NY Times’ Gail Collins: Bush And Cheney Should Resign NOW!
November 22nd, 2008, 12:45 PM EST
We have an economy that’s crashing and a vacuum at the top. Bush – who is currently on a trip to Peru to meet with Asian leaders who no longer care what he thinks – hasn’t got the clout, or possibly even the energy, to do anything useful. His most recent contribution to resolving the fiscal crisis was lecturing representatives of the world’s most important economies on the glories of free-market capitalism.
Pelosi becomes president in the meanitme, we get our first woman in the White House, Obama’s policies take hold sooner rather than later, and Bush’s legacy might be elevated to “below average” if he gets out now. Now THAT is change, my friends.
I believe instead of resigning, they should be indighted and placed under arrest for failure to protect and defend the Constitution; for breaking our treaties unilaterally, for crimes against humanity, for withholding public information; for illegally spying on US Citizens; for conspiracy to reward private companies for illicit profit levels in the Iraq war, for illegal renditions, for political interference in matters of justice, for ignoring environmental laws, for allowing coal miners to die preventable deaths by illicit scrutiny of mining operations and for a litany of other crimes we’ll never hear about because they’ve destroyed evidence, or used national security reasons to obfuscate legitimate inquire into misdeeds. No doubt Bush will issue broad pro-active pardons to all his criminal co-conspirators and himself. What a total and absolute disgrace to the Presidency this crew has been! However he’ll collect his right wing speakers fees, dance for the Federalist Society, and laugh all the way to the overstufffed bank. You are right, change can’t come soon enough! Nevertheless Pelosi and Reid and company haven’t proved themselves that much better albeit likely less criminal in behavior. I sure hope Mr Obama lives up to his promise.
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
We’ve already elected a replacement, the replacement will decide what, if any, action should be taken against Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Dear Alan
It will be a bad idea. Although, I support Pulosi because, she is not only a woman, she is an Italion-Catholic.
Still America is not united. I can not see Democratic party is taking over and Republican Party will “suck thumb.” The truth is, 27% Americans still like Bush. He kept us safe from Islamic Terrorists.
Fact is may be 27% people which is about 60 Million Americans like Bush. He is “our bad boy.” If we get attacked again then the Nancy and Obama had to take the bleme and honstly I do not think they can handle it. Obama is not a Millitorman like McCane, Nither is Nancy Pulosi.Mr.Axilrod did not trained Obama or Nancy for an attack.
NY Times is a Democratic party news paper. Beside people live in Alaska or Idaho are American too. They are not rich Newyorker. Will they go for it?
It will be wounderfuull for President Bush. He will not be trashed again. Another point, if Bush leave then Dick Cheny will be our President. We did elected him in 2004. He is not Bush’s administration. He is an elected man just like Joe Biden.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I don’t want a President,even Obama,who makes decisions based on what,if any,actions future administrations may take aginst him.
( Pro-active Pardon )–The Clinton Administration wipes out any agrgument anyone can have there.
( Coal Miners Deaths ) I am a Teamster—where was the union that was paid to protect these miners–the same unions that so strongly supports the Democrats.
( Speakers Fees )–Can’t look down on Bush if he does the same thing Carter,Bush41 and Clinton do already can we?
( Contractors ) They have been an important part of our military since WWI.Can’t go after Bush there without going after every memeber of congress that blows money on unrealistic earmarks.Name me a compnay that can what Blackwater does for a cheaper price.
( Constitution ) I can’t find the Right to Privacy part in there.
( Pelosi/Reid ) Two weeks ago they were willing to give The Big Three Billions in recovery funds.Only after pressure did they decide to have hearings.Now they say “We need more accountablity”–The White House has said that all along.Obama has been saying for a year he will give them $150 Bil. when he becomes President.I really hope he reconsiders now.Can’t blame the unions on this one.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Sure…..so now someone is loudly calling for something that was warrented years ago.
By our REAL leader, President Elect Obama, announcing the financial cabinet positions on Monday, he is almost certainly signaling America that it is time for the changes to begin. His Saturday radio address said even more clearly that he is prepared to take the reins of power….now.
It is cute that some are now calling for a non president to do what he rightly should have done in late 2003 or early 2004.
Bush will now try and allow everyone to call this “Obama’s Resession”…..but, that already blew up in Sean and others’ faces since on Friday, just after announcing his Secretary Paulson’s replacement, the market shot up like a hopeful rocket…no coincidence….none. This is Bush’s recession, war, and failed administration, filled with ineptitude, incompetence, partisan ridiculousness, and curruption. It is facist in it’s nature sine industry dictates it’s every rule change, political move, and actions in these last few, ugly, damaging days.
If you are a republican, hang your head in shame of the man you set up to be our president…he has never been “our” president….just yours….and I, for one, am through with hid buddies and him.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
“his” not hid <== last sentence of previous post.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Hey Bryan im a fellow teamster, the above post you blamed the union for the coal miners deaths ? I’m not gonna argue with that opinion, But that’s a bold statement. Unfortunatly I’m not in that industry and cannot comment intelligently. I hope fellow teamsters will address that matter with facts. Fellow Teamster BLE 595, Craig
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Our country’s worst nightmare…Pres. Pelosi.
God help us if that were to ever happen. The last thing we need is a San Francisco values president.
Wake up people and really check out these people you seem so enthralled with.
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I respect your opinion.
Pres elect Obama is proposing a stimulus package in the near future. Instead of doling out checks. As done in the past.I propose a Federal Debit Card (FDC) Perhaps beginning with $500 per person. $50 Billion would open 100 million accounts.This is a much better option because (1)the money doesn’t leave the Federal coffers until it is actually “SPENT”, a true stimulus to the economy.(2) It would give the little guy,the single moms a place to put aside some money for daily expenses without the killer fees that the banks are charging. (3)If a person makes a steady minimum deposit, of say $10 a month the account stays open and they get a star on their credit report. (4) Deposits held by the government are used to fund instrastructual projects issue bonds etc. to cover the costs of maintaining the program.(5) Put a VISA or MASTERCARD logo on it and pay Citi-Corp to maintain it, REHIRE those 53000 people they just laid off. (6) Put Obama’s picture on the card (or maybe yours) if you help with this idea. The Federal Reserve is lending money at 1% everyday, so I know this can be done Why not show a little faith in the American People for “A Change We Can Really Believe IN! thanks! myspace.com/realtynetwork
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I respect your opinion.
Pres elect Obama is proposing a stimulus package in the near future. Instead of doling out checks. As done in the past.I propose a Federal Debit Card (FDC) Perhaps beginning with $500 per person. $50 Billion would open 100 million accounts.This is a much better option because (1)the money doesn’t leave the Federal coffers until it is actually “SPENT”, a true stimulus to the economy.(2) It would give the little guy,the single moms a place to put aside some money for daily expenses without the killer fees that the banks are charging. (3)If a person makes a steady minimum deposit, of say $10 a month the account stays open and they get a star on their credit report. (4) Deposits held by the government are used to fund instrastructual projects issue bonds etc. to cover the costs of maintaining the program.(5) Put a VISA or MASTERCARD logo on it and pay Citi-Corp to maintain it, REHIRE those 53000 people they just laid off. (6) Put Obama’s picture on the card (or maybe yours) if you help with this idea. The Federal Reserve is lending money at 1% everyday, so I know this can be done Why not show a little faith in the American People for “A Change We Can Really Believe IN! thanks john newton. myspace.com/realtynetwork
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“Our country’s worst nightmare…Pres. Pelosi.
God help us if that were to ever happen. The last thing we need is a San Francisco values president.
Wake up people and really check out these people you seem so enthralled with.
Posted by Willy
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm”
You guys used that same rhetoric about President Elect Obama during his campaign…..
Sorry, Charlie….it won’t work. If it happened, we’d get to see some values that don’t include ignoring the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights, and people over corperate values of the Bushie disaster.
Your hate Pelosie stuff just is the stuff of your own nightmare…I had my nightmares…and they all started with the name, “Bush”
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
“( Constitution ) I can’t find the Right to Privacy part in there.”
The supreme court found it. You know, that’s the group that thinks there might be an individual right to own guns, because only half of a sentence means anything.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Robert,
When did I say that I hated Pelosi? I just think the values of San Francisco are truly bad for America and I truly believe that Nancy Pelosi would bring those values to the White House.
Look at what is going on in San Francisco. She has to support all that to get elected. If she doesn’t believe in the value system in S.F then she is just lying to all the voters who support her.
Saying that I hate Pelosi because I disagree with her values and ideology is a stretch.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Willy:
Please explain these “San Franciso values”.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
San Francisco values are West Coast Values that are Western U.S. Values, that are mainstream as it gets.
If you’d ever been to San Francisco, you wouldn’t make that type of accusation. San Francisco is a beautiful city with a wonderful culture and people.
If you are talking about the prop 8 stuff, that will be settled in the court…it is the role of the courts to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The prop 8 will be thrown out as not ammending the constitution of the state, but attempting to redefine rights of a portion of the population….not constitutionally possible.
San Francisco values?…..nope, American Values…just not repressing, backward, 19th century puritanical victorianism….
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
San Franciso values…Ignoring state law and marrying homosexuals,… kicking out the ROTC only because they detest the military, the same military that keeps and brings them a free country,…their council saying that the U.S. military should be dis-banded,…allowing first graders to attend a homosexual “wedding” defined as a field trip,…not allowing a retired Navy ship to take dock in their bay and turn it into an attraction for tourist and an educational tool for real field trips for school children to learn about our histroy,..These are just a few.
Where is Prop 8 tyrannical? They are not redefining rights!!! It is no different than voting on the issue of whether or not you want a gambling casino in your state. When the majority votes against an issue that you liberals feel strongly about you kick and whine all the way to the court rooms crying foul. Waa,waa those mean voters didn’g give me what I wanted. Please mr. judge make them give me what I wanted. Sound familiar, libs?
The people of California voted. Get over it and get on with your life. Better yet, why don’t you get your own initiative on the ballot to try to overturn Prop 8 and quit pestering the courts. I’m sure they have their hands full with all the legit cases they have.
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Prop 8 takes away rights….rights that are gaurenteed under the California Constitution. When was the last time a constitution was rightfully amended to take rights away from a segment of the population?
The rights in the California Constitution were upheld by the state Supreme Court…and the right wingnuts designed a prop and campaign that was deceptive…it was the classic “for it” is really “against it” tactic that gets many confused.
Willy…..ROTC in schools is okay if they promise not to lie like recruiters do…no lie…they can stay. That was the condition that was set forth…and the army rejected it…they needed to lie to get the job done….great group of people, huh?
You would have loved Boston before the revolutionary war….they dumped tea in the harbor when someone tried to take rights away….yeah, and they were liberal…just like I am proud to be.
Liberal is a grand title…not some slanerous term you want it to be….
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
“Slanderous” not slanerous
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Prop 8 doesn’t “take away rights.” When did same sex people ever have the right to marry ANYWHERE until four judges decided to LEGISLATE instead of INTERPRET? Legislating from the bench is a very dangerous practice.
Now, having said that, I don’t give a rat’s hind end if same sex people marry. I’d have been happy to vote for for it to shut you the F up.
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Prop 8 was generated AFTER the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the right for gay couples to wed.
Courts are responsible to protect rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority….it is their responsibility and mission.
Thanks, Mary….I appreciate your support LOL
I won’t shut up, either.
There are two types of marriage, religious marriage, and legal marriage. Rights are associated with the legal marriage and tht is what was addressed in prop 8. Religious marriage is addressed in each denomination of each form of religion and is not for legislation.
Courts do not legislate. That is a derrogatory term used by the right wing nuts to attempt to limit the rightful role of the courts to interpret the constitutionality of legislative and civil actions.
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
What happened to government of the people, for the people, and by the people? The people voted NO NO NO. Accept it and move on.The court should not go against what the majority of the people voted for.
That is also infringing on rights, whether you like it or not.
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
The NYT and the National Enquirer are morally equivalent.
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
If Bush and Cheney had 1 grain of patriotism between them they would resign. Unfortunately for the long-suffering American public the Republicans will do everything in their power to grab the last penny from your 401k before they slink off back to their filthy lairs and count the takings from the last 8 years greedy plundering of this nations resources for themselves. If you are looking for them for the next 4 years – they will be on the golf/spa circuit with the AIG executive golden handshake good old boys club.
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Not only what Alan said in his thread, but Cheney’s been indicted in some southern state for something (I forget). How about THEM apples, Alan?
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
The silencing of critical thought is what’s really behind the homosexual activism.
The courts are only just beginning to oppress. Anyone who thinks they can identify and speak out against immorality will be muzzled. Most liberals believe in the virtue of this homosexual campaign, but it, homosexuality, is contrary to a healthy society.
If homosexuality was indeed “normal”, we would all have been born understanding it, and it would already be established and traditional. This current argument would be nonexistent.
The offense of a minority will be championed and the rights of a majority will be removed. Logic will be inverted, and the moral decline that has plagued mankind since time began, will reassert itself. Homosexual activism is not about being respected, it’s about the establishing of a counterfeit reality, and the silencing of anyone who objects.
Silencing God is the real agenda, and this will have real consequences.
Read. http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-08-05
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Silencing God is the real agenda, and this will have real consequences.
Nah, doesn’t have anything to do w/ God – it has to do with government. It’s about giving married couples who are the same sex the same bag of gov’t goodies, rights, and responsibilities as married couples who are of the opposite sex.
Some churches choose to marry same sex couples, some churches don’t. Some folks marry outside of a religious belief system entirely. The government granting same sex married couples the same rights as opposite sex married couples has nothing to do w/ any church’s teachings, or an agenda to silence God.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:02 am
Hi, um cara. I’ve been wondering where you’ve been. I hope your doing well.
My concerns are for societal well being, and the protections and practice of free speech and thought. If the identification of behavioral problems is criminalized then society loses.
I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you, and exercise my rights to disagree.
Did you read the article I provided the link to?
I would be interested in your thoughts concerning the first amendment and the balance required to afford protection to the homosexual agenda.
The motivations and agenda of the gay militant activists extend beyond the sanctity of marriage.
The gay marriage issue is being portrayed as a simple idea but unfortunately it has a broad range of implications, just as light entering a prism is refracted into many different spectrums. Interestingly the gays choose the rainbow as a symbol.
Sincerely, your friend, trees
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 am
Trees, my friend…
From my understanding, the issue of gay marriage needs to be divided into two distinct areas: 1) legal marriage, and 2)Religeously sanctioned joining of individuals in the institution of marriage as defined in (various versions therein)the Bible.
Since the second issue (religeous marriage) is one of values and belief systems, it seems logical to leave it to the individual. We can each believe what we will of the institution of marriage with the agreement to disagree when such beliefs do not match. The institution of religeous marriage is not my concern. Some faiths sanction gay marriage and others do not….no harm, no foul.
The legal marriage issue deals with the right of two individuals to share in the tax benefits, contractual rights, benefits of marriage partners in the eyes of city, county, state, and federal laws. Such things as filing a joint tax return with the IRS are involved. Visitation of individuals and powers of attorney are affected. Rights of suvivorship and probate are involved with the legal designation of individuals being “married”. The marriage license is not a religeous document, but a legal document that is only involved with the legal structure of our country. The actual definition of what makes up a legal marriage has changed over the years, including age requirements, blood testing requirements, racial designations, and even financial requirements. At one time, a woman had no right to decide who she was to marry. It was designated by the eldest adult male. In some South Sea cultures, only siblings could marry. In one culture in Micronesia, individuals were subject to the vote of the “tribe”. In yet another, consumation of the marriage was conducted by all members of the male members of the “tribe” upon the bride.
Now, since the definition of legalized, sanctioned marriage has certainly changed over the years, it seems reasonable for it to alter a bit to include a gay couple. Certainly, all changes to marriage have been to include groups and types of marriage. The concept of a majority to vote on denying a minority the right to marry (legally, only) is rewriting a constitution, not amending an existing clause or phrase. The courts will have to follow their role of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority and overturn Prop 8.
So…….I think Bush and Chaney could quit today and they would not be missed…certainly not by me. Pelosie could run the government until January…even though I do not believe Bush or Chaney love the country enough to sacrifice their egos and “Do the right thing”. Why should they start now?
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:00 am
Did you read the article I provided the link to?
Yes, but it would be pretty tough for US authorities to act in the manner shown in your article. What happened in Sweden would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the US. However, I’m against hate (thought) crime prosecution, in general.
I’ll join you in supporting individual pastors the right to preach their religion without fear of being thrown in jail.
Are you ready to join me in having government grant same sex married couples the same marriage rights as opposite sex married couples have?
I would be interested in your thoughts concerning the first amendment and the balance required to afford protection to the homosexual agenda.
I’m against hate (thought) crimes legislation (whether in regards to homosexuals or other hate crimes). I’m also against the government discriminating against same sex married couples, I think they should have the same rights and responsibilities as opposite sex couples. Also, I don’t think individual churches should be required to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies.
I’m not sure what you consider the ‘homosexual agenda’, but that’s where I stand on the specific issues I can think of.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:11 am
I have no knowledge of any homosexual agenda beyond asking to be treated with the same respect as anyone else. Certainly, we all ask for equality. Some in our country have been asking for hundreds of years. Others have not openly asked since death would visit them if they did ask in the open. Sad, but true. Yes, I support gay marriage…the legal definition. As for the religeous side….not my concern beyond expecting everyone to respect each others’ differences.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:16 am
Hi, Robert. It’s good to hear from you, I hope everything is going well.
I have read over and considered your argument and I am going to take some time to think it over.
However, briefly, what are your thoughts concerning polygamous marriage? Have you considered my two brothers scenario?
Sincerely, your friend trees
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 am
Hey Trees I honestly would feel safer with my young relatives in the company of homosexuals than your paedophile priests and ministers. Homosexuality is not a threat to anyone but religion usually means death for those who oppose it.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:30 am
Jake,
Hey Trees I honestly would feel safer with my young relatives in the company of homosexuals than your paedophile priests and ministers.
When did Trees ever claim to have pedophile priests or ministers? Pedophiles exist in all professions, obviously, but the actions of some clergy should not be used to cast them all in a bad light.
I wouldn’t leave my young relatives in the care of anybody I did not trust – whether they are gay, priests, or ministers would have nothing to do with whether I would leave the kiddos in their care or not.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 am
Are you ready to join me in having government grant same sex married couples the same marriage rights as opposite sex married couples have?
I have often heard people express the sentiment, ”I’m glad you found something that works for ya” when discussing my life experiences and beliefs. I think what is often overlooked is the understanding that “faith” is useless unless there is a spiritual conviction. If I’m under conviction, and really believe in the sacrifice God provided for me, then I cannot knowingly approve of behavior that He disapproves of.
If I believe completely in God and trust in His word then I cannot knowingly condone behavior that runs contrary to His will. Anyone who does is compromising God, and violating His first commandment.
I do not hate homosexuals. I thought Thursday’s radio show guest was fascinating.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 am
If I believe completely in God and trust in His word then I cannot knowingly condone behavior that runs contrary to His will.
I understand you do not believe homosexuality is moral, and you condemn that behavior, but that has nothing to do with whether the government should provide the same rights and responsibilities to same sex marriages as opposite sex marriages.
So do you think the government should discriminate against same sex married couples or not?
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:47 am
Polygamy was an old testiment and old world strategy to land and wealth administration. It was based on the premis that women were chatle, property, and meant for propagation. There were fewer men then women, and it was a way for a man to also maintain control…the patriach concept.
I am not sure of it as a legal issue. I do not see it as inevitable, but it might stir up some interesting legal challenges. I don’t believe that polygamy would enjoy the same level of support as gay marriage has earned over the past years. I don’t know how the IRS and other govermental agencies view multi spouse marriages. Certainly, our Mormon friends have stirred up the waters on the topic and that Texas thing lately didn’t do much to advance the concept. Again, I believe there are two aspects…the legal and religeous. I would just stick to the legal aspect.
Personally, I think that mainstream women would probably consider multi husband oriented polygamy rather than participate in multi wife marriages.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:50 am
“The NYT and the National Enquirer are morally equivalent.”
Ha ha ha, hey that’s funny. Kind of dopey, but funny all the same.
_______________________________
“When the majority votes against an issue that you liberals feel strongly about you kick and whine all the way to the court rooms crying foul.”
No need to kick and whine, because the business of the courts is to adjudicate disputes, because, as any reasonable person knows, even reasonable people may differ.
“The people of California voted. Get over it…”
No need for that either, because the injustice perpetuated by Prop 8 is destined to be overturned, and unlike the radical right most liberals actually do believe in principles, and the constitution, and the bill of rights, and the rule of law, and they’re willing to go to court to fight about it.
_________________________________
“Homosexual activism is…about the establishing of a counterfeit reality…”
Well probably a country in which all people have equal rights would seem really nightmarish to the radical right, but this is probably where we’re heading.
“Silencing God is the real agenda…”
God is free to say anything He wants at any time and any place, because the first amendment protects His Speech too.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 am
It is unfortunate that “the church” had to undergo such a tragedy to act. I do not believe it valuable to equate the issues of variant behavior to homosexual behavior…namely marriage. To draw that relationship conjurs up the subjective view of homosexual orientation as aberrant rather than a predetermined orientation. Such an argument invariably damages the objective considerations of rights and benefits of the legal definition of same sex marriage.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 am
Robert,
Certainly, our Mormon friends have stirred up the waters on the topic
You probably already know this, but just in case there are folks out there who do not – Mormons have long condemned polygamy. The modern polygamist ‘Mormons’ are completely separate from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:57 am
Good evening, Trees….glad to see ya still breathin’
Ahoy and glad tidings ta ya….hope ya keepin yur powder dry and your scuppers clean!
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:57 am
Yes, Um Cara….
I was referring to the old version of the Mormon faith that fostered laws against polygamy in Utah and elsewhere. I understand the difference between the two faiths. The first Mormons did practice polygamy, but, as you rightly stated…it was many many many years ago. Even then, it was frowned upon and fostered legislation by the then population of the states it pertained to.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:00 am
So do you think the government should discriminate against same sex married couples or not?
If the question is framed and presented as above, then the answer is obvious, NO.
However, the government has provided for same sex unions that allow homosexuals all of the rights and provisions afforded by heterosexual marriage.
As long as my rights to free thought and free speech and the ability to practice and discuss my religious beliefs in an open and candid way, in public, are not infringed on in any way, then it, homosexual marriage is not impermissible. My primary goal is promoting the awareness of God and the doctrine of salvation. My secondary goal is a healthy society that provides for the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
What I find really interesting is no one will answer my question concerning the legality and permissibility of the marriage of brothers. If heterosexual siblings cannot marry, then what about homosexual siblings and marriage? This raises a real constitutional issue, hmmm…..?
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:12 am
Trees,
I’m afraid unions are not exactly the same as marriages. For instance….IRS…unions are not the same as marriage…..joint filings are not permitted.
Most state and local agencies have no equivalency for unions compared to the term, “marriage”. Insurance policies do not view unions the same as marriage.
So…the old concept of separate but equal in this matter doesn’t work. It, again, is needed that we separate the religeous recognition of marriage (and you could even consider it society’s view of marriage) and the legal definiton of marriage. If we only focus on the venue that works with rights, privilages, and benefits, in legal terms…then we might find common ground.
There were societies (like the Hawaiian culture) that sanctioned sibling marriage. We do not since the risk of birth defects (a nice way of managing the gene pool, huh?) is increased with sibling marriage.
I’m certain we could run into those rare situations where siblings fell in love…in fact, we have many recorded instances and it is referred to as aberrant behavior…rather than a sexual orientation.
Perhaps, it is a progression of thought process we are undertaking. There was once a time when alcoholics were treated as deviants and thrown into ice baths….the same treatment of “mental defectives”. We tend to view people with mental illnesses and the disease of alcoholism differently today.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:22 am
However, the government has provided for same sex unions that allow homosexuals all of the rights and provisions afforded by heterosexual marriage.
That’s mostly not true, unfortunately. With time more states will recognize same sex marriages, but for now there are only a couple of states that do.
What I find really interesting is no one will answer my question concerning the legality and permissibility of the marriage of brothers.
Probably because most folks have been talking about extending civil rights to same sex married couples – not with married siblings.
Brothers marrying have no more to do with same sex marriage than a brother and sister marrying have to do with heterosexual marriage.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:24 am
Actually most people are unaware of and have not read the foundational literature that defined Mormonism. Anyone interested should investigate. I have. I don’t evangelize by attacking another faith, I ask questions and explore doctrines, and appeal to both logic and the conscience.
My mother was born into a large Mormon family. I have a lot of relatives in Utah. My mother rebelled and left home and made her own way in the world, She was not a practicing Mormon and I grew up in a secular household. She died of cancer when I was 14 and I left home at 18 and made my own way in the same manner that she did. I lived 10 years in the greater NYC area. I am not particularly close with my relatives, my aunts and uncles are practicing Mormons and most of my cousins are self described, “Jack Mormons”, think non religious ethnic Jews.
Polygamy is alive and well in Salt Lake City. I have aunts and uncles who have worked for the Kingstons, they are a large polygamous sect, and have business connections that are old and well established in Utah.
Polygamy will most definitely be the next frontier. It may take awhile, but remember homosexuality has been around a long time and we are only recently embroiled in the marriage issue.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 am
As far as I know there are not huge numbers of homosexual polygamists – so I don’t really see the connection.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:46 am
As far as I know there are not huge numbers of homosexual polygamists – so I don’t really see the connection.
The same arguments that are being made on behalf of homosexuals can be applied to polygamists of either persuasion. Once you open the door of reinterpreting marriage, it, (redefining it in broad terms to make it inclusive), becomes hard to close. The old expression “once the horse gets out of the barn” comes to mind.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:55 am
Once you open the door of reinterpreting marriage, it, (redefining it in broad terms to make it inclusive), becomes hard to close.
That is the same logic as saying ‘if we raise the speed limit from 55 to 60 you open the door to allowing drunk driving because we are redefining traffic laws’.
Polygamy and same sex marriage have nothing to do with each other. I’m pretty sure it is mostly heterosexuals who are into polygamist marriage anyway.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:59 am
That is the same logic as saying ‘if we raise the speed limit from 55 to 60 you open the door to allowing drunk driving because we are redefining traffic laws’.
That’s a cute analogy, but I’m afraid it’s not accurate. A better one would be if we raise the speed limit from 55 to 60, why can’t we raise it to 75?
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:06 am
Polygamy and same sex marriage have nothing to do with each other. I’m pretty sure it is mostly heterosexuals who are into polygamist marriage anyway.
They don’t? Neither are currently recognized, both would like to be made legal by their respective advocates.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:08 am
“If I’m under conviction, and really believe in the sacrifice God provided for me, then I cannot knowingly approve of behavior that He disapproves of.”
No one is asking for your approval; only your tollerance.
For many years, some churches refused to marry mixed race couples, some still do.
The law is another matter.
One can be married without clergy or church. That’s the legal marriage.
Couples have been ‘married’ by clergy or church without the legalities of a license or recognition of the state.
Different strokes for different folks.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 am
That’s a cute analogy, but I’m afraid it’s not accurate. A better one would be if we raise the speed limit from 55 to 60, why can’t we raise it to 75?
Not really, homosexual couples are no more related to polygamy than heterosexual couples are. So I suppose a more appropriate analogy would be if we have men and women marrying, that’s a slippery slope towards men marrying multiple women – so we should do away with marriage.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:11 am
Pretty superficial linkage. There are those who seek to legalize the import of medicines from Canada, and people would like to legalize polygamy. Same linkage as you have shown, but I don’t expect to get into conversations about polygamy when discussing the importation of Canadian medicines.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:17 am
So I suppose a more appropriate analogy would be if we have men and women marrying, that’s a slippery slope towards men marrying multiple women – so we should do away with marriage.
Just the act of redefining marriage pushes us out on, ”the slippery slope”, once we start the slide…………..
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:18 am
Just the act of redefining marriage pushes us out on, ”the slippery slope”, once we start the slide…………..
Slippery slope arguments don’t hold much water with me. They were used in regards to mixed race marriages as well, and were not convincing there either.
Same sex couples are marrying everyday, I don’t see what societal benefit there is to preventing them from sharing the same property rights, visitation rights, etc… that heterosexual married couples have.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:23 am
Same linkage as you have shown
I disagree, I think you’re comparison is off. Sexual practice is the common denominator of my proposition. You’re attempting to link dissimilar concepts.
Here, consider;
A + B, = long held concept
A + A, = radical new concept
B + B, = radical new concept
A + B + B, = radical new concept
That’s how I see it, anyway.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:31 am
That’s a valid view, I don’t share it, but that doesn’t invalidate it. I think the bi racial comparison is a tactic; we’re talking about sexual similitude’s not racial differences.
There will be arguments made on both sides of the issue, and time will tell as to the wisdom of whatever decision is reached and made law.
It was good to see you um, I hope your travel to Europe was both productive and invigorating. Mr. Blair you have yourself an enjoyable evening. I need to get some sleep.
I really do enjoy these conversations, my vocabulary and critical thinking have benefited as a result. Good night.
Sincerely and forever your friend trees
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 am
Newt Gingrich’s sister says it all:
“We know how much the right likes to play political and cultural hardball, and then turn around and accuse us of lashing out first. You give a pass to a religious group — one that looks down upon minorities and women — when they use their money and membership roles to roll back the rights of others, and then you label us “fascists” when we fight back. You belittle the relationships of gay and lesbian couples, and yet somehow neglect to explain who anointed you the protector of “traditional” marriage. And, of course, you’ve also mastered taking the foolish actions of a few people and then indicting an entire population based on those mistakes. I fail to see how any of these patterns coincide with the values of “historic Christianity” you claim to champion.
Again, nothing new here. This is just more of the blatant hypocrisy we’re used to hearing.
What really worries me is that you are always willing to use LGBT Americans as political weapons to further your ambitions. That’s really so ’90s, Newt. In this day and age, it’s embarrassing to watch you talk like that. You should be more afraid of the new political climate in America, because, there is no place for you in it.
In other words, stop being a hater, big bro.”
November 23rd, 2008 at 7:33 am
So, beyond the whole religeous aspects, the ever changing concept of marriage….the changing legal definition……could remain in tact as two people…regardless of sexual orientation. Religeous people could believe as they wish. Churches could espouse whatever interpretation of the term, “marriage” that they wished. People could take, hold, cherish, and stubbornly cling to…any view they wanted on concept of gay marriage. All that could be, but the legal definition could include interpretation that would allow two gay people to marry. That would allow us all to be viewed equally under the law…but unequal according to each person’s view of the world.
In other words, we would not be “sanctifying” gay marriage by making gay marriage legal. Schools, churches, and other forms of public education and communication would have to change nothing spoken, written, or shared beyond their present value structure’s present status. That social change will come in time…maybe, even a long time. We don’t have to legislate special privilages…we just have to ensure that present law doesn’t discriminate (eliminate by exclusion) against any individual…or pairs of individuals…seeking the burdon..er, I mean pleasure…”yes dear”….of marriage (in the legal sense).
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I don’t know why we have this protracted debate on the Mormon Church as a religious body. It’s actions in the last few weeks and months have shown it to be not a religious body at all but a political lobbying group and as such it should be subject to the same taxes as Americans. For too long the American public has carried these “religious” bigots on their back and suffer their haughty self-righteous lecturing while turning a blind eye to the child molestation, racial hatred and anti-gay hate-mongering which seems to consume them so.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Jake, that’s ALL church organizations.
You watch the 700 Club or EWTN before the election?
Churches should be taxed anyway, I see no reason they should be exempt. You can’t rightly call them NPOs anymore. Especially with some of these evangelical centers I’ve seen go up – you know how many homeless they could feed for the money they spend on BMWs and Cadillacs for the clergy, not to mention the multi-million dollar technological marvel churches that are wired to broadcast with massive amounts of special effects and whatnot. The hypocrisy should make any decent man wretch.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
That’s a valid view, I don’t share it, but that doesn’t invalidate it. I think the bi racial comparison is a tactic; we’re talking about sexual similitude’s not racial differences.
I was using it as a comparison for the ’slippery slope’ argument of meddling with marriage law. When a law is unjust it makes no sense to avoid changing the law because you are afraid that some future modification of said law could take place that would be bad.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
To blame Bush for our economy is as ridiculous as a crackhead blaming the government for being broke. We haven’t had a “Free Market” since the 1980s. Now, what has failed is the REGULATED economy we’ve had since the Clintonion 1990s. That’s fact. Obama’s policies will prolong this mess, just like FDR’s New Deal actually prolonged the Depression by 7 years. I’m for a real FREE MARKET.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Isabel,
What regulations do you think caused the economic crisis? What do you mean by a ‘real free market’? What regulations need to be removed and how do you see that improving things?
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
We haven’t had a “Free Market” since the 1980s
Posted by Isabel
…………………………………….
We’ve had socialism for corporations.
Socialize the risks and loses and privatize the profits.
It’s funny that ALL things that the most cynical, who said that these guys believe that the purpose of government is to loot the taxpayers to line your own pockets have come true.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“..We’re talking about sexual similitude’s not racial differences.”
Actually, you’re not discussing either. What is in question is basic civil rights. Amendment 14 of the Constitution guarantees “…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” The founding fathers wrote this Constitution for all citizens not just the few.
All citizens have the right to marry. We’re talking two people. Your religious views are clouding the issue of basic civil rights. 1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the lord’s sake: whether to the king as supreme;”
“Furthermore, every man is responsible for his own faith, and he must see it for himself that he believes rightly. As little as another can go to hell or heaven for me, so little can he believe or disbelieve for me, and as little as he can open or shut heaven or hell for me so little can he drive me to faith or unbelief. Since, then, belief or unbelief is a matter of everyone’s conscience, and since this is no lessening of the secular power, the latter should be content and attend to its own affairs and permit men to believe one thing or another, as they are able and willing and constrain no one by force.”-Martin Luther
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Will Bush do “the right thing” and quit? No…why should he start doing the right thing now?
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
For too long the American public has carried these “religious” bigots on their back and suffer their haughty self-righteous lecturing while turning a blind eye to the child molestation, racial hatred and anti-gay hate-mongering which seems to consume them so.
And no one thinks Christian thought is not under attack?
If I disagree with your views that makes me hateful?
How dare anyone disagree with you views on morality, or question your motivations?
And this from Jim,
Jake, that’s ALL church organizations.
Churches should be taxed anyway, I see no reason they should be exempt.
That’s because you’re an anti Christ Jim, you’ve exposed yourself. I’ll remind you, with you’re own words.
So Christianity destroys culture?
I hope Kuvas doesn’t mind me adding to his response with a blunt post:
Yes Trees, Christianity destroys all other cultures and replaces it with their own.
They’re still doing it all over the place.
Missionaries going to third world countries all over the world and handing out Bibles, and telling people what they believe is wrong and the proper way to have sex and mate.
Christians are an aggressive danger to any society or theology that is not their own.
Trees, answer me this – are you one of the 144,000? Which Jewish Tribe do you belong to – just out of curiosity?
And if anyone dares point out the ever increasing rate of out of wedlock childbirth, there is this.
Single moms with abusive boyfriends create a whole other set of issues.
This might help explain the hellish nature of New Jersey.
I take that as an insult. You do not know me and my life, and taking a light-hearted joke and turning it into an attack on my family is disgusting and foul and sub-human. Please note that I chose my final words to you with care and deliberation and that I will indeed not respond to you ever again. I love my wife (in my eyes she is my wife, and we’ve been together longer than 40% of those Christians who get married) I love my children, and your insinuations that I may be abusive are ignorant and obnoxious in the extreme. My final words to you (ever):
(text omitted)
Posted by Jim From Jersey
November 21st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I never accused you of being abusive. I apologized. i explained my rationale and I cited as an example, a post my own family and their problems. This is the reasoning behind the question I asked.
You know I wasn’t going to bring this up, because things tend to be taken personally when someone discusses their family, but I’m fine with whatever anyone has to say in regards to this.
I have three nieces. None of them are married. None of them are fortunate enough to have a boyfriend who give a fuzzy rats behind about them.
One of them, her name is Sarah, has a boyfriend that has spent the money I have given him to buy pampers, on beer instead.
Incredible?
Yeah, I think so too.
That’s the problem with alcoholics; they make bad decisions, like operating vehicles while intoxicated.
Yep he does that too.
Rachel has two kids, which she loves to death, and she’s a great mom if we overlook the fact that she’s really irresponsible. She has a sometimes boyfriend, Mike, that likes to spend the night with her on the weekends.
Jodi, she’s pregnant now. She smokes cigarettes, drinks, and smokes pot. I pray that her kid is born healthy. She lives with Rachel. She doesn’t have a boyfriend right now.
So whatever. Apology unaccepted, and that’s fine.
It would seem a single parent household is the ideal.
I think it’s due to learning responsibility. Children in single parent homes have to grow up fast. There’s things to do around the house and things to take care of and so on. As far as I can tell, all of my friends from single parent homes are extremely well adjusted, exceedingly polite and nice to others, and perform well under stress.
As far as I can tell, all of my friends from single parent homes are extremely well adjusted, exceedingly polite and nice to others, and perform well under stress.
We’re losing the ability to identify and confront societal problems
The rising chorus would appear to be ”shoot the messenger”
November 23rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Excellent post Faith. The birth of the protestant movement was one of the high points of the faith’s history.
November 23rd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
When have I ever said anyone had to believe in God?
I have always maintained that it is a choice.
All citizens have the right to marry. We’re talking two people.
I like how you assert that as a true statement. IF it were true, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, just as IF it were normal we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
We agree to disagree.
There will be arguments made on both sides of the issue, and time will tell as to the wisdom of whatever decision is reached and made law.
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Please explain to me why polygamy should not be legal.
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Although the bible is filled with stories of heroic and much revered polygamists, as an anti-theist I think I can shade some light on this subject.
The Christian bible is filled with archaic and, frankly, shocking advice (such as stoning people to death for sexual acts, dismembering and gouging the eyes of a thief, rituals for healing, snake handling etc etc). In that way it is very similar to other ancient texts such as the Qu’ran.
Both texts are filled with stories of polygamy.
Fortunately the laws of the US are not based on some old irrelevant writings from ancient times!
The main reason for banning polygamy in modern times is more pragmatic. If a man has 2 or 3 or even 7 wives (like in the bible) what are the rest of us fellas going to do?!
No, here in the west, we practice what is called serial monogamy. We still have more than one wife, but one after the other…
Cheers
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
That sounds like a crime.
CITY GRIPPED IN TERROR
SERIAL MONOGAMIST ON
THE LOOSE, WATCH OUT!
Details page A17
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
lmao
:-)
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Please explain to me why polygamy should not be legal.
You can’t answer the question.
If you change the definition to accommodate one group of people, then you also have to change it to accommodate another group. If the affection of individuals is the defining characteristic, then multiple individuals cannot be denied, simply because of an arbitrary number.
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I was in a polygamist relationship once—my exwife and her boyfriend just forgot to tell me about it.
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Trees:
I guess, speaking for myself, I’m not sure what this question, that you keep repeating, is meant to prove?
Are you thinking that somehow same-sex marriages and polygamy are related? Or that the warning that polygamy
could one day be legallised should be enough to scare Americans into denying rights to same-sex couples?
Historically, many polygamist relationships were rife with spousal abuse and marriage to under-age females…that’s probably what led to the laws against it.
I suppose though, that there are MANY women who would rather be the second wife of a rich man, than the first wife of a poor one!
As the evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker explains:
“”Banning polygamy is actually bad for women… (the ban) is an agreement among men of somewhat equal status to make sure that every man gets to have a wife. With polygamy some men could be denied a wife.”"
It’s that simple, really.
Perhaps it should be decriminalized at any rate. It’s the abuse that we should concern ourselves with, not the ploygamy itself…
November 23rd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
It was legal for quite a while….something about old testement comes to mind. Not sure why it stopped, but I have a feeling that it got too expensive.
LOL
Trees, my friend, it looks like you’ve kept yourself busy in my absense. I hope all is well with you. I brought my windmills.
November 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
So, in the name of decency, shouldn’t they both just quit and go to some island somewhere where we all can be safer?
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
“When have I ever said anyone had to believe in god?”
I didn’t say that. You omitted the integral part of the paragraph. “…constrain no one by force.” That particular section was the essence of the quote.
“I like how you assert that as a true statement”
I don’t assert, I maintain. How do I maintain that? One man and one man, one woman and one woman, they are seeking the right to be married. Not all four together, not two and one, one person to one person. And yes, we would still be having this discussion because what bothers you most is not that 3 people want to marry or that 6 people want to marry it’s the fact that a man wants to marry a man and a woman wants to marry a woman. It IS normal and we ARE having this discussion. It IS normal for the people involved. Who are you to say it isn’t normal? You’re bible? Here comes Mr. Religion again. He cannot decide for all what is normal and what isn’t. He is not law. He is a hypothesis. The law is the law. You do not have to agree with it, you don’t have to live it yourself, but you can’t impose your religion by inserting it into the law. And if you do that you essentially ARE saying everyone has to believe in god and believe in the bible because you must live by his law. You can’t have it both ways. Either you’re tolerant and allow your god to judge or you impose and in effect are saying we must agree.
I can agree to disagree.
“A country is considered the more civilized the more the wisdom and efficiency of its laws hinder a weak man from becoming too weak or a powerful one too powerful.”-Primo Levi
November 24th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Society says it isn’t normal, reality says it isn’t normal, the gays themselves say it isn’t normal, human biology says it isn’t normal.
Homosexuals call it an “alternative lifestyle”, acknowledging it isn’t normal, and they are rebellious.
The fact that you can’t understand why two brothers would want to marry says it isn’t normal. Two brothers wanting to marry are ridiculous and that makes my point.
A man and a man being unnaturally attracted.
There are examples of incest and marriage, and a man and a woman being naturally attracted form the root of this problem.
A man and a woman being naturally attracted.
The majority within the country understand it’s not normal, and they don’t agree with you. You attempt to force your views on a society that does not accept it, and demonize those who disagree as intolerant bigots. You feel society needs to be re educated, and that children need to be taught this new doctrine of understanding.
Tell me, is transgender normal? Is it normal to believe that someone was incorrectly born, and is it normal to perform surgery and undergo hormone therapy to facilitate this gender issue?
November 24th, 2008 at 11:39 am
You know Bill Clinton had an interesting philosophy.
“If you tell a lie often enough it will eventually become the truth”
I think the premise, “homosexuality is normal and natural and healthy” is fallacious.
But that’s just me.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I think you will find you are not quoting Bill Clinton but joseph Goebbels – understandable as he is one of your types’ heroes.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Homosexuality is not normal, if it were I would feel like doing it.
Transgender is not normal, if it were more people would be doing it and I might consider it, the thought I might have been born the wrong sex has never crossed my mind.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
If we had a referendum on integration in 1963, America would have voted that segregation was okay if the black population had equal access to all relative services and education.
Just because a majority of people believe in something, it doesn’t make it correct. A majority of people in 2004 voted for Bush…..see my point?
Okay, okay….
In American history, the judicial branch of government has had to protect the constitutional rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Look at Brown vs Board of Education…..was that the popular thing to do? or “the right thing to do”? The same goes for prop 8 in California….the court will end up maintaining the rights of the minority against the will of the majority because, that is what they are supposed to do. It is their constitutional responsibility to uphold the rights of the individuals.
Trees, I believe the term, “normal” has had a rather twisted journey over the years. In fact, it’s definition is even different from location to location, culture to culture, and person to person in today’s time. What is normal to one is variant to another.
Even to state, “A man and a woman being naturally attracted.” as you have, is only appropriate to you and your value system. To a person with different values and sexual orientation, it is variant.
Transgender isn’t “normal”, but neither is cancer. We address conditions and illnesses that have affected us in the pursuit of becoming “normal” again. For an alcoholic, something that is “normal” to you is completely a poison to them….like, peanut butter is poison to one who is allergic to it. “Normal” isn’t normal….LOL…sorry, that even cracked me up.
Anyway, although you might be right that…”The majority within the country understand it’s not normal, and they don’t agree with you.”, the issue of same sex marriage and equality for gays will not be settle by legislation or vote….it will, as with most difficult social issues in America, be settled through time worn education and the courts.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Anyway, Bush and Chaney should resign.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Dubya’s legacy will be with us for many years. History will not be kind to him, I’m afraid.
The only positive outcome of his 8 years is that it has put a stop to the possibility of the “conservative” movement getting a further stranglehold on the nation.
There are some “conservative” mindsets that will remain popular – such as de-centralized smaller federal gov’t, protectionism in trade and isolationism at the border etc…However by doing just the opposite of these things GW proved once and for all that the Republican party is REALLY about policies that benefit the wealthy elite, and this has proved a disaster for America.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
As far as same-sex couplings are concerned -
They exist all through nature, in the animal kingdom as well as Humans. That, I suppose, should prove that having a small percentage, say 1 in 20, whatever it is…IS natural.
Although, as Robert well explained, “normal” is a subjective term that really is a bit meaningless when thrown around as if it describes rules somehow “set in stone”…
For instance, I don’t think it’s “normal” from humans to worship a 3-headed divinity (trinity), to eat it’s flesh and drink its blood every 7 th day, to fear its wrath so much that one would throw his own child on a pyre…
What’s normal about Catholics for instance?
They worship a homeless guy and are led by a man in a castle? *
* thanks Bill Maher
November 24th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
“Please explain to me why polygamy should not be legal.”
If the polygamist can afford all his wives and children, I see no problem with it. Unfortunately, many polygamist marry their first wive legally and all subsequent wives in a religious ceremony (not recognized by the state).
That way, when the children come along, the “unwed” mothers of these children can collect welfare.
Pretty sad, but that’s what’s happening.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
San Francisco! Everytime I see that commercial for the US Marines on TV, I think about how the city wouldn’t let them take their picture on the bridge and it makes me sick. Nancy Pelosi! ARG! Every time I see her on TV, I just want to reach through the screen and choke the living dog do out of her. As far as the same sex marriage issue. Ha, let em get married, they have no idea what they are wishing for. The should get to experience marriage hell just like the rest of us.
November 24th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Hi frosty, yes there are many reasons why I’m protestant. But let’s not distract ourselves, ok?
They exist all through nature, in the animal kingdom as well as Humans.
I’m afraid I must disagree with you here on this, it’s a cute fallacy.
Animals do not form homosexual mating couples in nature. They may become excited when in the presence of a female in heat and start trying to fasten themselves on anything nearby and handy, or they may become frustrated if deprived of females and try and copulate with other creatures or even a sofa or stuffed animal. This idea that the animal kingdom validates human behavior is erroneous.
Trying to link aberrant human behavior with aberrant animal behavior and proclaiming it evidentiary truth ignores this fact. It is aberrant behavior.
I hope your doing well, trees
November 24th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Oops, let me repost so we don’t get confused. Frosty in bold.
Hi frosty, yes there are many reasons why I’m protestant. But let’s not distract ourselves, ok?
They exist all through nature, in the animal kingdom as well as Humans.
I’m afraid I must disagree with you here on this, it’s a cute fallacy.
Animals do not form homosexual mating couples in nature. They may become excited when in the presence of a female in heat and start trying to fasten themselves on anything nearby and handy, or they may become frustrated if deprived of females and try and copulate with other creatures or even a sofa or stuffed animal. This idea that the animal kingdom validates human behavior is erroneous.
Trying to link aberrant human behavior with aberrant animal behavior and proclaiming it evidentiary truth is ignores the fact. It is aberrant behavior.
I hope your doing well, trees
November 24th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Mort Kondracke blame Rush el Limbo for the lost of Mccain. But he forgot to mention The Shun Honesty.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Robert Blair says: Prop 8 takes away rights….rights that are gaurenteed under the California Constitution. When was the last time a constitution was rightfully amended to take rights away from a segment of the population?
Prop. 8 did not take away homosexual rights. The people of California voted twice to KEEP THE DEFINITION of marriage as “between 1 man and 1 woman”. Nothing was taken out of the constitution. The courts tried to take away the will of the people. THAT is against the constituion, both state and federal.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Trees-
Since you like definitions:
normal-occuring naturally
natural-being in accordance with or determined naturally.
ordinary-commonly practiced, used or observed
common-occuring or appearing frequently
It has been reported that at least 1500 species in nature display homosexuality.
There are many types of sexual beings in nature. The seahorse carries the eggs, hatches and cares for the young, the earthworm is both male and female.
In flowers both have male and female sex organs, sometimes are unisexual and in different plants, sometimes unisexual on the the same plant, some flowers can’t self-polnate-other times they pollinate themselves.
There are cases of hermaphrodites in the human species.
Are you saying any of these situations are not normal? They are.
Homosexual and heterosexual are artificial terms defined by human society. Homosexuality is dismissed as unnatural because it does not generate the continuation of the species. Whose to say sex needs to be about reproduction? Some people are content to not having sex at all. Is that normal?
The Church Council of Nablus in 1120 AD wrote the first law where homosexuality was labeled a “crime against nature”. This law found its way in many other countries during the Renaissance leading to widespread oppression of homosexuals on the basis that it is “unnatural”.
Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom. It is not against nature. It may not be the ordinary, it is certainly not unnatural.
I never demonized anyone and never called anyone an intolerant bigot. I’m not forcing anybody to agree with me either. I’m saying acceptance and allowing everybody the same civil liberties that I enjoy. Afterall it’s your doctrine that preaches tolerance, love, acceptance and judge not. You believe it all or believe none.
Whoever wants to be a christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.-Martin Luther
November 24th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Why does same sex marrage scare the religious right so bad? If my next door neighbors were two married men – how in the world does that affect my life? How does that hurt other man/woman marriages? I don’t see it. I personally have no desire to marry another man, but that doesn’t mean I need to go out of my way to concoct a proposition keeping some other man from marrying one.
I agree with the postings above that stated the importance of separating the legal definition of marriage from the religious one. Most of the same-sex marriage critics point to the bible as their only reason for being against it.
I think that saying that marriage is a religious institution is dangerous because if it is, then the government has no right to provide tax benefits to people based on a religious institution.
If ‘civil unions’ provided the exact same legal benefits as marriage, I would wager a bet that that might be acceptable to same-sex couples.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
LOL this is too f***ing funny!! WING NUTS TURN ANY CONVERSATION, INTO A CONVERSATION ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE!! Are bush and cheney going to get married like hitler and eva braun, then commit suicide?? a right wing love story for the 21st century BWAHHHAHAHHA
November 24th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Hey ALAN COLMES! looks like some of seans freinds followed you when you left FAUX news. I think theyll find its not like hannity land out here in the “reality based” world.
November 24th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
nor⋅mal
conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
nor⋅mal
conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
Yes, we are talking about humans, not plants or seahorses or insects.
Bingo
Earthworms are normal, for their kind, Seahorses are normal, for their kind. Plants are normal, for their kind.
They reproduce in the normal fashion for their kinds
Homosexuals are not normal, for their kind.
They cannot reproduce, and therefore are abnormal as illustrated by you’re examples.
I guess it all depends on what the definition of “is” is.
The worldview that you present leaves the human race hopelessly confused. Can I eat dirt? Plants do. Can I grow a tail? lizards do. Can I flap my arms and fly? Maybe if I do it long enough my bones will become hollow, skin will flay into feathers, and I’ll be able to fly. Your logic say this is reasonable thinking.
Show me one example in nature where two male Walruses fight each other for the affection of another male Walrus.
Ever seen two male Elk square off to establish another male Elk as a mate?
Why not?
I’m listening.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
How bout this,
Two bisexual guy’s and one bisexual woman want to get married and raise a family.
Is this normal?
Should it be legal?
Why not?
November 24th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
“Prop. 8 did not take away homosexual rights. The people of California voted twice to KEEP THE DEFINITION of marriage as “between 1 man and 1 woman”. Nothing was taken out of the constitution. The courts tried to take away the will of the people. THAT is against the constituion, both state and federal.
Posted by Sue
November 24th, 2008 at 4:14 pm”
Actually, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of Gay couples to marry under the rights protected under the California Constitution. The people who generated Prop 8 didn’t “amend” the constitution by using prop 8, the argument is strongly made that they tried to “rewrite” it…not the same. And Prop 8 takes away the rights re affirmed by the court….no equivication is made about that.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Good Evening, Trees, my friend…
LOL are we dancing around the word, “normal” now?
Wow…I wrote a tome about that earlier…you need to come in sooner LOL.
Good to see you here….keep stirring…
November 24th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
The mormons were chased out their original lurking place in missouri because they couldnt keep their cultic practices separate from the civil, secular society they were living in.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Hmmmm………I’m not dancing, I understand what normal means. I think there might be some hallucinogens being consumed; I heard an argument for the normalcy of homosexuality based on flower power, and an explanation that reality is elusive. We can’t really be sure which way is up following this enlightened thought, although I’m pretty certain if I jump off my roof it’s going to hurt, I dunno maybe I’m wrong.
I flap my arms a lot these days, I think it would be cool to be a bird, I’m also busy trying to grow a tail, I think tails are neat. How bout you? What have you been up too? I would think gills might come in handy for a pirate, you should give it some thought……….
November 24th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
“Homosexuals are not normal, for their kind.”
If your trying to form a pattern here, you’re a liitle off the mark. Seahorses(a genus of fish) are normal for their kind, worms (an invertabrate animal) are normal for their kind, plants (a living organism) are normal for their kind. They are all species of some form or another. Humans are bipedal primates. We are of the animal kingdom. We procreate using sexual intercourse, test-tubes, syringes and surrogates, all normal for their kind. Some humans cannot procreate at all, again, normal, for their kind.
Homosexuality is normal. It is not a species it is a type of behavior. It doesn’t have a “kind” to be normal to. It is practiced in almost every species of the animal kingdom.
There are plenty of researchers who have documented homosexuality and bisexuality in animals. It would do me no good here to show or explain, because you are not listening. You can’t hear what you don’t want to.
Humans have a tail when in the womb. A twelve yr. old boy from Indochina had a 9 in tail. We all have tail bones.
Geophagy is the practice of eating dirt or clay, some people here in south united states practice it.
People fly everyday, on airplanes, what is normal today was not normal in the 1700’s. Homosexuality has been around longer than that. Homosexuality has been documented all through history and every culture.
We learn new practices every day, we change how we do things every day. What was not normal yesterday is normal today. Again, my marriage would not have been normal 50 or more yrs. ago. Normal is a perception of what’s right for the individual.
You keep going back to the 3 people wanting to be married. I’m not concerned if a flock of people wanted to get married(why they would, I don’t know) I’m secure enough in my marriage that what other people do does not concern me and it has no effect on my life. My marriage will continue to be whether gay people marry or not. The only difference is my civil rights will be intact.
I wish you would just face the facts and admit that all this beating-around-the-bush with the “normal” and “unnatural” and the meaning of “is” is; you don’t want a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman because your book of fables says so.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Yep, alcoholism, normal for our kind, drug abuse, normal for our kind, murder, normal for our kind, rape, normal for our kind, incest, normal for our kind, adultery, normal for our kind, thievery, normal for our kind, deceit, normal for our kind, bestiality, normal for our kind, hatred, normal for our kind, bigamy, normal for our kind, eugenics, normal for our kind, abortion, normal for our kind, genocide, normal for our kind, barbarism, normal for our kind, warfare, normal for our kind, involuntary human experimentation, normal for our kind, sexual abuse, normal for our kind, pedophilia, normal for our kind, cannibalism, normal for our kind,…………………..……………….
And as long as the people involved are enjoying, or believe in the justification of what they’re doing you cannot disagree with this behavior, you yourself have denied such a basis.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists generally assert that objective morality does not exist, and that no action is logically preferable to any other in regard to the moral value of one action over another. Nihilists who argue that there is no objective morality may claim that existence has no intrinsic higher meaning or goal. They may also claim that there is no reasonable proof or argument for the existence of a higher ruler or creator, or posit that even if higher rulers or creators exist, humanity has no moral obligation to worship them.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
But Bush and Cheney aren’t finished destroying the middle class yet. They, no doubt, have a couple wall street friends that haven’t been able to reach into the bailout bucket for a few billion too.
http://billmel8er.wordpress.com
November 25th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Notice Faith, how Trees compares a loving relationship with hateful, physically damaging or predatory ones.
This is the tactic of a man who doesn’t understand Love. He thinks he does, and no doubt will post several times saying how he knows Ultimate Love and the other talking points of Christianity, meanwhile showing that he has nothing but contempt and hate for people of the same sex that want nothing but to be in a loving relationship.
Follow the Golden Rule, Do unto others. You want the right for straight people to marry? Allow the gay people to marry. Can’t apply that to negative aspects of life. Can’t say “Hey, I like being raped so I’ll rape this woman!” The very definition of rape excludes that possibility.
This is the truth that people as fundamental as Trees will never understand Faith, that tolerance and liberty are ideals entrenched in love for our fellow man, and efforts at denying those liberties are simple examples of hate and fear.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Behavior is learned, no one is born homosexual.
If we apply Faith’s definition;
Alcoholism, normal for our kind, drug abuse, normal for our kind, murder, normal for our kind, rape, normal for our kind, incest, normal for our kind, adultery, normal for our kind, thievery, normal for our kind, deceit, normal for our kind, bestiality, normal for our kind, hatred, normal for our kind, bigamy, normal for our kind, eugenics, normal for our kind, abortion, normal for our kind, genocide, normal for our kind, barbarism, normal for our kind, warfare, normal for our kind, involuntary human experimentation, normal for our kind, sexual abuse, normal for our kind, pedophilia, normal for our kind, cannibalism, normal for our kind,…………………..……………….
All of the above are behaviors also;
And as long as the people involved are enjoying, or believe in the justification of what they’re doing you cannot disagree with this behavior, Faith, you yourself have denied such a basis.
Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists generally assert that objective morality does not exist, and that no action is logically preferable to any other in regard to the moral value of one action over another. Nihilists who argue that there is no objective morality may claim that existence has no intrinsic higher meaning or goal. They may also claim that there is no reasonable proof or argument for the existence of a higher ruler or creator, or posit that even if higher rulers or creators exist, humanity has no moral obligation to worship them.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Jim has appointed himself my judge determining that anyone who does not agree with his moral compass is hateful.
They cite examples of the animal kingdom as evidence of homosexual normalcy.
Show me one example in nature where two male Walruses fight each other for the affection of another male Walrus.
Ever seen two male Elk square off to establish another male Elk as a mate?
No one is allowed to have a different opinion.
If you disagree you are labeled as hate filled and afraid.
I am a Christian, and adhere to the word of God.
IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [b]Himself.(A)
He was present originally with God.
All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.
In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men.
And the Light shines on in the darkness, for the darkness has never overpowered it [put it out or absorbed it or appropriated it, and is unreceptive to it].
God Himself said he would be hated;
If the world hates you, know that it hated Me before it hated you.
If you belonged to the world, the world would treat you with affection and would love you as its own. But because you are not of the world [no longer one with it], but I have chosen (selected) you out of the world, the world hates (detests) you.
Remember that I told you, A servant is not greater than his master [is not superior to him]. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word and obeyed My teachings, they will also keep and obey yours.
But they will do all this to you [inflict all this suffering on you] because of [your bearing] My name and on My account, for they do not know or understand the One Who sent Me.
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin [would be blameless]; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
Whoever hates Me also hates My Father.
If I had not done (accomplished) among them the works which no one else ever did, they would not be guilty of sin. But [the fact is] now they have both seen [these works] and have hated both Me and My Father.
But [this is so] that the word written in their Law might be fulfilled, They hated Me without a cause.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:19 am
They deny God and ridicule my belief in God and His word.
I wish you would just face the facts and admit that all this beating-around-the-bush with the “normal” and “unnatural” and the meaning of “is” is; you don’t want a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman because your book of fables says so.
2 Peter 2
BUT ALSO [in those days] there arose false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among yourselves, who will subtly and stealthily introduce heretical doctrines (destructive heresies), even denying and disowning the Master Who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
And many will follow their immoral ways and lascivious doings; because of them the true Way will be maligned and defamed.
And in their covetousness (lust, greed) they will exploit you with false (cunning) arguments. From of old the sentence [of condemnation] for them has not been idle; their destruction (eternal misery) has not been asleep.
For God did not [even] spare angels that sinned, but cast them into hell, delivering them to be kept there in pits of gloom till the judgment and their doom.
And He spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven other persons, when He brought a flood upon the world of ungodly [people].(A)
And He condemned to ruin and extinction the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, reducing them to ashes [and thus] set them forth as an example to those who would be ungodly;(B)
And He rescued righteous Lot, greatly worn out and distressed by the wanton ways of the ungodly and lawless–(C)
November 25th, 2008 at 4:28 am
Tell me, is transgender normal? Is it normal to believe that someone was incorrectly born, and is it normal to perform surgery and undergo hormone therapy to facilitate this gender issue?
We should begin teaching our children that some people are born the wrong sex, but not to worry, because it’s normal behavior to have a sex change operation.
We can become a brave new world of transgender “kinds”, and according to Faith, this is normal.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:38 am
Anyone who disagrees and voices a dissenting opinion is ridiculed, insulted, or called hateful.
Anyone who believes in the Christian God is belittled.
If you will not celebrate their counterfeit reality, you are branded a hater.
And they call themselves tolerant.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:49 am
I wish you would just face the facts and admit that all this beating-around-the-bush with the “normal” and “unnatural” and the meaning of “is” is; you don’t want a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman because your book of fables says so.
I have often heard people express the sentiment, ”I’m glad you found something that works for ya” when discussing my life experiences and beliefs. I think what is often overlooked is the understanding that “faith” is useless unless there is a spiritual conviction. If I’m under conviction, and really believe in the sacrifice God provided for me, then I cannot knowingly approve of behavior that He disapproves of.
If I believe completely in God and trust in His word then I cannot knowingly condone behavior that runs contrary to His will. Anyone who does is compromising God, and violating His first commandment.
I do not hate homosexuals. I thought Thursday’s radio show guest was fascinating.
Posted by trees are people too!
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 am
That was earlier in this same thread, I guess you somehow missed it.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:00 am
alan,where are you going to be on fox,since i just heard last night you are leaving the show?
November 25th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Bravo to the excellent arguments! Trees is out numbered and he does have my empathy. It did occur to me that him and his crew would feel much more comfortable in a place where tolerance and civil liberties were oppressed. A few countries, and caves come to mind.
“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart” Mencken, H.L.
November 25th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Sure he’s outnumbered, people actually think here.
Homosexuality is normally occurring in nature, and while it can be a ‘learned’ behavior, most people that are homosexual are that way from birth. Look at kids really carefully everywhere you go. You’ll see the one, the 5 year old boy who likes pink and his mothers pumps, who’d rather play with barbies than GI Joe, they didn’t ‘learn’ that, they don’t make much of a choice later in life (except whether to suppress their natural urges or not)
He seems to think we’re belittling the faithful, though several people of faith are in here and do not have that issue. I think it’s ignorant to use scare tactics and judge other people when the book you follow says not to, but that’s as close to belittling as they get.
Excellent quote by the way.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:58 am
I do have an unanswerable question I give to friends of mine that have similar religious views. If you were a god would you have gays/lesbians in your universe? You can see the conflict. I just sit back and smile.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Heh, if I were a God.
I play Black and White every once in a while, but this is one you might enjoy for a joke:
http://www.jraxis.com/atheism/simulator/
November 25th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I have an unanswerable question,Name One institution of mankind that is not corruptible.Government,Religion,Business,Education,name one.Without these institutions we would live Anarchy,paranoia and civil unrest.It’s a thin line between skeptical and cynical thinking,so I’m very careful who or what I have faith in.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Well twice now I’ve tried to post my answer and it’s not coming up so I give up.
He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave.-Andrew Carnegiie
November 25th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Trees, who insinuated I was abusive, who accused me of attacking Christianity (though I did no such thing and warned him not to press an issue), who claims not to hate homosexuals but want’s to deny them basic human rights – and says they’re not natural, who quoted the story of Lot as a righteous man (who offered his daughters as sex toys and who’s wife was turned into an enormous saltlick because she dared be curious – take that woman trying to learn!), and basically the same arguments all religions use to promote themselves while hypocritically denying human nature and logical thought.
I would not attack any faith directly, but when you use it to attack other people I WILL point out the flaws.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
who accused me of attacking Christianity (though I did no such thing and warned him not to press an issue)
Because if I dare post Christian views?
and warned him not to press an issue,
Yes Trees, Christianity destroys all other cultures and replaces it with their own. They’re still doing it all over the place. Missionaries going to third world countries all over the world and handing out Bibles, and telling people what they believe is wrong and the proper way to have sex and mate.Christians are an aggressive danger to any society or theology that is not their own.
and says they’re not natural
It’s un-natural behavior.
who’s wife was turned into an enormous saltlick because she dared be curious
No, because she fondly looked back on her sin, and desired to remain in Sodom
while hypocritically denying human nature and logical thought.
Are you serious? I’ve never denied human nature and claimed myself good.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
The only people I hear saying that homosexuality is a learned behavior are from people who are NOT (or claim not to be) homosexual. All the homosexuals that I’ve known have claimed to have been that way from birth. But the critics say that God would not make them homosexual so they refuse to believe that.
Now…being that there are so many gays in the world, surely if it were truly a behavior choice, we would be hearing testimony after testimony from people who say “Yeah, I am really attracted to women, but i choose to sleep with men.”
But we don’t hear that. I never have. That’s proof enough for me that its not a choice.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
who accused me of attacking Christianity
That’s not an attack?
Yes Trees, Christianity destroys all other cultures
November 25th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I guess you haven’t listened to James Hartline, Alan’s guest from last Thursdays radio show?
The only people I hear saying that homosexuality is a learned behavior are from people who are NOT (or claim not to be) homosexual.
But we wouldn’t want to hear the truth, it might make too much sense.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Maybe have a look here?
http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-harren.html
November 25th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I didn’t hear him. What did he say? Is he gay and says he is naturally attracted to women?
November 25th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I’ll check that when I get home from work. Thanks Trees! Can’t get to it here at work. Stupid filters.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hi, hope for change. I hope you are having an enjoyable day.
Yes, he is gay. He was molested repeatedly as a six year old boy.
Molestation and abuse are the two most obvious factors that contribute to homosexual orientation.
Anyone who attempts to identify this runs up against the homosexual agenda.
It’s the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Do you mean these destroyers Jim?
http://www.abaana.org/
http://www.mercyships.ca/
http://www.worldvision.org/
http://www.yourgrandmotherscupboard.org/
http://www.bread.org/
http://www.tearfund.org/
I could have kept listing, but what’s the point?
November 25th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Homosexuals are created,(by being exposed to sexual abuse), not born.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
The problem gay marriage causes is it makes homosexuality mainstream.
A lot of it’s advocates see it as having a nice side effect.
Birth control.
The thinking is that if two people love each other where’s the harm?
The harm is that defenseless children are being preyed upon.
Who wants their children to be molested by any adult?
Anyone who points these things out is accused of hating gays.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
One would recall that Trees has posted my response to him asking if Christianity destroyed other cultures. It has, that’s not an attack, it’s a simple fact.
Nobody wants their children molested. Perhaps instead of spending so much energy and hate persecuting the homosexuals, you could concentrate on the people who molest children. Start with the Catholic Priests now in hiding with the complacency of the archdiocese.
I would vote for laws requiring chemical castration of molesters, and stricter punishments for the same.
The children are not harmed by people who are in a loving relationship with each other, the children are harmed by those who are so repressed and coerced by religious principles to think their urges are wrong, so they act out those urges on people who too often do not have a voice. If anything, this type of persecution will lead to MORE child abuse.
I’ve never met a gay man or woman who had ever even come under suspicion of being a threat to a minor. That’s a ridiculous claim designed to elicit an angry emotional reaction.
Regardless, the cause is moot, these people already ARE, whether the 5% of the gay community was gay because they were molested or not is irrelevant, they are gay, and they desire a life. As you said, they were molested, is there any reason to punish them more?
Apparently you think so.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Now you have gone a little too far. Associating homosexuality with pedophilia.
From that statement alone I now realize I’m talking with reason to the wrong person. Your mind is so full with propaganda I don’t think you even realize what you’re saying. That was a hateful statement you just said and is positive proof you have no idea who gay people are. How you can make a statement like that and not expect people to think you hate gays is naive.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture.” Statement on Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, 1994-JUL.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
The APA is a bit more credible than NARTH methinks.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
You say you have the conviction of your god to not agree with homosexuality and with what god doesn’t condone. Do you still have that same conviction with things he does? Like murder, rape, incest, pedophilia, genocide, warfare? They are all in your bible and your god as either initiated it or condoned it? Doesn’t sound like much of a loving god to me.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
http://www.webmd.com/news/20000329/pointing-finger-androgen-cause-homosexuality
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/
http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/children/teens/sexuality/739.html
Etc. Links from reputable sources tend to help more people.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
It’s common sense really:
Why would someone make a life choice that exposes them to ridicule, hate, persecution, physical violence, and potential ostracizing from the society in which they live?
10% of the world’s population is gay. That’s EVERYWHERE -not just San Fransisco- India, Africa, Europe, Asia, Americas, etc. It’s not uncommon. 1 out of 10 people.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I think people like Ted Haggard and Mark Foley pull out this “I was abused as a child”, as an excuse to their actions.
I doubt that you can blame molestation and abuse as the two most obvious causes of homosexuality. Maybe they are the two most obvious excuses when “the moral high and mighty” get caught.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I agree Hope. It’s a convenient excuse to use when they are too ashamed of doing something that came naturally to them.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
“Homosexuals are created,(by being exposed to sexual abuse), not born” Trees are people too. Game over!! And there folks you have the religious rite. They really are their worst enemy. Your god created a child so that child could get sexually abused and turn gay, then after all that you deny his/her a chance of happiness. Good system
November 25th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Like murder, rape, incest, pedophilia, genocide, warfare? They are all in your bible and your god as either initiated it or condoned it?
Please cite examples, specifically.
You listed, murder, rape, incest, and pedophilia, as first, so address these first please. Is your assertion that God is the source of evil?
Be contextual, don’t isolate the verses. Interpret the bible, and present your case.
I’m still waiting for your explanation concerning 1 Corinthians 10.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Corinthians 10, themes;
Baptism of the spirit.
Consumption of the bread of life, a type and shadow of Christ as presented in the OT as Manna, or “what is this”?
Drinking of the water of life in the desert of despair, type and shadow of the communion cup at the last supper. Jesus is the Rock of salvation.
Admonition against disobedience and immorality
Warning of the temptation of sin, identification of sin as our problem, we know what it is but we do it anyway
Assurance that if we knowingly sin that we do not belong to God.
Assurance that we can eat with the unsaved, whatever they are eating, as long as it has not been offered to a false God, thereby allowing for the knowledge of God to shared.
Let His light shine.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Faith, if you are so respectful why do you insist on not capitalizing God, when using it in a conversation with a Christian?
And what was you’re point in posting Corinthians 10, in a discussion about homosexuality? That God approves of homosexual behavior? A little bizarre, hmmmm?
November 25th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Dammit Jim i played the simulator and lost… i picked heaven 1st, that is losing right lol
November 25th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
From that statement alone I now realize I’m talking with reason to the wrong person. Your mind is so full with propaganda I don’t think you even realize what you’re saying. That was a hateful statement you just said and is positive proof you have no idea who gay people are. How you can make a statement like that and not expect people to think you hate gays is naive.
Do you think I made that up? The relationship between sexual abuse of kids and sexual identity problems later in life? Anyone who dares think that this correlation is real is full of hatred?
Who appointed you custodian of reason?
November 25th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
That was a hateful statement you just said and is positive proof you have no idea who gay people are.
Because I disagree with their “behavior” being legitimized?
Have I said they can’t be together?
We’re talking about the tradition of marriage, at least I was, you seem to want to find persecution where none exists.
Oh, that’s right, You’re definition of tradition is ambiguous.
Do you really think all forms of sexual activity are valid and permissible?
Who are you to judge bestiality? We’re all animals and whatever we do is normal according to you.
Better not speak against bestiality, that would be hateful according to you.
Animals love their hosts and as long as both are participating voluntarily then it’s anything goes……
A woman and her Great Dane, what a lovely couple. If her and the dog are enjoying themselves, according to their “kinds”, I expect you to be permissive.
Lets not pass judgment……….
November 25th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Homosexuality is a mental disorder.
Mental Illnesses and disorders affect millions of people. According to NAMI at this moment 1 out of every 5 people have a diagnosable mental disorder.
In a life time half of everyone will have a diagnosable mental disorder.
There are physical conditions, mental abuse, and genetic disorders that can cause mental disorders. People with mental disorders are frequently unaware of their condition.
Some of them feel compelled to find others like themselves, this causes them to feel normal and accepted.
Feeling accepted empowers their disorder, gives it even more strength to control their minds. It tells them nothing is wrong with them, in essence is rewarding bad thinking and bad habits.
People who abuse themselves via bad thinking and bad habits frequently abuse others and some of them are dangerous to themselves and others.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
In order to understand how these things are connected to sexual behaviors you must understand what a human being is, how they are made and what makes them work.
A human is made up of three basic elements consisting of body, mind and spirit. If any part of this system becomes unbalanced it creates complications with the whole person.
Mental illnesses and disorders are serious business.
There are places where you can get help, and help others.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Why Homosexuality was Recatagorized as just a different life style.
Dogs are not homosexual, they are dogs, they communicate differently with each other than humans.
Arguments arose among the professional community, some of them argued that if animals are homosexual then it’s all right for people to be homosexual.
Therefore it was a natural behavior for some people to be homosexual.
These concluded that homosexual behavior was not a mental disorder.
Other professionals ran their own tests and came to the conclusion that homosexuality was a mental disorder that leads to quite a few other types of mental and physical illnesses.
These studies indicated that homosexual people suffer from confusion (they don’t know who they are) depression, anxiety, bi-polar (super highs and lows, mood swings happy to angry).
They suffer from a very high rate of suicidal tendencies.
Their moral standards of what is right and wrong range from the questionable to the highly perverted and illegal. Because of their sexual practices the homosexual community suffers from a very high degree of physical illnesses some causing death.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
A high number of homosexuals suffer from never being able to satisfy their hunger and seek to feed that hunger in very dangerous practices that I won’t go into here.
I feel it’s not necessary to say that mentally balanced people do not do these things. Another thing that I should mention at this point is that some of these professionals are now afraid to voice their findings in public for fear of lawsuit from homosexuals who choose not to call homosexuality what it really is.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
If you have any understanding of how the human mind works and what is balanced and healthy in human behavior then you will also recognize people who behave in certain ways that are not balanced or healthy. There are quite a few different types of mental illnesses; quite a lot of them include sexual perversions.
Some mental disorders are caused by traumatic events or physical ailments that are understood, at least to some degree.
Some mental illnesses appear so similar to others it is difficult to know the difference.
Mental illnesses and disorders frequently include altered perceptions of reality. Homosexuality is a mental disorder.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Understanding human behavior is important. People don’t like to be considered “crazy” so they find other things to call it. The more they can described what’s wrong with them in deceptive other terms the less they feel the need to correct what’s wrong with them. So if they are “gay” then it doesn’t sound as bad.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Mentally ill people do not normally seek help on their own usually because they do not realize they are sick, someone else must report them and have them evaluated, usually against their will before they can get help.
The group I’m doing the video job for says that one out of every five people have some form of mental illness.
Everyone knows several people who has some form of mental illness.
Learn their behaviors and the things they frequently do that others do who are diagnosed as being mentally ill.
Find out if you are one of the people who has a mental disorder.
Don’t be shocked if you find out that you or others very close to you have some form of mental disorder, it is extremely common.
The majority of these people live fairly normal lives.
Some need to get some help along the way. The more we understand mental disorders the more people can be helped to live a better life.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“a woman and her Great Dane…”
YOU SIR, HAVE NOW STEPPED BEYOND THE BOUNDRIES!!!!!!!!!!
People like you are the reason I am an atheist. You hide behind your scriptures and praise the almaighty and preach your drivel and hide in the closet and pray to god at night hoping he’ll save you. You will never be saved, if you are the example of what a christian is and the god you call loving I want and need no part of it. You are arrogant and full of contempt and I want no part of you anymore, you can continue to submit your lies and deceit. I have no need to explain anything to you as you are incapable of understanding, too ignorant to know what truth is and dishonest in your application. Everyone on here sees you for who you are.
To everyone else, forgive me for the outburst but I cannot allow him to slander me when he has no idea of who I am. I never once uttered any disrespectful statements to him or about him and I deserve the same in return. Again, forgive me.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
“”Mental illnesses and disorders frequently include altered perceptions of reality. Homosexuality is a mental disorder.”"”
And clergymen wonder why no-one wants to got to church anymore. With this trite and inaccurate statement, you have managed to insult 800,000,000 of “god’s” creatures who are homosexual, AND belittle those that DO suffer from mental illness at the same time.
The most common “mental disorder” I know of in America today is the “God Delusion”.
Fortunatley church-going numbers are rapidly declining. Estimated at 20% in 1998 (In 1998 C. Kirk Hadaway and P.L. Marler in the Christian Century)
(When adjusted for over-reporting)
By mid-century it will be less than half that. And these mostly in fundamentalist sects that actually believe in a literal translation of the bible. Although it’s hard to fathom how anyone could find inspiration with ALL the text, since much of it as written shows a very hostile angry and unforgiven god.
The next step for anti-theists is to continue to make sure that the children of ALL fundamentalist religious sects in America, not just “christian ones” are provided a well rounded education and are not indoctrinated in false science and, frankly, mythology.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Bestiality is a mental disorder; do you deny that it exists?
If I give an example, I am demonized because you drew an inference?
I have been giving many, many examples, of different scenarios, but you choose one out of the bunch and apply it to yourself?
We are not allowed to identify wrong behavior?
Anyone who disagrees with you becomes your target, and so because you target you, expect to be targeted?
It would seem so………………..
November 25th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I thought you were an atheist because you don’t believe in God.
You don’t believe in God because people aren’t perfect, is that it?
November 25th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
At one time two men getting married was considered stepping beyond the boundries…………..
November 25th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I guess I should infer by that, that I’m homosexual? I’m hiding in the closet?
November 25th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Because I don’t believe in the “everything goes” philosophy?
November 25th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I think this is the fundamental problem, you think a Christian is supposed to be God, that is, you think they are supposed to be perfect and without error. And because we are not God, and there is fault within us, you think God doesn’t exist. This is circular reasoning.
I notice you deliberately use lower case letters when mentioning anything Godly, and like to name call and belittle anyone who doesn’t believe what you do, and then carefully look for something you can draw an inference from. I’ve been using a wide scenario of different abnormal sexual relationships this entire time, it looks like you were just waiting to find one that suited your purpose.
According to you’re worldview there is no mental illness, everything is normal, unless of course someone actually believes in God. Then they are quite mentally ill………
November 25th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
You will never be saved
Not by you and your atheism, that’s for sure.
You will never be saved
Nice of you to elevate yourself to judge, how convenient, and how interesting.
I find it curious that those who don’t believe in God, adopt a Godly worldview and don’t realize it.
November 25th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Trees continues his posting of falsehoods!
Homosexuality is NOT a mental illness, this is confirmed by the American Psychological Association.
Is your assertion that God is the source of evil?
Of course he is! He created EVERYTHING right? Nothing could exist without him, but of course since a perfect God would have no desire to create, the whole thing falls apart. He created the Morning Star. He allowed Lucifer to corrupt mankind, etc.
Trees shouldn’t give any more lectures on understanding human behavior when he doesn’t understand it in the slightest, to the point of ignoring the APA, the people who’s entire lives are dedicated to understanding human behavior.
Trees has used religion to attempt to belittle many minority groups, to accuse people of being subhuman, to promote hate, and has inferred people on this very blog are acting in an inappropriate manner.
Trees conveniently forgets the parts of Christianity which don’t allow him to be a small minded bigot:
Matthew 6:5-6
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
In other words, quit preaching.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Luke 24:47 “With my authority take this message of repentence to all nations”
Jersey please tell you there is a difference between praying and preaching.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Not much, one is just a vocal one to let people know you’re better than they are and if they don’t listen to you they’ll go to hell.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I find it curious that those who don’t believe in my God, adopt my Godly worldview and don’t realize it. Conceited much? I didn’t put quotes around it since I did modify it for ya fundie. But I did leave god capitalized for ya seein how it iritates you. Your welcome.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:33 am
By the way BADMRFROSTY… The God Delusion is a very good read, highly recommend.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:49 am
This is for my sanity.
While I did become upset, because, Trees said, “A woman and her Great Dane, what a lovely couple. If her and the dog are enjoying themselves…” I have mentioned on these blogs elsewhere that I have a great dane, yes, I took it personally, while Trees may or may not have known this, it seemed suspicious to me. And as he had offended Jim a few days ago and Jim said f*** y**, he was quick to apologize. I, on the other hand, had continued to be berated.
I needed to sit a access the situation for a while. I have looked over the correspondence for the last few days and while Trees seems to be mostly aggravated by my posts I can only guess that either Trees is not fond of a woman with a strong point of view or that the view itself is making too much sense to him and he’s become aggitated. I’m guessing the latter.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Trees has asked me to interpret 1 Corinthians 10. I have explained before but I will again. Trees, on the other hand has explained it twice. Once stating it was an explanation of the Jewish diet, the other, which is stated above has several different explanations.
As well, as I had explained before, I did not bring up verse 23 as an explanation to homosexuality, it was brought up as I was discussing morality in general.
v. 6/7 Don’t be lustful or idolators.
8. don’t be fornicators, some did and 23,000 people died
9. don’t tempt christ, some did and were destroyed by serpants.
10. don’t complain, some did and were destroyed.
11. these are written as a warning to those living in the end of days.
12. If you think you are righteous, be careful not to fall
13. don’t give glory too much glory to yourself but keep it within the boundries he’s given you.
14. Stay away from idolotry
15. speaking to the intelligent, judge yourself what I say
16. sharing the communion, is the cup not the blood of christ, the bread not the body
17. being we are all the children of the same god, we practice in the same faith
18. watch Israel in the flesh, they partake of the earth and of the lord
19. what is he saying? that the sacrafices to the idol or the idol itself is of any importance?
20. what is brought forth to demons, is not to god, so don’t associate with demons
21. you cannot be saved and be sinners-you cannot live by the word and defy it.
22. are you trying to make the lord jealous -is our will stronger than him.
The prvious verses are referring to sin, 18/19 dealing with idols and sacrifices.
23. Everything is permissable but not ethically advantagous, everything is permissable but not all improve religious knowledge.
Again, I explained this before, I was using v. 23 as a compass of morality in general. Everything is acceptable but it does not all glorify god or further ethical or religious behavior. So, everything being lawful-this contradicts any laws previously agreed upon-it’s leaving it up to you whether you want to exemplify god or not.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:49 am
I lost my posts
November 26th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Faith as a fellow dog lover, Marmaduke is tops! He cracks me up. Faith don’t be discouraged it’s what He does, He visits the other side and stirs the pot. Ever wonder what it would be like to go in a church and start arguments with the congregation? It’s similar to what this fundie is doing. Mean spirited? My opinion would be yes. A virus does the same thing finds a host and infects. Hmmmmm a Hitchens reference. good for me.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Craig- thanks, I’m only mad at myself. I knew what he was trying to do and let myself get suckered. What I couldn’t do was cower and let him think he got the best of me.
Yes, Marmaduke is great, but I’ve always been partial to Scooby dooby doo!
November 26th, 2008 at 8:16 am
As for the murder, rape, incest, and pedophilia:
As I have been up most of the night with my son being sick, I’m tired and am not writing all the verses, just the book and verse no. You can look it up for yourself and read for yourself. The verses I found are not by far the only ones, just the ones I care to give. And some can be interchangeable as some have murder and rape, or rape and pedophilia. You pick.
Joshua 10:19-20;28-32
2 Samuel 6:1-9
Ezekeiel 9:1-11
Numbers 31:17-18
Deutoronomy 20:10-14; 22:28-29
As far as incest goes, if god created Adam and Eve and they begat Cain and Able, you explain to me where their wives and children came from.
“Is your assertion that god is the source of evil?”
By the contents of these verses, I would conclude, yes.
1 Samuel 16:14 But the spirit of the lord departed Saul and an evil spirit from the lord troubled him.
1 Kings 22:23 Now, therfore, behold, the lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these they prophets and the lord hath spoken evil concerning me.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and the darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these.
Exodus 4:24 And it came to pass by the way of the inn, that the lord met him and sought to kill him.
Satan has no power of independant action, he requires the permission of god which he may not transgress. Therefore, he cannot be regarded as an opponent of god.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Faith, don’t mind Trees. He’s not a homosexual, and he’s not into doing it with animals, he just brings up these topics with abnormal frequency because he’s a Christian jihadist who’s queer for his own spiritual masturbation (sorry Trees, just how I see it).
Obviously, he serves it with a little religious S&M, to boot, judging from his prior posts on this topic (and on other topics, come to think of it), where he uses religion to lie, make up false “facts,” and basically denigrate whole groups of people to make himself feel better and more “holy.” To the point he probably needs a cigarette afterwards.
I suspect we’re ALL learning that Trees doesn’t preach for OUR benefit, Trees preaches for TREES’ benefit. He’d just as soon we’d all go to hell, so he can feel lovely and delightful, strumming his harp in priveleged solitude behind pearly gates, teachng Jesus the TRUE meaning of what Jesus said.
I mean, why else would he give the Christian religion such a black eye by repelling so many of us from it? He’s not using religion to save our souls. He’s using it to hose us down, smite us, he’s using it as a weapon.
I imagine God probably knows the true difference and motivation in Trees’ heart, and will take care of it Himself when the time comes.
In my opinion, people like Trees are probably basically good. They just need to take a vacation from an organized religion which sows fear and hatred in the hearts of their flocks, so as to benefit the organization. There’s a point where people take their religion to unhealthy extremes, clergy and parishioners included.
After reading the posts on homosexuality, it’s clear he’s passed that point.
But I can sympathize. About 8 years ago, I passed the point of hoping I’d ever be able to retain an ounce of charm or diplomacy again. Fortunately, I keep it under wraps, so it’s barely noticeable. Uh…right….
November 26th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Yeah, I let him get to me as well. I should have never let myself be trolled so easily. You aren’t alone in your disgust Faith.
He’s a disgusting person. It happens.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:08 am
P.S.– Scooby-doo was great, until that Scrappy-Doo “puppy power” bullsh**. What was that all about?
November 26th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Thanks to both Sarah and Jim (and by the way Jim I’m a NJ native) I feel comforted.
I don’t know what the puppy power bs was, hated it all the same. Just give me Scooby (and Shaggy) far out man!
November 26th, 2008 at 9:15 am
when I was a teenager I used to smoke a lot of pot. One of my favorite pasttimes was getting a group of stoned people, watching Scooby-Doo with the sound muted, and supplying our own script in real time. Laughs were had. tears were shed.
Like Zoikes Skewb! This is a farkin HEEYOOJ sammich!
Mmmm SaMRich! Rat’s Rood fRood Shraggy! Ahh Hee Hee Hee Hee.
I just woke up.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:24 am
As far as rape, incet, pedophilia, and murder goes I’m just listing the book and verse no. as I have been up all night with my son, he’s been sick. You can look them up yourself. I’ve only listed a few, as there are plenty more and they are all interchangeable.
Joshua 10:19-20; 28-30- 2 Samuel 6:1-9- Ezekiel 9:1-11- Numbers 31:17-18- Deutoronomy 20:10-14; 22:28-29
And as far as incest goes, if god created Adam and Eve as the only humans and they begat Cain and Able, you explain where their wives and children came from.
“Is your assertion that god is the source of evil?”
By the content of these verses, I conclude, yes.
Iaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things.
Also- 1 Samuel 16:14; 1 Kings 22:23; Exodus 4:24
Satan has no power of independant action, he requires the permission of god which he may not transgress. Therefore he cannot be an opponent of god.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Ah, that was funny. I bet it would have been even funnier sitting there watching you guys. I’ve been up all night. My sons been throwing up all night now I have sheets to wash. Thanks for the kind words. I’m gonna close for now. I won’t be back on here till after the weekend. My birthday is Turkey day and my daughter and her girlfriend are taking me gambling up in the mouuntains. Happy Thanksgiving to all!
November 26th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Have a good one Faith.
My boy just got over an ear infection.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Good luck in them thar hills, Faith! Hope your kiddo feels better soon, and that you have a good birthday/Thanksgiving. See you Monday.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:01 am
While I will admit Scooby Doo is funny, hes a hollywood star now I heard hes been seen with Clooney and Pitt discussing scripts. It was Marmaduke that turned down that tv cartoon stating it would take away from what really matters, making the postman nervous on approaching the house, and girl scout cookie day. HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!
November 26th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Nope, context is important. It’s saying that, if you are a “part of the body of Christ”, you have been redeemed, when before, you were under condemnation of the law. Christ’s sacrifice fulfills the requirement of the law that sin be punished by the taking of life, the shedding of blood. The passage does not apply to everybody only those believers who worship Christ and drink from His cup and not everyone who appears to drink from this cup are His followers. Forgot about Judas did we? Judas drank from the cup and was not saved but condemned, God knew that Judas would betray Him, and He allowed it as this was the plan since before creation. Does this mean God made Judas do it? Nope only that Judas would do it. God knew who Judas would be and allowed for it. God is not constrained by time. You have trouble understanding this because you can’t wrap your head around the concept of eternity. You think you can, but the fact you don’t believe it possible to be omniscient, disproves you. A finite mind cannot grasp and understand the infinite mind.
Did God make Judas do it? Nope, Judas did as he desired, he loved money and himself, and rejected God. Judas drank from the demons cup.
God will allow you to choose, but His judgment is severe for those who reject Him. God will not allow unrepentant sinners a place at His table; Judas left the table and the presence of God during the last supper, after Christ told Judas to go and swiftly do what it is that you desire to do.
27Then after [he had taken] the bit of food, Satan entered into and took possession of [Judas]. Jesus said to him, What you are going to do, do [e]more swiftly than you seem to intend and [f]make quick work of it.
28But nobody reclining at the table knew why He spoke to him or what He meant by telling him this.
29Some thought that, since Judas had the money box (the purse), Jesus was telling him, Buy what we need for the Festival, or that he should give something to the poor.
30So after receiving the bit of bread, he went out immediately. And it was night.
If you reject God, God will reject you.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
1AGAIN DAVID gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, 30,000.
2And [he] arose and went with all the people who were with him to Baale-judah [Kiriath-jearim] to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the Lord of hosts, Who sits enthroned above the cherubim.
3And they set the ark of God upon a new cart and brought it [a]out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill; and Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, drove the new cart.
4And they brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill, with the ark of God; and Ahio went before the ark.
5And David and all the house of Israel played before the Lord with all their might, with songs, lyres, harps, tambourines, castanets, and cymbals.
6And when they came to Nacon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled and shook it.
7And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for touching the ark, and he died there by the ark of God.
8David was grieved and offended because the Lord had broken forth upon Uzzah, and that place is called Perez-uzzah [the breaking forth upon Uzzah] to this day.
9David was afraid of the Lord that day and said, How can the ark of the Lord come to me?
God has commanded us not to sin, as sinful disobedience results in death. God will not allow sin in His presence.
Contents of the Ark of the Covenant;
The staff of Aaron, a previously dead stick that miraculously budded and produced almonds. A type of tree of life. An archetype of the resurrection
The unspoiled cup of manna, the bread of life.
The stone tablets of the Ten Commandments, the law. The representation of God’s holy character. A type of mirror, it shows us who we are when we peer into it. It shows us also who God is. It reflects His righteousness, His perfection.
If you understood what it would mean to you in your fallen state to be brought into the presence of the Lord, you would be terrified. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Indeed how could a man like David, who was an adulterer, and a murderer be in possession of the Ark of the Lord?
I don’t know if you were counting, but there are three items that are representative of God contained within that Ark. All of them represent Christ. how can three be one?
We live in a three dimensional universe, constrained by time, past, present, and future, we know from the laws of thermodynamics that the universe will die someday, it is not eternal, only God who created it is. We are mind, body, and soul, we are made in His image, but we are not Him. We break His laws, we cannot keep them. He knew this and provided a way for redemption. If only we would see the need for it, if only we would see the need for it.
Uzzah, knew that to touch the Ark was death, it’s why they had to carry it with poles.
Disobedience to God, no matter how will intentioned will result in death. We all die.
God’s laws are unchanging, he does not bend the rules, and if you disobey Him you will die, and it will be permanent. God promises eternal life for those who choose Him.
It seems unfair to you I know, it seemed unfair to me once too.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
That’s ridiculous, a being with its own mind makes its own choices, and this is consistent with the idea of “free will”. God allowing the exercise of free will does not make God the author of the choice. God knowing what the choice would be does not make him the decider of that choice, any more than my putting crack cocaine in front of someone makes them smoke it, or leaving the keys to a new BMW in it and unlocked makes someone steal it.
This is a circular reasoning ridiculous argument, and also a bad syllogism.
You build it on the assumption satan has no power.
Satan does have power of independent action, just as you do, but he is not all powerful,
God can restrain him. Satan roams the earth and has been allowed to have control to sift the “wheat”. The allowance of free will requires the potential for evil, God created an opportunity for it, He didn’t create it, evil, and evil doesn’t exist until a free thinking being considers it. You would prefer a God that does not allow for free choices, as this would remove judgment, yet you yourself practice judgment. You attempt to reconcile this by saying whatever one chooses is natural because right and wrong are just man created concepts. Yet you clearly understood right and wrong when it was presented in a way that you could relate to. Why don’t we see homosexual confusion in the animal kingdom with mating pairs futilely trying to procreate? Dogs will rub against anything when aroused, that doesn’t make them gay, just aroused. Justifying human behavior with examples of animal behavior makes us foolish. “and professing to be wise they became fools”.I didn’t know you had a Great Dane, and I find that interesting, why? Because I was just coming up with examples of bad behavior, I’m not implying you perform these acts, I’m asking you if they are normal. It occurred to me that you might not see the foolishness of your arguments unless you could somehow relate to it. What are the odds of you even owning a dog? What are the odds of the breed I mentioned being one you owned?
God allows satan and you to act.
Therefore you are free.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
There is only one religion that allows for someone such as a murderer redemption. It’s because salvation is by grace, afforded by a merciful God, and given to those not deserving of it.
None of us are deserving of it, we all disobey God.
The only way a murderer could work his way into salvation would be if he could raise the dead man and bring him back to life.
A murderer who puts His faith in Jesus Christ can be forgiven, and Christ is the one who conquered death and redeemed him.
Jesus rose from the grave for murderers that repent and accept him. He has forgiven those who none of you would ever forgive.
All it requires is for an earnest heart to seek Him, and know Him.
This isn’t directed at anyone in particular, but, how many lies have you spoken? In your entire life, how many?
How much have you stolen?
How much have you desired to have the possessions of others.
How many women have you lusted after?
How many times have you cheated on your wife, or how often did you consider it?
How much credit do you give the God who gave you life?
How many times have you taken His name and used it as a cuss word?
How many times have used His name irreverently or casually without respect?
How much do you love the idea of there not being a God so you can love the things that He’s made without feeling guilty about it?
How often do you actually do anything for anyone? How often do you donate you time to a charitable organization?
How many elderly friends who have no one, no family, and are slowly dying alone in nursing homes do you have?
How often do you who have so much give to those who have nothing?
How often do you complain about the starvation in Africa, and point an accusatory finger at God or someone else, while not contributing anything yourself?
How often do you take your life for granted and don’t worry about your own mortality because it seems so far away…………………………????
November 26th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Here we go again. How many explanations do you have for 1 Corinthians? It all comes down to what I said. As you say, “god will allow you to choose” I say,”it’s leaving it up to you…” I suppose it sounds better when you say it.
You’re getting the message wrong, what I said was if god is omniscient than you don’t have free will it’s impossible to have free will if an omniscient being is in control. There is no free will of choice with death hanging over your head. I could never tell my child believe in me or do as I say or you will die. That certainly is not very good parenting and besides social sercvices would grab him and I’d be in jail. No matter how you put it, the fact is god allows the very murder and sin that he abhors, anybody can justify what they’re doing as long as it’s good for them (what do you say? I can’t say that of god? that discription is not allowed for him?) the mere idea that he justifies murder and rape and genocide to happen to people who do not follow his word is outrageous and makes him no better than the people he judges.
You said “Satan roams the earth and has been allowed to have control…” So this means you agree with me, he cannot have power of independant action if he must have permission. By allowing, is giving permission. You just admitted that. Read Job 1:11-12; 2:5-6, he must ask god to test Job and god allows him too. Luke 10:17-19-god holds satan, he either allows him to use his power or he doesn’t. And you keep forgetting Isaiah 45:7- I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things. He admits it.
“You had to relate something to yourself”
Wrong! You had asked me this question previously, again, I had already answered you. You see, you’re too busy spewing your rhetoric you don’t listen so you can actually hear what people are saying. (writing) Listen up, I had told you beastiality is not normal for me, I don’t practice it. It may be normal for someone else. As I don’t believe an animal can consent to sex of any kind with humans, I don’t agree that it’s right.
“If homosexuality was indeed normal, we would all have been born understanding it and it would already be established and traditional”
Well we could say the same about god or religion for that matter. Did you know god when you came out of the womb?
I said,”traditions change all the time…traditions, rules, ideas, are always changing to accomadate the reality we’re in. You said,” if they changed all the tim, they wouldn’t be “tradition”.”
This excerpt from “Traditions” by esteemed sociologist Edward Shils-”Traditions change because the circumstances to which they refer change. Traditions, to survive, must be fitting to the circumstances in which they operate and to which they are directed…A pagan in the 5th century Roman society had a very different environment of belief from that of a pagan of the 2nd century. Thus beliefs also become circustances…”
To say I believe everything is ethical and moral is not only a falsehood but ridiculous to say the least. What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is of no concern to me as long as it is concensual and hurts no one. (Ah, I’ve said that before as well) To compare murder, rape and the rest of the like on your list to homosexuality is idiotic.
You should read a litle more science or maybe watch a little National Geographic or look up a study or two on animal(and human) homosexuality to know that it is natural and that as we are of the animal kingdom all nature is relative.
December 1st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Why does homosexuality get so much attention from (some) Christians? Even if one accepts it is a sin (which many Christians do not), it is a ’sin’ practiced much less frequently and by far fewer people than, say, coveting the possessions of one’s neighbor – or skipping church. Those two sins are even listed in the Top Ten list, whereas homosexuality is not.
December 1st, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I don’t know, I don’t quite understand it myself. As you say it’s not one of the top ten so it should be the least of their worries. You’d think they’d appreciate same-sex marriage. They’re always harping on promiscuity as well. With folks getting married that would entail monogamous relationships. Oh, I forgot, promscuity is rampant in heterosexual relationships as well, so much for same-sex marriage ruining “normal” marriages, they can do that all on their own.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:06 pm
The overwhelming majority of Christians see it, homosexuality, as exceedingly sinful, an aberration and harmful to society, just as all sexual sins are. Wanton promiscuity results in out of wedlock births and sexually transmitted diseases. Isn’t it interesting that a monogamous heterosexual couple can engage in as much sex as they desire between themselves and never acquire a sexual disease? Also we Christians speak out against these other behaviors as well.
This would seem to suggest that Christians view other sins as permissible, a wink and a nod, and nary a word. I’m not one of them.
Belief in God and church attendance cannot be compelled, and so maybe this is the gist of your argument, that our society must be compelled to allow homosexual marriage.
Marriage is a religious institution; it was in existence prior to the formation of ours and for that matter, any western government, so the argument that it is a governmentally established right is false.
It is a religiously established institution that has become recognized by our government because of its value to society.
It’s this observable value that the gay community desires to co opt and make their own in an effort to become mainstream and be legitimized.
People who are mentally ill feel normal when in the company of other mentally ill people.
Alcoholics enjoy the company of other alcoholics; compulsive gamblers enjoy the company of other compulsive gamblers, sadists enjoy the company of other sadists, and so on.
This is an interesting exercise, these intellectual wrestling matches, if I didn’t truly believe that society would be harmed by homosexual marriage I personally wouldn’t care. Your side will likely prevail, against the wishes of our society, because of a few misguided judges, and over time you will see a continuing moral decline as a result.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:51 am
I think the word is omnipotent, and if God allows you free will, and He does, he has not forgone His omnipotence, he has merely chosen not to exercise it.
If you did mean omniscience, well, If I know what you are going to do I have not made you do anything, I merely know what your choice will be.
The problem that you have is very common, accountability.
You do not want to be held accountable.
I’m sorry but that doesn’t matter, any more than I don’t want to be accountable for my decisions if I make poor choices, it doesn’t change reality.
Denying that something exists doesn’t make it untrue, just like my saying I don’t believe in death makes it untrue, it merely makes one foolish.
Enjoy and celebrate your atheism, you have free will, and in the end if your right it won’t matter.
Sure there is, you are mortal, death is assured, and you practice free will.
Men all throughout time have been given ultimatums by other men, submit or die; there are many men who have chosen death instead of submission.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:59 am
The overwhelming majority of Christians see it, homosexuality, as exceedingly sinful, an aberration and harmful to society, just as all sexual sins are
You are way more the biblical scholar than I, but I thought sins were equal in God’s eyes, I didn’t know some of them were ‘exceedingly sinful’. Are the ten commandments in order of the quantity of sin that each represents? Why wasn’t homosexuality on the top ten list? Why did Jesus never mention it?
Isn’t it interesting that a monogamous heterosexual couple can engage in as much sex as they desire between themselves and never acquire a sexual disease?
As can monogamous homosexual couples – one of many good arguments for same sex marriage.
This would seem to suggest that Christians view other sins as permissible, a wink and a nod, and nary a word. I’m not one of them.
I know that Trees, but don’t you see/hear a lot more people condemning homosexuality than condemning of people skipping the sabbath?
Belief in God and church attendance cannot be compelled, and so maybe this is the gist of your argument, that our society must be compelled to allow homosexual marriage.
No, my argument was just that you don’t see folks railing against things that are actually explicitly spelled out as sins, yet folks get mighty het up about who falls in love with who. Weird, in my opinion (and frustrating and sad too).
Marriage is a religious institution; it was in existence prior to the formation of ours and for that matter, any western government, so the argument that it is a governmentally established right is false.
Like I said before, any church that doesn’t want to marry homosexuals should not be forced to. It’s just the government bag of goodies and responsibilities that should be available to those same sex couples whose churches marry them, or to those same sex couples who marry outside of a church. Your church absolutely should not be forced to perform same sex marriages
None of that has to do with homosexuality.
This is an interesting exercise, these intellectual wrestling matches,
I see it as human rights, not an intellectual wrestling match.
Your side will likely prevail, against the wishes of our society, because of a few misguided judges, and over time you will see a continuing moral decline as a result.
For sure we will have same sex marriage eventually, I agree. But I don’t see how encouraging fidelity will lead to a moral decline.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:58 am
Trees,
A woman and her Great Dane, what a lovely couple. If her and the dog are enjoying themselves, according to their “kinds”, I expect you to be permissive.
Bestiality and homosexuality have no more to do with each other than bestiality and heterosexuality. I think you are getting caught up in the debate, I firmly believe you are better than that, to make such a comparison.
Your friend,
Um Cara
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:15 am
Omniscient is what you referred to first. Omnipotent and omniscient go hand in hand. Again, he already knew and made us what we would become, Psalm 139:16-thy eyes saw my substance, yet being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuence were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. He did not only know what we would do he wrote it in his book the choice was already made, by him. I have no problem with accountability. If you believe your bible the choice was already made, as I don’t believe it, I am accountable for what I do, I have no problems with that. Your analogies leave much to be desired, not believing in death is foolish, there is proof that death occurs. Your god has not been proven. Many men may have been given the choice of submit or die those who have chosen death have mostly been praised or martyred because they were not threatened or coerced into submission but died by their own beliefs. How many times was that ultimatum given by their father?
What religious value does marriage bring to society? It has value to allow for lawful ideas- taxes, ability to provide health care, own property, legal issues when the spouse dies, etc. Gays aren’t trying to make everything their own. They want to join in the same ideals that marriage proposes. Two people who love each other, have the desire to be one with the other, accept all the responsibilities of the union and have the legal civil liberties all married people enjoy which they cannot have outside of marriage.
You were asked once “Do you think the government should discriminate against same-sex married couples or not?” you answered,”If the question is framed and presented as above, then the answer is obvious, no” You see, it is discrimination, and their rights are violated, they have every right to marry just as everyone else.
You still haven’t provided any actual facts that would support same-sex marriage would harm society. Moral decline? As far as what? Promiscuity would be lowered, disease would decline, children in need of adoption would find loving homes where they are wanted, rather than institutions or homes that don’t care about them, homes would be bought, communities would prosper, tolerance would rise and civil liberties would once again be upheld.
Marriage may have been started by the religionists but the bible makes it clear that chastity, not marriage, should be the primary focus of a god-loving christian. Even though Paul says it’s okay to be married, he and jesus clearly state giving up all carnal pleasures-even those betwee husband and wife, is the best course. 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 “But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn” 32-34 “So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better” Matthew 19:10-12 jesus recommends being “sexless” “he that is able to recieve it let him recieve it. Matthew 22:28-30 even after the resurrection there will be an end to marriage. In the end, he would rather that marriage did not exist, but does not command it. He would prefer that, over you burning in hell. What sort of a sanction is that?
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
God is not constrained by time, He knows the end from the beginning, He knows what you will do three weeks from today because He exits outside of the physical boundaries, and only an omniscient and omnipotent, and omnipresent God can do this.
He is eternal, and this does not mean He caused you to do it, it means He knows what your choice will be, if I knew what your choice would be it wouldn’t change your decision, and if I was kind I would give you life, because I loved you, in spite of the fact that this love was not mutual. If a child grows up and rejects his parents does it mean that his parents don’t love him? If you knew that your child would one day reject you would you never have conceived?
The fact that He creates you knowing that you will reject Him disproves your assertion that He is an unfair tyrant, only an unfair tyrant refuses you the opportunity.
Knowing what your choices are does not mean you didn’t choose them, and even now you are afforded the opportunity to change and reverse your decision, and you make your own determination.
Your fault finding with God reveals a desire to put limitations on Him, for whatever reasons you have chosen.
We are all born imperfect, we are all born sons and daughters of disobedience and this is reflected by our imperfect human nature, inherited from our original parents, thru original sin.
God creates all of us imperfect, and says that those who choose Him will be made perfect on the great and terrible Day of Judgment, because it is our desire to be like Him, and clearly we understand we are not like Him, those whom He saves. How glorious is the Lord of hosts that He has given so much to a creature so undeserving as I.
He will not save you if you do not desire it, you have been given free will, and you are an example, you refuse to admit that He exists, let alone that you need salvation, because you believe in you own virtue.
Are you perfect?
It would seem that you’re problem with God is that he created you imperfect.
He did not only know what we would do he wrote it in his book the choice was already made, by him.
That is an untrue statement.
by him
It denies free will, God does not deny your freedom to choose.
David chose God, and God knew David’s choice. God sustains those who choose Him.
His promise is consistent.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
How many times was that ultimatum given by their father?
Quite frequently in Islam.
Look into honor killing, and Sharia law.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
That’s opinion.
My opinion is that homosexuality is a mental disorder, and so is comparable to other mental disorders, and so we agree to disagree.
I was expressing frustration, for whatever reasons humanity decides to acknowledge some mental disorders and to not to acknowledge others.
I am not hateful of homosexuals, I would like them to be healed, just as I would the compulsive gambler, it is not a healthy behavior, but this is my opinion, and I know you disagree.
But I don’t see how encouraging fidelity
I disagree with the premise that it will strengthen and encourage fidelity, I think it will undermine and weaken the institution of marriage.
Heterosexual divorce rates have done the sanctity of marriage damage, homosexual acceptance and subsequent divorce rates will continue the damage.
Time will be the judge.
I know you are not trying to flatter me, and I appreciate the vote of confidence, and the encouragement.
Once the door of sexual tolerance and acceptance is thrown open, it will be difficult to close.
I think you also see a willingness to allow polygamy in this thread, once a definition is changed, who then determines the definition?
December 4th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I disagree with the premise that it will strengthen and encourage fidelity, I think it will undermine and weaken the institution of marriage.
I meant that it would encourage fidelity amongst same sex couples. I have heard this ‘weaken the institution of marriage’ thing quite a bit, but I don’t know what that means.
What do you (or anyone else) mean by that?
As I have pointed out before, the issue isn’t marriage, as same sex couples get married every day, in every state – it’s just the civic rights and responsibilities that go along with marriage that we are arguing about.
I really don’t see how giving same sex married couples the same rights and responsibilities of heterosexual married couples does anything detrimental to the marriage concept as a whole.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Um Cara-
He can’t answer that because there is no answer. In no way does same-sex marriage undermine and weaken the institution of marriage.
“That is an untrue statement” Psalm 139:16- thy eyes saw my substance, yet being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuence were fashioned, when as yet there were none.
New International Version: Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
If the statement I made is untrue, than your bible is untrue as well.
Why do you insist I have a problem with god? I cannot have a problem with something/someone that I do not believe exists. I cannot blame something/someone that does not exist.
“Quite frequently in Islam” This is a Muslim “custom”. They are acts of violence, acts of murder, it is illegal in some Muslim countries even though it still exists. Either way does not make it right. Honour killing is not very honourable. It’s killing none the less, with no opportunity for choice. Some women haven’t even “done” anything (as if there would be something they could do to deserve death) it could be “thought” they did something and made to die. This is your argument? With death lingering over your head it eliminates choice. Choice implies freely. If these women choose to have relationships, or want a divorce, or even victims or rape(where there is definately no choice in that), or don’t want to marry someone of their family’s choosing, they will die. Death is the ultimatum. In a civil society, perhaps democratic society these same choices would not bring them death. If this is a comparison to god allowing choice, it’s a bad one. In these scenarios, there is no choice but to submit if you want to live.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Ok, first of all I am not Muslim. So bringing the women’s rights issue in is irrelevant. I don’t support their practices.
In regards to the honor killing;
How many times was that ultimatum given by their father?
You asked for an example of being killed by you’re father as choosing freely to die with death hanging over your head, you said;
You’re getting the message wrong, what I said was if god is omniscient than you don’t have free will it’s impossible to have free will if an omniscient being is in control. There is no free will of choice with death hanging over your head.
Many men may have been given the choice of submit or die those who have chosen death have mostly been praised or martyred because they were not threatened or coerced into submission but died by their own beliefs. How many times was that ultimatum given by their father?
In Sharia law if the Muslim who converts to Christianity, renounces Christ and reverts back to Islam, his life is spared. So, you do have free will with death hanging over your head, your fate is determined by your choice.
these scenarios, there is no choice but to submit if you want to live.
there is no choice but to submit if you want to live
This is why you struggle with the idea of free will
There is an alternate choice, hold fast to your beliefs, regardless of the cost.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
You’re getting the message wrong, what I said was if god is omniscient than you don’t have free will it’s impossible to have free will if an omniscient being is in control.
Knowing what you’ll choose does not determine your choice
December 5th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Let me repost this so you don’t get confused
You’re getting the message wrong, what I said was if god is omniscient than you don’t have free will it’s impossible to have free will if an omniscient being is in control.
God’s knowing what you’ll choose does not determine what choice you make
December 5th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I did not call you a Muslim, neither did I bring women’s rights issues in the mix.
Your bible states god wrote in his book who you would be, he did not only know but he chose it for you. I am not confused, you simply can’t admit what is written in your bible. “Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained (to prearrange untalterably; predestine)for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” It throws free will out of the window.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:46 am
Let me repost so you don’t get confused.
“Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained (to prearrange unalterably; predestine) for me were written in your book before one of them came to be”
According to your bible, your life was predestined, he knew it because he wrote it. Unless, of course, your bible is a lie.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:51 am