, it's not only the gangsta variety of dancehall that is replete with homophobia. Many of the Rasta artists continuously reference "Sodomites" and yes, judgement upon them.

     The day that leftists begin characterizing the denizens of the religion of Bob Marley as knuckle-dragging neo-nazis is the day I start believing in their sincerity.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 1:52pm

228. URMYGYRO, You're getting too exciting over the word "minister." Fine, find a ship captain or a justice of the piece. I wasn't trying to bring religion into it. And yes, if people are too wound up to accept the actions of other people when such action does not effect them (and being offended doesn't count) then you ignore them. The hell with them. Gays are wasting their time trying to gain "acceptance." Many people, including those who "tolerate" it, will never accept it, and like it or not, as long as they do not interfere with the gay's L,L or POH, it IS THIER RIGHT NOT TO accept it if they choose. The legality will come one day.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/05/2009 @ 1:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --the legality IS all I care about. You can't tell?

     I couldn't care less if Larry or any other homophobes won't ever accept it. They clearly won't.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 1:53pm

229. antisocialist-You have not provided a shred of evidence that shows that the word married has only applied to religious people because you know that atheists are called married.You have provided no historical evidence that shows that protestants all came to this country with the idea that marriage was a religious matter because you know that many of the ones who came here first did not believe that marriage was a religious matter.There was no Christian movement to prevent people like Ted Bundy from getting married.Having serial killers getting married does not profane the institution,but allowing gays does?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/05/2009 @ 2:00pm

230. This is why social cons need to give this one up. Most of the leftists probably know that Christians are not motivated by hatred, but as always the left NEEDS to affix labels to people in order to dehumanize them.

     --fag, faggot queer, deviant, etc...yeah, it's the left "dehumanizing" other people. por favor.

     In America, that label is "hatred."

     --there's a lot of hatred of gays. and fear. for sure.

     A huge proportion of the entire world's population is not ready to accept gay marriage, but the Left does not want to demonize traditionalists in Uganda or Sri Lanka, only here.

     --I don't live in Uganda or Sri Lanka. I live in the United States--the beacon of liberty, right?

     Case in point: the most virulently homophobic hate speech in America is in, wait for it... dancehall reggae. Look up the lyrics of TOK's "Chi Chi Man." Yes, they are advocating murder. Look up Buju Banton's "Boom Bye Bye."

     --there's a lot of faggot-hating in rap and hip-hop and country music too. there's also a lot of focus on money and material accumulation and mysogeny, rape, etc (the list could go on and on). don't forget those.

     This is one case where accepting the risk that the Left will use gay marriage as a bridge to other arrangements designed to degrade the institution is better than 1) driving gays into the clutches of the far left 2) facilitating the easy attachment of the "hater" label.

     --how is a civil marriage between gays "degrading" the institution? p.s.--the use of the word "degrading" isn't dehumanizing at all, noooooo. "Hey faggots--you can't get a civil marriage license. You know why? 'Cause my marriage to my wife will be degraded if you're married too!"

     you're an extremely sad person.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:01pm

231. Yes UM, I can tell.

     Thing is Larry may not give a rat's ass that you don't give a rat ass that he doesn't accept it :)

     BTW, I hate lima beans: I have no reason to, really, I just do and that's it.

     Guess that makes me a "limabeanaphobic." :)

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/05/2009 @ 2:03pm

232. Do you think that Jesus and the apostles who were all Jews were anti-semitic?

     No, you won't be judged as Jews. If you haven't received Christ as both Lord and Savior, you are then judged by the Law of Moses-in other words, without Grace, you must be judged according to your own perfection (or lack thereof).

     If you did receive Christ, but then still lived according to the world's standards, you are deemed by Jesus to have put yourself back under the Law.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 1:35pm

     Hit a nerve did I?

     I didn't claim that Jesus and the apostles were antisemitic, I only intimated that your antisemitism was showing...after all, you're not Jewish.

     However, your original statement places all of us who haven't (in your words) "received Christ" on the same level as the Jews who didn't accept Jesus: under the law of Moses.

     So, all of us unwashed heathen, including the Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc. are all going to be judged under the same law as the Jews, which, according to your dogma, makes us all second class citizens to Christians, including the Jews. While it isn't an outright antisemitic statement on your part, it certainly could be interpreted as one, by someone who didn't know of your staunch support of all things Jewish (or would that be Israeli...nah, couldn't be Israeli, since there are Arab Israelis and Palestinian Israelis, and African Israelis...), and we all know you only support the Jews until you can turn them into Christians on judgment day.

     Typical evangelical doomsdayer.

     I think you have hit the nail on the head of why I consider myself a man of faith but not religion. I am not a second class citizen to anyone.

     I am an American.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 2:07pm

233. It is you who and other libs who keep conflating the moral vs the constitutional issues. I simply want the religious term removed since so many wish to profane it.

     --yeah right, this is about a word. uh-huh.

     It is not emotion at all. As a pastor, my first obligation is to speak with the authority of the believer and as someone responsible to G-d for speaking His truth to the lies of a sinful world. As a citizen, I am defending the constitutional separation to respect religions and not have the govt trample on their beliefs or traditions.

     --like Mask said, if gay marriage wasn't an issue you would not be calling for the abolition of the government granting "marriage" licenses. Larry, it's this simple--as a pastor, you don't have to marry anyone you don't want to. your religious freedom is protected and respected. if gay marriage is allowed it does not affect your ability to say no to the people you don't want to marry. your life is not affected as a pastor. it's not affected as a citizen either. you won't be forced to marry a gay man.

     You on the other hand exhibit what is common among unbelievers and that is a reprobate mind.

     --your religion ain't mine.

     The mind that embraces the world over G-d.

     --ditto.

     It's not about what I believe, it's what all Christians and Jews are commanded by G-d to be faithful to, above all else and that is the Lord and His word.

     --ditto

     What the ungodly seem to always demand, is that we who believe deny the Lord and our faith to accommodate your unbelief.

     --you don't have to do a thing. nothing. nada.

     That is just not going to happen.

     --your homobophia runs deep.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 1:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:09pm

234. I have heard "Chi Chi Man" played on WBLS, uncensored.

     "From dem a par inna chi chi man car Blaze di fire mek we bun dem! (Bun dem!) From dem a drink inna chi chi man bar Blaze di fire mek we dun dem! (Dun dem!)"

     This is on a radio station and a show with a huge listenership.

     Can you imagine if Rush Limbaugh got the interns to make a jingle that promoted murdering gays and played it on the air?

     I have not heard of any organization calling for BLS to cancel Dahved Levy's show or even to ask him not to play such material. Nobody has asked Steve Harvey or Wendy Williams, whose syndicated shows are flagshipped at BLS to weigh in on whether these songs should be aired. Silence.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:09pm

235. Thing is Larry may not give a rat's ass that you don't give a rat ass that he doesn't accept it :)

     --and I don't give a rat's ass that he doesn't accept it...ad infinitum. but I do care that people's rights are being controlled by homophobics.

     BTW, I hate lima beans: I have no reason to, really, I just do and that's it. Guess that makes me a "limabeanaphobic." :)

     --ah yes...gay people's right to marry is equivalent to a vegetable. fair analogy.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/05/2009 @ 2:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:12pm

236. I have heard "Chi Chi Man" played on WBLS, uncensored. "From dem a par inna chi chi man car Blaze di fire mek we bun dem! (Bun dem!) From dem a drink inna chi chi man bar Blaze di fire mek we dun dem! (Dun dem!)" This is on a radio station and a show with a huge listenership. Can you imagine if Rush Limbaugh got the interns to make a jingle that promoted murdering gays and played it on the air? I have not heard of any organization calling for BLS to cancel Dahved Levy's show or even to ask him not to play such material. Nobody has asked Steve Harvey or Wendy Williams, whose syndicated shows are flagshipped at BLS to weigh in on whether these songs should be aired. Silence. Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --there's lots of violence on t.v. and in movies and in songs played over the radio.

     your plan to divert the attention away from gay marriage ain't gonna work.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:15pm

237. Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:01pm

     I didn't say that marriage between gays was degrading because I don't believe that. I think you're somehow missing that I'm on your side at least as far as supporting legalized gay marriage.

     I said that radicals will attempt to use gay marriage as a bridge to OTHER arrangements in order to degrade the institution. Of course they will, they despise traditional people and want to destroy everything that they hold sacred.

     I support gay marriage despite that.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:18pm

238. Darin - your definition of marriage confuses me. If marriage is only...

     Posted by fmtost at 11/05/2009 @ 10:41am

     Marriage is PRIMARILY...

     When one uses words like, "only", "always", "never", etc. it's too hard to be accurate. I try to use, "primarily".

     My view is that marriage is the word people ascribed to the phenomenon of life-long pair bonding 6000 years ago. (Ok, I don't know if they had English 6000 years ago, but you get the point.)

     Life-long pair bonding, be it in penguins, ducks, or humans is a result of chemical hard wiring in the brains that antropologists tell us evolved as a survival mechanism beneficial for offspring.

     In the last 6000 years, "marriage" has also been applied to the relationships of shieks and kings where the numerous "wives" functioned more as an ostentatious display of status and wealth, rather than specieces survival.

     With the Mormans, polygamy was a way of more quickly propogating a culture.

     I think it would be best if our culture gave explicit recognition for the primary reason for the development of marraige: that is, the benefit a more stable relationship between boilogical parents has on offspring. (For gays, these benefits extend to the children of non-biological parents as well.)

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 2:23pm

239. I didn't say that marriage between gays was degrading because I don't believe that. I think you're somehow missing that I'm on your side at least as far as supporting legalized gay marriage.

     --what do you mean "at least as"?...when aren't you on "my side" on this issue?

     I said that radicals will attempt to use gay marriage as a bridge to OTHER arrangements in order to degrade the institution.

     --if gay marriage doesn't degrade marriage (which you say you it doesn't) then what in your opinion would?

     Of course they will, they despise traditional people and want to destroy everything that they hold sacred.

     --you speak as if marriage is a small pond and gays are trying to dump pollutants into it.

     I support gay marriage despite that.

     --what's damaging to civil marriage by gays being granted marriage licenses? how does a gay marriage affect marriage between men and women?

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:23pm

240. I'm not diverting. The double standards I pointed out speak for themselves.

     This is not about liberty for the Left. The left simply wants to use gays as a stick with which to beat their favorite targets.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:24pm

241. I think it would be best if our culture gave explicit recognition for the primary reason for the development of marraige: that is, the benefit a more stable relationship between boilogical parents has on offspring. (For gays, these benefits extend to the children of non-biological parents as well.)

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 2:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --what's the benefit of an "explicit recognition" that marriage is for raising children?

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:26pm

242. Please provide the new testament scripture that forbids homosexuality.

     Posted by warn_this_person at 11/05/2009 @ 1:24pm

     Sexual relations are so critical to understanding the relationship between man and G-d that often G-d would even speak of rebellion and pagan worship as adultery. Sex is a gift from G-d between only a man and a woman according to Jesus; and only in marriage. He has condemned all other sexual practice.

     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. Nothing that is unholy can come into the presence of G-d. G-d also declares in showing John the New Jerusalem that all the fornicators (pornea) will be in the Lake of Fire (Rev. 14:8)

     "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor a person who commits extortion will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

     Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount- "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:20

     "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness (aselgeia), envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man." (Mark 7:21-23)

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:27pm

243. until a married couple engaged in vaginal intercourse the marriage wasn't "consumated" and could be annulled as having never taken place until it was consumated?"

     where/when does it say this?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 10:54am

     It says in it common law, baby. Common law forms the basis of the US legal foundations.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 2:29pm

244. I'm not diverting. The double standards I pointed out speak for themselves. This is not about liberty for the Left. The left simply wants to use gays as a stick with which to beat their favorite targets. Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --wrong. I'd love nothing more than for this issue to be done. for gay people to be able to get marriage licenses in all 50 states. I don't want this dragged out.

     --there's a shit load of double standards pointed out about conservatives and christians and their favorite targets: atheists and other non-christians, gays, liberals, etc. keep ignoring those though...

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:30pm

245. Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:23pm

     "what's damaging to civil marriage by gays being granted marriage licenses?"

     Nothing.

     I meant that I am "on your side" in that I support legal gay marriage, but not demonizing those who are against it.

     The Left always promotes sweeping social change, including positive, needed social change, as a means of consolidating its power and repressing its enemies.

     Nobody can argue that Chiang Kai-Shek's China wasn't in need of social change (footbinding anyone?). It wasn't in need of bloodthirsty statists either, and neither are we.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:31pm

246. hey everyone, darin, the resident expert on marriage law, claimed that homosexuals already have the right to marry (but they just can't marry the person they love). they'd have to marry a friend of the opposite sex, and pretend they're married.....

     free-dom!!

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 10:56am

     Darla, have you ever heard of arranged marraiges? There the couple learns to love each other after they are married. I don't pretend they are common, but they are certainly not illegal in the US.

     The point is that a marriage doesn't have to be based on love to be legitimate.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 2:32pm

247. Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:31pm

     That's not to say that Chiang wasn't a bloodthirsty statist himself.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:35pm

248. until a married couple engaged in vaginal intercourse the marriage wasn't "consumated" and could be annulled as having never taken place until it was consumated?" where/when does it say this? Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 10:54am

     It says in it common law, baby. Common law forms the basis of the US legal foundations. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 2:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --common law is always overruled or mooted by statute, if there's a statute about a specific topic. every state has statutory marriage law--and almost every state has banned common-law marriage. with no-fault divorce, no one would ever have to rely on antiquated consumation law to get out of their marriage. as you said before, when it comes to visas, the INS wants to see if the marriage is a sham, and a major part of their questioning will be about romance/love/sex, etc.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:37pm

249. Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --the substantively of the bible is hilarious...I also enjoy the procedural law on how to fix errors. it's a fun read.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:40pm

250. "what's damaging to civil marriage by gays being granted marriage licenses?"

     Nothing. I meant that I am "on your side" in that I support legal gay marriage, but not demonizing those who are against it.

     --calling larry and other people like him homophobes is are not acts of demonizing.

     The Left always promotes sweeping social change, including positive, needed social change, as a means of consolidating its power and repressing its enemies.

     --void for vagueness.

     Nobody can argue that Chiang Kai-Shek's China wasn't in need of social change (footbinding anyone?). It wasn't in need of bloodthirsty statists either, and neither are we.

     --your hyperbole disserves you.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:43pm

251. Darla, have you ever heard of arranged marraiges? There the couple learns to love each other after they are married. I don't pretend they are common, but they are certainly not illegal in the US. The point is that a marriage doesn't have to be based on love to be legitimate. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 2:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --marriage also doesn't have to be between a man and a woman to be legitimate.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:44pm

252. The comments of the ungodly here lead to only one conclusion-scripture is right.

     2 Peter 3:2-4

     I want you to remember what the holy prophets said long ago and what our Lord and Savior commanded through your apostles.

     Most importantly, I want to remind you that in the last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires. They will say, "What happened to the promise that Jesus is coming again? From before the times of our ancestors, everything has remained the same since the world was first created."

     2 Timothy 3:1-4

     But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:48pm

253. Most importantly, I want to remind you that in the last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires.

     -----is now the "last days"? how long is the period of "last days"? (a year of "scoffing"...a decade...a century?) if the "last days" aren't now, when will they be? haven't people in every generation believed they were living in the "last days" and that "scoffers" around them were evidence that now is the "last days"?

     But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God

     --a lot of christians fall within any number of those traits/acts. do you deny larry that you're none of those or have done none of those?

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:54pm

254. here's a helpful hint to help you stop looking like a complete jackass: gay marriage would only affect gay people who CHOOSE to get maried. if you're not gay, it won't affect you.

     p.s.--slavery reinstuted by a vote? ever heard of the civil war?

     you're a top notch moron!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 11:09am

     Urmy, chill out. I never said slavery was a reasonable possibility. I showed how the mathematics make it theoretically possible where 49% could change the US Constitution.

     Now as to the point about affecting me. In the '60s and '70s some liberal academic theorists said farthers aren't really all that important and they can be easily replace with a welfare check from the government.

     At a time when Sen Monynahan was alarmed that the illegitimacy rate of US black had hit 25% (Wow!) other dismissed his concerns as too racially provacative to discuss.

     Today the illegitamcy rate for US blacks is 70%! Does that affect me? Does rampant illegitimacy impact the cost of welfare? Crime? Does that impact other social pathologies?

     Again, I support changing marriage laws throught the legislative process to include same-sex marriage, but for the right reason.

     If marriage is about making me feel good, and not focused on children, we will have a marginal increase in poorly raised children. That's bad. And it will impact more than just the people getting married.

     Changes in social policy always have unintended consequences. They aren't always bad, but the aren't always good either. You can't propose a change to a 6000-year old institution and just claim it won't have any impact beyond the people getting married.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 2:58pm

255. Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:43pm

     It's not just Larry and not just this issue. Look across these blogs and you will consistently see a vision of middle America as composed of evil, racist, theocratic, wanting to indiscriminately kill Muslims, homophobic, etc. If this characterization were true, these people obviously should be dead to rights because they are criminals. Well, that's exactly what happens when the far Left is in charge.

     I know that the American Left are not Stalinists or Maoists, for the most part, but the sheer hatred for the majority of people is a common thread.

     I think one aspect of the way cons are depicted is correct: the fear. But it is not the idiot fear of the unknown, it's the fear of the known history of what radical statists and totalitarians have done in the last century, and the hateful propaganda that precedes the horror. The Jews were portrayed as backwards and parochial too. Hell, they probably were.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:59pm

256. Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 1:35pm

     So, isn't Larry saying there...

     "If you're a Jew...God will let you into Heaven, despite not accepting Christ....but ONLY if you have followed Mosaic Law...

     like killing homosexuals for being an abomination?"

     So how does Larry's "Big Guy in Jerusalem", Netanyahu, get into Heaven...if Israel doesn't punish gays with the death penalty...in fact, allows them to serve openly in the IDF?!??!?!??

     Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 3:06pm

257. BTW, as with Rio....

     get Larry to explain Titus 3:2...

     and why what HE says on the blog doesn't violate it.

     Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 3:07pm

258. Sexual relations are so critical to understanding the relationship between man and G-d that often G-d would even speak of rebellion and pagan worship as adultery. Sex is a gift from G-d between only a man and a woman according to Jesus; and only in marriage. He has condemned all other sexual practice.

     "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor a person who commits extortion will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:27pm

     Really? This is the best you can do? Adulterers should be forbidden to re-marry? Drunkards and "revilers" should be excluded also?? How about the covetous? I am writing my congressman today demanding the repeal of the right to marry for the covetous!

     Posted by warn_this_person at 11/05/2009 @ 3:09pm

259. Urmy, chill out.

     --um, no! but i'll be sure to arrogantly remind you to do so when you get passionate about a topic on a future thread.

     I never said slavery was a reasonable possibility. I showed how the mathematics make it theoretically possible where 49% could change the US Constitution.

     --yeah, real useful comparison. red herring sliding down the slippery slope.......

     Today the illegitamcy rate for US blacks is 70%! Does that affect me? Does rampant illegitimacy impact the cost of welfare? Crime? Does that impact other social pathologies?

     --you give an example of unmarried people as bad for society--so people who actually want to marry, and be together, and possibly raise adopted kids...you don't want that? haha!

     Again, I support changing marriage laws throught the legislative process to include same-sex marriage, but for the right reason.

     --maine did so. the voters of maine told the legislature (by a 53-47 vote; so let's not pretend it was a landslide--that they disagreed).

     If marriage is about making me feel good, and not focused on children, we will have a marginal increase in poorly raised children. That's bad. And it will impact more than just the people getting married. Changes in social policy always have unintended consequences. They aren't always bad, but the aren't always good either. You can't propose a change to a 6000-year old institution and just claim it won't have any impact beyond the people getting married.

     --divorce. infidelity. etc, etc. the states that have allowed gay marriage (massachusetts since 2004--look, still viable places! it hasn't sunk into the ocean!)

     your attempts to cover your homophobia aren't working on me... Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 2:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 3:10pm

260. I can't get into this right now because I have some other stuff I have to deal with. What I want to signpost right now, though, is that Larry, in this thread, has made some gigantic concessions that completely undermine his positions regarding:

     1) Hell 2) Works, and 3) Homosexuality

     He espouses a works-based position that has no role for grace (he SPECIFICALLY says that anyone who fornicates doesn't get into heaven), AND his concession that "death" in Romans means actual death (i.e. NOT hell) completely destroys his crucial claim that hell is a punishment for sin.

     I think his take on homosexuality is one of the best defenses of the conservative position I've seen, but I just don't think it ultimately holds water for reasons I'll get into later. I just don't want anyone to think I waited to long or dredged back too far. For Larry, who will want some backing for my admittedly bold claims...it will come later this evening, sometime after 8 PM eastern time.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/05/2009 @ 3:12pm

261. It's not just Larry and not just this issue. Look across these blogs and you will consistently see a vision of middle America as composed of evil, racist, theocratic, wanting to indiscriminately kill Muslims, homophobic, etc. If this characterization were true, these people obviously should be dead to rights because they are criminals. Well, that's exactly what happens when the far Left is in charge.

     --the old painting with a wide brush to prove that others paint with wide brush routine! yeah, and conservatives, especially on websites hosted by political conservatives, don't paint the coasts as faggy elitist, God-hating, christian-hating, flag burning, soft-on-crime (and terrorists) grandma killing death panelists with no values...oh...and marxists....and socialists! blah, blah, blah. again, it cuts both ways. something you choose to ignore.

     I know that the American Left are not Stalinists or Maoists, for the most part, but the sheer hatred for the majority of people is a common thread.

     --the sheer hatred for gays is a common thread between christians and conservatives.

     I think one aspect of the way cons are depicted is correct: the fear.

     duh.

     But it is not the idiot fear of the unknown, it's the fear of the known history of what radical statists and totalitarians have done in the last century, and the hateful propaganda that precedes the horror.

     --ah, yes. gay marriage is "totalitarian"...in that it affects the church and civil heterosexual marriage...NOT AT ALL!...i live right near the border of massachusetts. i have plenty of guy friends who live in massachusetts. since '04 (when gay marriage was legalized--none of them has reported being forced to suck a dick or take it up the ass)...

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 3:18pm

262. BTW, as with Rio.... get Larry to explain Titus 3:2... and why what HE says on the blog doesn't violate it. Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person |

     --is Titus 3:2 a New Testament book (or chapter, or whatever they're called)?

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 3:20pm

263. 1.--a lot of christians fall within any number of those traits/acts. do you deny larry that you're none of those or have done none of those?

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:54pm

     This is pretty much true of all Christians.

     <And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. I Corinthians 6:11

     Once you were dead because of your disobedience and your many sins. You used to live in sin, just like the rest of the world, obeying the devil--the commander of the powers in the unseen world. He is the spirit at work in the hearts of those who refuse to obey God. All of us used to live that way, following the passionate desires and inclinations of our sinful nature. By our very nature we were subject to God's anger, just like everyone else.

     God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. 9 Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. Ephesians 2:1-3,8&9

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 3:26pm

264. "In London, some artists, like Bounty Killer have been disinvited for exactly this reason, but in the US, not a word of criticism. Why? Because the focus of the Left's hatred, and the target for the "hater" label must always be middle american Christian conservatives."

     not a word of criticism, eh? you have obviously haven't been paying ANY attention.

     these artists do not visit san francisco, for the same reasons as london.

     "I think his take on homosexuality is one of the best defenses of the conservative position I've seen"

     which, of course, isn't saying much. he claims that he doesn't mind what i do, as long as i keep it "in the bedroom" (as if i'd have presumably vaginal or anal intercourse with my lover(s) in public, in front of larry). the larger point is that homosexuals do have to endure UBIQUITOUS public heterosexuality ALL THE TIME. pretty much anywhere on earth i have to watch straight people hold hands, kiss, make out, fuck, whatever, on the subway, in movies, in television shows, in the newspaper, on the internet.

     but we queers are not asking STRAIGHT people stop doing this.

     but when straights tell gays that they can't do this or that is, frankly, a little more than insulting.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 3:31pm

265. in fact, gangpapist, when buju banton came to play in san jose or oakland, the local papers GRILLED him on his position on gays. they literally humiliated him.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2009 @ 3:33pm

266. Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 3:18pm

     I didn't say gay marriage is totalitarian. That would be ridiculous.

     Sweeping social changes are USED by totalitarians. That is a historic fact.

     You keep trying to bait me into some kind of homophobic depiction of gay marriage. I'm tired of repeating that I am FOR gay marriage. If New york ends up with a referendum on gay marriage I will vote for the pro- gay marriage side and will attempt to persuade others to do so.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 3:36pm

267. Posted by Thrawn at 11/05/2009 @ 3:12pm

     As usual you have completely distorted both the scripture and my comments to something neither the scriptures nor I have said.

     I made no concessions. It is merely your twisted view of Christianity that prohibits you from actually comprehending plain language.

     you have no concept of the difference between hell and death.

     You have no comprehension of how grace is coupled with then living as the physical body of Christ with His Holiness and doing all of His work.

     Thrawn, did Christ need to be saved? Was Jesus born in sin?

     Is it not true that scripture says that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us?

     Does not Paul make it clear in Epesians 2:10 that we are saved to do good works, not by our works?

     Finally, back to another greek grammar lesson for you; I've repeatedly tried to get you to understand what the greek present tense means. It means continous. If you continue in a behavior of sin, not a moments failing and then repenting (1 John 1:9), but a lifestyle of sin. You are condemned because you were never really saved and as Hebrews says, you make the blood of the cross a common thing.

     I've been sending your postings to another pastor theologian friend in the Bahamas and he asked me last week "why I even bother with someone who is so lost and deceived as you are". I told him I held out some hope. But I'm beginning to think that basic Christian doctrine is beyond your comprehension.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 3:36pm

268. BTW, as with Rio.... get Larry to explain Titus 3:2... and why what HE says on the blog doesn't violate it. Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person |

     --is Titus 3:2 a New Testament book (or chapter, or whatever they're called)?

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 3:20pm

     I've corrected your misuse of this passage previously.

     While indeed we are to be as loving and kind as possible to everyone, including nonbelievers, the passage doesn't say not to speak evil. Actually it says not to slander anyone. This is further borne out not only by the common use of the greek word at the time, but it's usage elsewhere in the NT. The greek word used here is not that which is normally used in the NT (poneros which is evil in action and kakos which is evil in character); here the word blasphemo is used; hence to speak slander or blasphemy against someone.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 3:45pm

269. antisocialist-.We can ask why we bother with someone as lost and deceived as you are.Obviously,your pastor theologian friend is ignorant about the meaning of the Gospels if he would ask why you bother.Your response was as non Christian as his comment.You two are egomaniacs who put people down rather than engage in any form of discussion.You have no problems having the same marriage license that murderers,pedophiles,etc have,but draw the line at having the same one as gays and then say you are moral and better than everyone else..Jesus used the word reward when He talked about what comes next.He said that so and so had his his reward because he bragged about giving to the poor.Of course,Paul never met Jesus and did not know that Jesus already covered what would happen if you brag.No reason to say lest you boast.Jesus already covered that.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/05/2009 @ 4:00pm

270. antisocialist-You cannot correct anyone when it comes to Bible verses.You can only express an opinion about an interpretation.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/05/2009 @ 4:02pm

271. 1.--a lot of christians fall within any number of those traits/acts. do you deny larry that you're none of those or have done none of those? Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:54pm This is pretty much true of all Christians.

     --that's not a direct answer.

     --more importantly, I'd appreciate you answering the questions from the first part of my 2:54 post. I'll repost them here:

     1. is now the "last days"?

     2. how long is the period of "last days"? (a year of "scoffing"...a decade...a century?)

     3. if the "last days" aren't now, when will they be?

     4. haven't people in every generation believed they were living in the "last days" and that "scoffers" around them were evidence that now is the "last days"?

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 4:02pm

272. Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 3:18pm

     I didn't say gay marriage is totalitarian. That would be ridiculous.

     --yet you talk vaguely about a slipperly slope...

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 3:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 4:07pm

273. --fag, faggot queer, deviant, etc...yeah, it's the left "dehumanizing" other people. por favor.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:01pm

     How many times have you seen anti, BigPasture, Chip, Thrawn, Carrier, Happy, or myself use those labels?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 4:08pm

274. --fag, faggot queer, deviant, etc...yeah, it's the left "dehumanizing" other people. por favor. Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:01pm How many times have you seen anti, BigPasture, Chip, Thrawn, Carrier, Happy, or myself use those labels? Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 4:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --i'd have to scroll up (on what's become a long thread) but deviant's been used on this thread. I've also seen larry used the word "pervert" and "perverted" to describe gay people. and you few handles are not the only conservative and/or christian people in the country...fag, faggot, queer, etc...these are common dehumanizing words for gay people; often employed by many conservatives/christians.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 4:12pm

275. "freak of nature" was also used on this thread.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 4:13pm

276. I'm not diverting. The double standards I pointed out speak for themselves.

     This is not about liberty for the Left. The left simply wants to use gays as a stick with which to beat their favorite targets.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:24pm

     Disagree with your argument, GP and here's why: racist, homophobic, jew-hating, christian-bashing, nazi-loving music is protected by the Constitution under free speech. So as bad and hateful as the lyrics are, there's nothing anyone can really do about them except not support that brand of music.

     Yes, I think it would be good for gays to reach out to some of those artists and have some conversations about whether their lyrics really reflect their spirituality, but obviously, the artists either don't care, or they don't care (Yes, I was purposefully repetitive).

     Homophobia in the law is illegal, by definition, in the Constitution, as is racism and all the rest. It's a hard thing to live up to but "All People Are Created Equal" means exactly that. And if this country is to live up to that ideal (which people like Larry, BP, Happy, Citizen_Carrier, etc. don't REALLY want it to), then that means that FEDERAL law (which supersedes the states') must recognize that all people are to be treated equally under the law. Until that happens, this nation is still a work in progress.

     It's taken this country 230 some-odd years to get around to gays, but now that it's happened, gays won't be told to go back into the closet. And there's nothing the Christian right can do about that, either.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 4:36pm

277. Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 3:10pm

     Urmy, this is why I invited you to chill out. Your passions are so inflamed you are incapable of rational thought. Here's an example:

     [Urmy states:] --you give an example of unmarried people as bad for society--so people who actually want to marry, and be together, and possibly raise adopted kids...you don't want that? haha!

     [Urmy quotes DTBFT] Again, I support changing marriage laws throught the legislative process to include same-sex marriage, but for the right reason.

     So immediately after you accuse me of not wanting to change the laws you post my quote where I advocate changing the laws.

     Any rational person would objectively state that you need a chill pill in order to get you reason functioning again.

     And because I want to enact same-sex marraige through legislative change rather than court imposition you call me a homophobe.

     [Urmy's words] your attempts to cover your homophobia aren't working on me...

     Calm down and listen to yourself.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 4:50pm

278. Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 4:02pm

     1.yes it was a direct answer, many Christians were guilty at some point of those behaviors. Some have even committed them since becoming a Christian. If they sincerely repented and determined by the power of the Holy Spirit not to re-engage in that behavior, they are forgiven.

     Yes, that applies to my life as well. I was guilty of many sins earlier in my life. But through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, I rededicated my life to G-d and have lived for Him and not my own selfish nature.

     2.The last days officially began the day Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father. As we get closer to the finality which will be described as the fullness of the time of the Gentiles, the Church is removed and the 7 years of the Tribulation begins. After that 7 years, comes the 1000 year reign of Christ. Then one last battle in which Satan is given one last opportunity to war with Christ, a war in which he is defeated and cast into hell. Then the earth will be dissolved in one big hydrogen implosion and a new earth will be created.

     Yes, scoffers have always been around and will be even when the Church is removed. Of that day and hour, no one knows. It could be today, it could be 10,000 year from now. However, I don't think the world can take too much more of the way it is going without G-d intervening to bring things to conclusion.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 4:54pm

279. Homophobia in the law is illegal, by definition, in the Constitution, as is racism and all the rest. It's a hard thing to live up to but "All People Are Created Equal" means exactly that. And if this country is to live up to that ideal (which people like Larry, BP, Happy, Citizen_Carrier, etc. don't REALLY want it to), then that means that FEDERAL law (which supersedes the states') must recognize that all people are to be treated equally under the law. Until that happens, this nation is still a work in progress.

     It's taken this country 230 some-odd years to get around to gays, but now that it's happened, gays won't be told to go back into the closet. And there's nothing the Christian right can do about that, either.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 4:36pm

     "homophobia" is not against the law since it is merely a slur developed by the left against anyone who disagrees with that behavior.

     Please cite the law that says that it is illegal to disagree with someone's behavior?

     I'm curious if you also believe that my calling someone an adulterer and moral reprobate is illegal if they are indeed an adulterer?

     Is it also illegal for me to state my biblical beliefs on a public street or in a public forum?

     Is it illegal for me to preach from the Bible?

     Is it illegal to be a Christian who believes the Bible to be the Word of G-d?

     just trying to figure out where you stand since you made up the claim that so-called "homophobia" is illegal.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 5:04pm

280. Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 4:12pm

     Point 1) I specifically did not include Barry25 because a) I have him on ignore b) I would doubt that he uses them regularly. I mention him because I saw other responding to him. Yes, there are homophones, but they are not the people here engaging in rational debate.

     Point 2) Larry can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he labled any PERSON a deviant. I think he is careful to describe sodomy (anal, oral, masturbation, etc) as deviant.

     Love the sinner, hate the sin. I belive Larry has been careful to describe the sin as deviant, not the sinner. I myself, have engaged in (heterosexual)oral sex even though I think it is accurately described deviant.

     I have engaged in a deviant sex act. That does not make me a deviant.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 5:06pm

281. I've been sending your postings to another pastor theologian friend in the Bahamas and he asked me last week "why I even bother with someone who is so lost and deceived as you are". I told him I held out some hope. But I'm beginning to think that basic Christian doctrine is beyond your comprehension.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 3:36pm

     How nice it is to hear that you have pastor friends who actually believe that someone is past redemption. How incredibly Christian of him.

     I actually admire you Larry for not taking his advice. Not that it will work on anyone here, but you keep trying.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 5:06pm

282. Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 3:36pm

     How nice it is to hear that you have pastor friends who actually believe that someone is past redemption. How incredibly Christian of him.

     I actually admire you Larry for not taking his advice. Not that it will work on anyone here, but you keep trying.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 5:06pm

     Anyone who is outside of Christ is "lost" by the standards of Jesus.

     It was actually Jesus who stated that we are to stop sharing with anyone who is hostile to the gospel

     Matthew 10:12-15

     "And when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!"

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 5:14pm

283. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 4:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --say "chill" one more time...

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 5:36pm

284. And because I want to enact same-sex marraige through legislative change rather than court imposition you call me a homophobe.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 4:50pm

     So, Darin, you're just as upset about what happened in Maine as I am right? I mean, that WAS gay marriage enacted by legislation and signed into law by the governor of Maine. Rights were granted after an exhaustive process and the voters took rights away overnight.

     I go back to the concept (not mine) of: why do we have elections over the granting of rights? Aren't they nothing more than popularity contests in which the majority determines whether a minority is equal to them? That is unConstitutional on its face!

     You either have rights, or not. If rights are granted by a legislature (the people's duly elected representatives in our Republic), then do the people really have a right, via a popularity contest, to take away those rights granted by a Legislature (or the judiciary for that matter)?

     If so, we get back to the question: why not do away with our Representatives and just put everything to a popular vote? This was a question to Larry earlier which he never responded to because his response would again show his hypocrisy on the Constitution.

     If a duly elected legislature's job is to decide what is legal or illegal and create laws to that effect, and the judiciary's job is to determine the constitutionality and scope of those laws, and the executive's job is to execute those laws, then when it comes to rights granted to ALL its citizens, the "people" shouldn't really have a say, should they? The People's say is through electing their representatives and if they don't like the way they vote, then vote them out.

     Anything else is just mob rule.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 5:37pm

285. Yes, that applies to my life as well. I was guilty of many sins earlier in my life. But through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, I rededicated my life to G-d and have lived for Him and not my own selfish nature.

     --are you implying you haven't sinned since then? or, if you're not implying that, if you have sinned, that your sins since then aren't so egregious to keep you from heaven?

     2.The last days officially began the day Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father. As we get closer to the finality which will be described as the fullness of the time of the Gentiles, the Church is removed and the 7 years of the Tribulation begins. After that 7 years, comes the 1000 year reign of Christ. Then one last battle in which Satan is given one last opportunity to war with Christ, a war in which he is defeated and cast into hell. Then the earth will be dissolved in one big hydrogen implosion and a new earth will be created.

     --hahahahhahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahhahahahah ahahahhahahahahahaha hahahhahahahahhaahhahahahahaha! i could keep going...

     Yes, scoffers have always been around and will be even when the Church is removed. Of that day and hour, no one knows. It could be today, it could be 10,000 year from now. However, I don't think the world can take too much more of the way it is going without G-d intervening to bring things to conclusion.

     ---ditto above

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 5:40pm

286. Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 5:04pm

     You're absolutely right. I should have said "discrimination against homosexuals" is, by definition, against the law, if you believe that the law actually includes the phrase: "all men are created equal."

     Which you have shown time and time again you don't agree with that phrase, and evidently, neither does your Jesus.

     BTW, my Jesus likes that phrase.

     As for your other questions: "I'm curious if you also believe that my calling someone an adulterer and moral reprobate is illegal if they are indeed an adulterer?

     Is it also illegal for me to state my biblical beliefs on a public street or in a public forum?

     Is it illegal for me to preach from the Bible?

     Is it illegal to be a Christian who believes the Bible to be the Word of G-d?"

     I would fight for your right to all of those things. I would die to defend your right to all of those things.

     Too bad you won't fight for my right to be free as I see fit, not as YOU see fit.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 5:48pm

287. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 3:36pm </i>

     I didn't say you intended to make concessions, I said you did so (I truly think it was by accident).

     Let's go to the first, and maybe biggest one. Romans specifically says, and you make this clear yet again, that the wages of sin is death. As you've clarified, death and hell are not the same thing. Paul here is therefore not referring to hell. If I'm not mistaken, he is referring back to the Genesis story, where Adam and Eve were told that as a result of their disobedience, they would die.

     Here's why that's crucial: if death is the full punishment for sin, it follows logically and inescapably that hell is not. If, as both Genesis and Paul say, the punishment for sin is death, anything beyond death is not because justice (even under YOUR FRAMEWORK) does NOT admit hell as punishment for sin. When the Atonement took place, your theology says Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. Did he go to hell to do that? No, he died.

     I know I'm being a bit redundant, but this impact is crucial: it means that hell is not a punishment for sin but rather a monument to human free choice (i.e. the free capacity to reject God).

     Now let's talk about the "present-tense" thing. You're saying that Paul's statement about fornicators and so on refers to those who do those acts AND to whom the righteousness of Christ has not been imputed. This fits with a lot of mainstream conservative theology (ex: R.C. Sproul) which holds that once saved, a person can never lose their salvation.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/05/2009 @ 6:25pm

288. Anything else is just mob rule.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 5:37pm

     Who determines what should be constitutional? The legislature or the people. My reading is that the legislature legislates but all consitutional change has it's final approval in the people.

     We approved the constitutional through a vote of the people. Amendments begin in the Congress, signed by the president, but they don't become part of the constitution until approved by the people.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 6:30pm

289. Posted by Thrawn at 11/05/2009 @ 6:25pm

     I've saved this post so I can respond later. you are still conflating what death and hell signify though just to give you a heads up on my response.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 6:32pm

290. Speaking of which, a couple of questions:

     2 Corinthians 5:19 says that in Christ, God was reconciling the world (note, the world) to himself, not counting their trespasses against them. First, does "the world" mean something other than, well, the world? Second, the Bible clearly teaches that God wills all to be saved, does it not? And if Revelation and 2 Corinthians both say that in whatever cosmic battle exists God will be victorious, is your position that God will only partially succeed?

     Moreover, if you think that God will be only partially successful because of the stubbornness of human free will, we must at least believe that God will do everything in his power, yes? Meaning that he will not send anyone to hell unless there is no possible alternative? To say that God is bound by his character to only save Christians seems like an odd proposition to say the least...especially since the Bible says that's false. Remember the story of Jesus descending into sheol (NOT hell, by the way; if I recall correctly, that's NOT the word that's used) to preach to everyone before him?

     Finally, this should be a silly question since we have a New Testament and since God is always described as "living"...do you believe that God still speaks fresh words? As, say, he did at least once to Peter?

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/05/2009 @ 6:33pm

291. Who determines what should be constitutional? The legislature or the people. My reading is that the legislature legislates but all consitutional change has it's final approval in the people.

     We approved the constitutional through a vote of the people. Amendments begin in the Congress, signed by the president, but they don't become part of the constitution until approved by the people.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 6:30pm

     Factually, you are incorrect. Amendments to the Constitution are approved by the state legislatures after being approved by Congress. The state legislatures, as duly elected by the People, ARE the will of the people, at least as far as the Federal government is concerned.

     There is no requirement that Constitutional Amendments go before a direct vote of the people. I guess a state may (or may not) have it in their own state constitutions that such an amendment must go before the people of a state, but again, if that is so (which I doubt), then why do we have a Representative Republic? The people vote for their legislatures, and in some cases for their judges.

     You are advocating for the elimination of the Republic if you are advocating for a popular vote on issues as importance as the granting of certain inalienable rights (as they all are in the Constitution).

     I really don't think you want to eliminate the Republic, do you, Larry?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 6:53pm

292. antisocialist-Actually,Jesus was talking to His apostles when he made the statement about shaking off the dust of their shoes if they were not received.The apostles could perform miracles at will,but you cannot do that.There is a huge difference between those who heard Jesus talk and who could perform miracles at will and you.The apostles that Jesus was talking to heard all of His words in their original language and had all of the information.You only have a small part of the information.That teaching does not apply to you.It only applied to the apostles of Jesus..

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/05/2009 @ 6:55pm

293. antisocialist-In what way would discussing differences in religious views with Thrawn or others mean that people have not received you?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/05/2009 @ 7:10pm

294. I think we should outlaw divorce. It is the biggest threat to marriage today.Is it larger than marriage today?When are we going to see that a 2000+year old book is out of touch with modern reality. Why do all the naysayers think that people like Ted Haggart needed an exorcism to get the gayness out of his body? Who are the people with the "real" moral strength? The people putting down or the people being put down? The "Good" book sure likes to treat people badly.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/05/2009 @ 7:16pm

295. If marriage is only for the religious, what shall I call my heterosexual relationship with my partner? Neither one of use comes from one of the religious traditions that have been argued about in the many comments above.

     Even so, I want to say that I am married. Why? Because that is the social tradition of our culture when two people declare their love and commitment to each other. There are legal implications as well, but what it really comes down to is acceptance as part of the society. I think that's what my gay friends want.

     I don't see any meaningful reason to withhold it other than fear and ignorance.

     Which defines you? Fearful, or ignorant?

     Posted by metogame at 11/05/2009 @ 9:13pm

296. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 4:36pm

     I agree that sick messages in music are protected speech. We can't BAN the music.

     But the fact that songs promoting the murder of gays can be played on a major radio station in the city of New York with zero controversy is instructive.

     It's demonstrative of the fact that the Left is interested in gays insofar as they can serve as a tool with which to agitate Christian conservatives, no more. And that the Left is tolerant, if not supportive of, illiberal, backward tribalism for non-whites at home and abroad.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 10:22pm

297. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 4:36pm

     "Yes, I think it would be good for gays to reach out to some of those artists and have some conversations about whether their lyrics really reflect their spirituality..."

     I would like to invite you to examine the contradictions here. You think that gays should "reach out" and "have some conversations" with musicians who advocate the MURDER of gays.

     But re Christian cons who have moral compunctions about gay MARRIAGE but not anything close to their right to exist, you would rather isolate and demonize.

     Shouldn't it be the other way around? I'm not being facetious here.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 11:20pm

298. "I have already noted that when states began issuing licenses around the mid 1800's, they used the word marriage out of convenience to the fact that most Americansw were Christians or Jews."

     Repeating it doesn't make it true. The point is that states permitted civil marriage from the very beginning of this country. It had a legal existence completely separate of the religious sacrament.

     Incidentally, segregationists have freely quoted Scripture to defend segregation.

     God wills all races to be as He made them. Any violation of God's original purpose manifests insubordination to Him(Acts 17:26)

     "24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." " (Gen. 9: 2526.) It was common for segregationists and antebellum defenders of slavery to argue that blacks were the descendants of Ham.

     Likewise, they pointed to several Old Testament passages to argue that Israel suffered divine wrath when its people intermarried with outsiders.

     One segregationist quoted from Matthew These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. (Matthew 10:5,6)

     You can even find some who do it today http://tinyurl.com/ygepuzc

     One can certainly argue that they were, at best, really bad theologians; but you can't argue that they didn't claim scriptural support for segregation.

     Posted by brunowe at 11/06/2009 @ 04:50am

299. It's demonstrative of the fact that the Left is interested in gays insofar as they can serve as a tool with which to agitate Christian conservatives, no more. And that the Left is tolerant, if not supportive of, illiberal, backward tribalism for non-whites at home and abroad.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 10:22pm

     I'd suggest it's more demonstrative of the fact that many on the left are unfamiliar with the reggae artists and lyrics you mentioned, and that most on the left view dismantling structural discrimination in the American legal system as a higher priority than countering the opinions of a relatively small and obscure group of performers. Besides, as Darla pointed out, there have been protests against the performers you mentioned. Agitating Christian conservatives isn't a goal, as you claim; it's merely a side effect whenever those conservatives try to oppose attempts to end legal discrimination.

     Posted by richcarl at 11/06/2009 @ 06:50am

300. But the fact that songs promoting the murder of gays can be played on a major radio station in the city of New York with zero controversy is instructive. It's demonstrative of the fact that the Left is interested in gays insofar as they can serve as a tool with which to agitate Christian conservatives, no more. And that the Left is tolerant, if not supportive of, illiberal, backward tribalism for non-whites at home and abroad. Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 10:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --or it's demonstrative that the music ain't that popular...I'd never heard of the band before you brought it up.

     your theory is weak.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2009 @ 07:06am

301. Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 3:45pm

     See? And since "nothing he says is un-true", it's not "slander" when he calls us "marxists" names.

     S'okay with the Lord.

     Posted by Mask at 11/06/2009 @ 07:31am

302. So, Darin, you're just as upset about what happened in Maine as I am right? I mean, that WAS gay marriage enacted by legislation and signed into law by the governor of Maine.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 5:37pm

     I'm not as upset as you are, but I am disappointed. When Maine's governore signed the bill into law I was here praising the voter of Maine for electing these representative.

     Acceptance (not just tolerance) of homosexuals will reach a tipping point soon. The old will never change, but the young already accept homosexuality and as people my age (44) meet more and more open homosexuals, we are shamed by our past ignorance.

     This tipping point will be reached more quickly if the bigots can't claim that homosexuals are using the federal government to force their lifestyle down our throats.

     Ultimately, the goal is a tolerant, accepting society. There are some who believe that changing the laws will promote that goal. They are wrong. Court imposed change will impede that goal. Organic change will speed the tipping point.

     Politics is the art of leading people slowly. When the movement to abolish child labor pushed too hard, they met resistance. By the time they had changed the culture, there wasn't any need for the laws. Seriously, do you believe it is primarily the laws that prevent large swaths of parents from taking their kids out of school and forcing them to hold a paying job?

     I've said it before: I am deeply ashamed of the ignorant, hurtful, anti-homosexual slurs I used in high school and college. The thing the opened my eyes was learning that a college friend I admired was gay.

     Change the culture and the laws will change themselves. Change the laws through the courts and the culture will refuse to change.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 07:52am

303. Change the culture and the laws will change themselves. Change the laws through the courts and the culture will refuse to change.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 07:52am

     But you're presenting a false dichotomy here. Laws and courts don't act independently of the culture to which they belong; they're integrally connected. When has a culture ever undergone a significant change without concurrent changes in the laws to support that change? A new law (or a revised judicial interpretation of existing law) can certainly provoke a backlash, but it can also help people recognize the legitimacy of a viewpoint they hadn't considered seriously before. It takes all parts of a society, including its legal system, to create and maintain a change in culture.

     Posted by richcarl at 11/06/2009 @ 08:58am

304. Did we "change the culture" of the South BEFORE passing the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act????

     Posted by Mask at 11/06/2009 @ 09:24am

305. But the fact that songs promoting the murder of gays can be played on a major radio station in the city of New York with zero controversy is instructive.

     It's demonstrative of the fact that the Left is interested in gays insofar as they can serve as a tool with which to agitate Christian conservatives, no more. And that the Left is tolerant, if not supportive of, illiberal, backward tribalism for non-whites at home and abroad.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 10:22pm

     But it hasn't been "without controversy," so your whole point falls apart. Yes, maybe without "HUGE" controversy, but then again, if it's only the gays who get offended, the media never picks up that story, only the stories where the radical right gets offended by something gay (further proof that there is no "liberal bias" in the media).

     I totally disagree that the "left" uses gays as a tool against Christians. I believe it is gays, who see the Christians as using their religion (and the Bible) to remove rights from gays that gets THEM (gays) in an uproar about the Christians. Gay people are part of the "Left" and I think appreciate the help they get in the fight against the far right Christian so called conservatives (who think government should get out of everyone's personal life...except gay people's).

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/06/2009 @ 11:30am

306. I would like to invite you to examine the contradictions here. You think that gays should "reach out" and "have some conversations" with musicians who advocate the MURDER of gays.

     But re Christian cons who have moral compunctions about gay MARRIAGE but not anything close to their right to exist, you would rather isolate and demonize.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/05/2009 @ 11:20pm

     Again, I disagree. What do you think this forum is for if not to have conversations with the right wingers? While I may think Larry, Happy, BP and others are homophobic neanderthals, I have tried, time and time again, to discuss this matter (and others) in a semi-rational light. Admittedly, I get frustrated by their obstinance and the fact they always end up hiding behind the Bible, which is something I cannot fight, because THEY choose to use their religion as a shield. I respect their religion; they don't respect my logic, which is based on the concept that ALL MEN ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. Their religious law doesn't agree (Christians are best!), and every time they retreat to their religious law, logic and common sense go out the window.

     Logic and religion are doomed to be combatants: logic is rational and religion is irrational.

     So, yeah, I would want to discuss with the musicians how their music is hateful and mean, and I hope some true Christians would want to have that same conversation (gay or not). But to say that gay people cannot be Christians is something one cannot seriously argue with religious fanatics. They just don't see logic, which is why Larry truly is the biggest hypocrite on this site, IMHO, because he will always use the Bible as his defense of his views of the Constitution, yet doesn't even realize the dichotomy he creates by doing just that.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/06/2009 @ 11:44am

307. Posted by Thrawn at 11/05/2009 @ 6:25pm

     You are framing the word death by physical death. But the meaning of this word as used here (Romans 6:23) and elsewhere in this context is spiritual death.

     The consequences of sin is spiritual death or separation from G-d. This is consistent throughout the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. The punishment of spiritual death is hell.

     Matthew 22:32

     ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

     Luke 9:60

     Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God."

     John 5:24

     Life and Judgment Are Through the Son "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

     Ephesians 2:1-3

     And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

     Colossians 2:13

     And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/06/2009 @ 12:01pm

308. So... it seems that the real, fundamental attraction of contemporary religious belief is that a sense of superiority is somehow conferred onto the believers as opposed to non-believers. "We are better than thee..."

     Those lost souls who are simply incapable of grasping the revealed truth as written down by humans multiple hundreds of years in the past are deserving of from believers, first - pity, then - conversion, and finally - absent the complete acceptance of the proposed premises of belief - threats of infinite otherwordly suffering as well as a diminshed social standing in this life.

     Got it... But at the conclusion of the story, it's really all about saving one's own ass for eternity, right?

     Posted by lumenpro at 11/06/2009 @ 12:45pm

309. Got it... But at the conclusion of the story, it's really all about saving one's own ass for eternity, right?

     Posted by lumenpro at 11/06/2009 @ 12:45pm

     Yep. Pretty selfish, ain't it?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/06/2009 @ 1:02pm

310. I have engaged in a deviant sex act. That does not make me a deviant.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/05/2009 @ 5:06pm

     You say "deviant" like it's a bad thing.

     .

     .

     .

     .

     .

     .

     (o ) (o )

     []

     \________________/

     .

     .

     .

     .

     Posted by Mistral at 11/06/2009 @ 2:14pm

311. ----(o ) - (o )

     --------[]

     \________________/

     Posted by Mistral at 11/06/2009 @ 2:16pm

312. Oh, well

     :-)

     Posted by Mistral at 11/06/2009 @ 2:16pm

313. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 11/06/2009 @ 12:01pm </i>

     I don't think that's what he means in THIS verse, for two reasons:

     1) Paul doesn't say "death v. life." He says "death v. ETERNAL life." Now why would he say that if we was talking about the fullness of life as opposed to the duration of existence? "Eternal life" is always used to connote eternal continuation of existence. When transposed with "death," the clear implication is that death means termination of existence.

     2) The statement in Genesis from which Paul's statement appears to be derived is God's statement in Genesis that if Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree, they would die. Everything I've ever seen says that the statement didn't mean spiritual death, because that would only be true if sin DESTROYED their relationship with God. That's not what original sin means; original sin means that sin DISTORTED our relationship with God.

     3) I'm not sure how you can buy this. Paul's statement must either refer to physical death or to heaven, but whatever he's talking about in this verse, he's referring to the ultimate condition in which he thinks the various groups of people he refers to will ultimately find themselves. That means that the "eternal life" v. "death" dichotomy refers to one of two things:

     a) Heaven v. hell

     b) Eternal life v. not.

     We clearly agree that it can't be (a); you say yourself that I'm "confusing death and hell," so implicit in your staetment is the claim that Paul isn't talking about hell. However, there isn't a third option; if (a) isn't the right answer, (b) is.

     And let me add..(b) makes a lot more sense independently since an infinite punishment is by definition disproportionate AND has absolutely no rehabilitative component.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/06/2009 @ 2:34pm

314. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 11/06/2009 @ 12:01pm </i>

     And if you could, I'd be interested to see your response to my other earlier post:

     <<2 Corinthians 5:19 says that in Christ, God was reconciling the world (note, the world) to himself, not counting their trespasses against them. First, does "the world" mean something other than, well, the world? Second, the Bible clearly teaches that God wills all to be saved, does it not? And if Revelation and 2 Corinthians both say that in whatever cosmic battle exists God will be victorious, is your position that God will only partially succeed?

     Moreover, if you think that God will be only partially successful because of the stubbornness of human free will, we must at least believe that God will do everything in his power, yes? Meaning that he will not send anyone to hell unless there is no possible alternative? To say that God is bound by his character to only save Christians seems like an odd proposition to say the least...especially since the Bible says that's false. Remember the story of Jesus descending into sheol (NOT hell, by the way; if I recall correctly, that's NOT the word that's used) to preach to everyone before him?

     Finally, this should be a silly question since we have a New Testament and since God is always described as "living"...do you believe that God still speaks fresh words? As, say, he did at least once to Peter?>>

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/06/2009 @ 2:35pm

315. Change the culture and the laws will change themselves. Change the laws through the courts and the culture will refuse to change. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/06/2009 @ 07:52am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --really? if the supreme court ruled denial of gay marriage licenses violated equal protection the people wouldn't be able to vote that ruling down.

     abortion is legal.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2009 @ 3:56pm

316. Posted by Thrawn at 11/06/2009 @ 2:34pm

     Paul most certainly did contrast death and eternal life in Romans 6:23. I think the fact that you ignored the references to what Jesus said on this speaks to your continued confusion. As long as you remain in sin, you are eternally separated from G-d.

     As noted in the Genesis 2:17 reference, G-d says that the DAY you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall surely die. But they didn't die that day physically. They died spiritually with physical death to follow.

     Rather than a lengthy statement, I am linking a statement from Fuller Seminary on this issue. It is representative of the vast majority of theologians on this subject

     http://tinyurl.com/y8r3jqw

     Death (2288) (thanatos) includes not only physical death, but also the quality of one's present life (1Ti 5:6). Here Paul uses the term of the death brought in by human sin and not referring merely to physical death but to death in its most comprehensive sense - separation of the creature from his Creator in the Lake of fire (Rev 10:14)

     http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_621-23.htm

     John 5:24

     "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

     There is no teaching on "rehabilitation" for sin or those who have physically died in the bible. That is a Catholic theology that came in the 12th century

     That is one of the clear messages from Jesus in the parable of the rich man and Lazerus in Luke 16:26

     <And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.'>

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/06/2009 @ 4:26pm

317. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 11/06/2009 @ 4:26pm </i>

     John 5:24 is rather interesting, actually. Note the wording: "He who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me." Not "He who hears My word and believes in Me." Your own verses are telling.

     And while, we're at it, some other stories puzzle me. Jesus' forgiveness of the accused adulteress, for example, does not come with any conditions. He never says "Neither do I condemn you...as long as you sin no more." He also doesn't say "neither do I condemn you...as long as you believe in me." Come to think of it, that's not what he tells the expert in the law either.

     And while you're thinking about that, answer me this: will God ultimately be victorious, or won't he? When he sets out to find the one lost sheep, will he eventually stop looking? I certainly don't remember anything in the parables about the coin possibly falling too far for the woman to reach, or the sheep running so far away that eventually there was no hope of return.

     And I wonder about other teachings of Jesus. He says to love your enemies. If God has enemies, does he not love his? You say that God could not truly forgive absent sacrifice, but Jesus explicitly rejects the "eye for an eye" paradigm (which means rejecting retribution).

     One last thought. Imagine someone loses their connection to the church. They stop believing in God, but then something changes. They begin to wonder again whether God might be out there after all, and begin to seek him. Before the quest is done, however, and before they ever speak the name of Jesus, this person is killed. Are you telling me that God is either unable or simply unwilling to let in a prodigal child who found him or herself partway home before death came? Does death, not God, have the last word?

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/07/2009 @ 01:23am