Connecticut Church Performs Gay Exorcism
Manifested Glory Ministries in Bridgeport, CT, conducted an exorcism to remove gay demons from the body of a 16-year-old teen.
The video shows the 16-year-old boy lying on the floor, his body convulsing, as elders of a small Connecticut church cast a “homosexual demon” from his body.
“Rip it from his throat!” a woman yells. “Come on, you homosexual demon! You homosexual spirit, we call you out right now! Loose your grip, Lucifer!”
[...]
“We believe a man should be with a woman and a woman should be with a man,” the Rev. Patricia McKinney told The Associated Press. “We have nothing against homosexuals. I just don’t agree with their lifestyle.”
This shocking ritual is not unique to this particular church.
The Rev. Roland Stringfellow, a minister in Oakland, Calif., said he was subject to demon casting in the 1990s when he was at a Baptist church and was struggling with his sexuality. He said he was put in front of the church as members shouted “demon of homosexuality come out of him.”
The Bridgeport church removed the video from its site, but it is still available:
I can feel the love.
Geez.
average james Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Well at least they didn’t stone him. yet.
Um Cara Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Everybody must get stoned.
average james Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
He he he
Dylan ?
Um Cara Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Yep :^)
June 25th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Good lord.
EricG Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Nothing ‘good’ about the Lord these people pray to.
Daddio Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
What do you know about the Lord these people pray to Eric? Have you attended services at their church?
EricG Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
A Lord who believes gay people to be demons is not a Lord who loves all his children.
I don’t need to go to their church to understand their perspective on scripture. Someone who engages in any kind of gay-exorcism is obviously 180 degrees from me and my beliefs.
And I don’t see the part of the Bible where Jesus said that hate for gays was good in God’s eyes.
Daddio Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
The Lord Jesus does not believe that homosexuals are demons. Where the heck did you pull that from? If you need to twist others words in order to boost your arguments then I really feel for you. You need to think and read in context before you open your keyboard to comment.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
The Eric said: A Lord who believes gay people to be demons is not a Lord who loves all his children.
K: Where does it say that the Lord believes this?
TE: And I don’t see the part of the Bible where Jesus said that hate for gays was good in God’s eyes.
K: Thats because its not IN the bible. Consider this situation, Eric: The members of this church obviously care enough about this man to try to exorcise what they believe to be a supernatural entity from him. Why would you see their actions as hateful.
jasperjava Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Eric is not saying that Jesus hates gays. He’s saying that these people believe that homosexuality is caused by demonic possession.
If you believe that gays are actually possessed by the devil, it would be hard for you to respect them as fellow citizens who ought to enjoy equal rights. Therein lies the problem.
Kregg Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Jas said: Eric is not saying that Jesus hates gays. He’s saying that these people believe that homosexuality is caused by demonic possession.
K: Actually, he’s not, Jas. Thats why I made the comment. He said “A Lord who believes gay people TO BE demons is not a Lord who loves all his children.” Thats what I was addressing. Did Eric mean to say it differently? With Eric – who knows? ;-)
J: If you believe that gays are actually possessed by the devil, it would be hard for you to respect them as fellow citizens who ought to enjoy equal rights. Therein lies the problem.
K: I suspect that these people would see the ‘possessed’ individual to be an innocent victim of devil possession and would NOT consider him to be otherwise. Hey, the fact that they were trying to help him – and that he was a member of their church – shows their attitude toward him, that of love and acceptance.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
whoopin’, en yellin’, en, bawlin’ I jes’ feel it in my bones. I ain’t skeered of that homo demon.
Be gone I say… Be Gone!
I think Rev. Stringfellow( known as Strangfellow in California) has been shooting the hopiun and smokeing the changeeba.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Disturbing, but I don’t think the video shows abuse … just misguided souls. The video never should have been made public.
Advice to life restorers: 1) document who seeks help from you, 1a) …sure… videotape something like this that might be misinterpreted, 2) followup and stick with the individual who sought help 3) brag later if you’ve ‘helped’ the individual. The convulsions aren’t the miracle. A changed and fruitful life is.
The folks at the church should listen to the Jim Jones tapes to gain an appreciation of (possibly harmful) group psychology.
average james Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Jim Jones is a spooky example of harmful group psychology/manipulation under the guise of religion for sure.
Discernment skills are underrated these days.
EricG Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Someone can dress up zealot nonsense in such a fashion that it might be appealing to any person.
I say it is better to reject at fundamental religion and reject all one-sided thinking rather than trying to discern between the ’super-insane’ and the ‘merely-insane’ and the ‘not-so-insane.’
It’s too dangerous. People kill the ‘demons’ and ’sinners’ when they feel themselves to be party to the Lord’s Judgment. Look at George Tiller.
Look at Daddio and his calling these loving and wonderful Americans ‘demons.’
Violence and hatred is all these churches do. Which is far from Jesus and far from the Lord.
So what are they doing there? Maybe … a Black Mass?
Daddio Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I didn’t call any American a demon Eric. A demon is a sepatate entity, a domonic entity, that can enter the body.
You really need to put people’s comments in context and then you might ragain some credibility Eric.
You show me where I called one single American a demon.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
(just a minor note) Alan, exorcism is spelled just exorcism I think.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Crack said: (just a minor note) Alan, exorcism is spelled just exorcism I think.
K: Please don’t upset Alan’s psyche. He got a liberal education where he was taught that there were no rules other than what he imposed upon himself and that words could be spelled differently to assert his personal self-concepts upon the world and that YOU have no authority over his personal creativity in taking license with the written standards of the English language… ;-)
TDro319 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
K: “He got a liberal education where he was taught that there were no rules…”
TD: Thank God he doesn’t have a conservative education. He’d have turned out like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin or Dubya.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
TeDious said: Thank God he doesn’t have a conservative education. He’d have turned out like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin or Dubya.
K: Good point: A POTUS, a State Governor, and a (what is she?) US congresswoman or senator.
K: Your opinions on conservative education are only as deep as you, but a liberal education goes clear to the bone.
EricG Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Kregg -
If you really think that there is such a thing as a ‘liberal education’ you are completely bought into these lies sold on the radio OR your think people are so stupid that they absorb the positions of their professors just by listening to lectures.
What happened to the ‘free-thinking youth’ with conservatives who talk like you are doing right now?
Are all people who are liberal duped but all people who are conservative are the real deal?
That’s stupid. And you know it.
People come to their own conclusions and your hatred for Americans only continues to paint you with the rest of the unamerican communists of FIXED News.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
The Eric said: If you really think that there is such a thing as a ‘liberal education’ you are completely bought into these lies sold on the radio OR your think people are so stupid that they absorb the positions of their professors just by listening to lectures.
K: Eric, I think your literary Tourrettes is acting up again. In your post you have just refuted your own long bloviated position that Cons are just mind numbed robots fed their positions by party leaders and the evil empire of Con talk radio.
K; Your assignment is to contrast and compare your disparate positions on people both “absorbing the positions of their professors” and “people come to their own conclusions” as relates to political positions. Paper must be 5 pages double-spaced, annotated, and your arguments must make sense. It’s due tomorrow…
TDro319 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
K: “Good point: A POTUS, a State Governor, and a (what is she?) US congresswoman or senator.”
TD: That doesn’t make them intelligent. It just means they have good public relations people. As for your comment “a liberal education goes clear to the bone”, thanks for the compliment.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
TD said: That doesn’t make them intelligent. It just means they have good public relations people.
K: Uh, well, what can I say to THAT gem other than it could explain BO’s rise to power? I’ve always been curious about how he got there.
TD: As for your comment “a liberal education goes clear to the bone”, thanks for the compliment.
K: Yeah, like ugly goes clear to the bone.
Danielle Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Good one TDro!
TDro319 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
K: “Yeah, like ugly goes clear to the bone.”
TD: Sorry. That remark doesn’t bother me. I’ve decided to take every nssty, hateful comment you make as a comliment.
Peace.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
TD said: Sorry. That remark doesn’t bother me. I’ve decided to take every nssty, hateful comment you make as a comliment.
K: TD, have I done something to so offend you that you follow me around the board making snide comments? Talk to me…
Kregg Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 11:36 am
K prv: “Yeah, like ugly goes clear to the bone.”
TD said: Sorry. That remark doesn’t bother me. I’ve decided to take every nssty, hateful comment you make as a comliment. Peace.
K: That wasn’t a nasty, hateful comment, TD. I did not call you ugly. I called liberal education ugly. Sorry if you took it wrong but with your proclivity to do just that I’m never sure when you will get a statement and when you will misinterpret it.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Church performs gay exorcism.
So what! Demons are demons.
Um Cara Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Yea, I killed a bunch of them when playing Dungeons and Dragons, but I knew it was just a game, and I was twelve.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Um said: Yea, I killed a bunch of them when playing Dungeons and Dragons, but I knew it was just a game, and I was twelve.
K: Ah, but they would have had no allure had there not been an aura of reality about them or you could have been just as motivated to be killing Minnie Mouse.
Um Cara Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Actually a buddy of mine developed and marketed a role playing game based on cartoon characters.
Minnie Mouse wasn’t part of it (for obvious licensing reasons), but you could certainly create a Minnie Mouse type character, if that was your bag.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Um said: Actually a buddy of mine developed and marketed a role playing game based on cartoon characters.
K: Can I be Deppity Dawg!? That dude was AWESOME!
EricG Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Demons are demons.
The people who call others ‘demons’ and stand in judgment of others as if they were the Lord … they are the demons.
So what’s that make you?
Daddio Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
ONCE AGAIN ERIC, I NEVER CALLED ANY HUMAN BEING A DEMON. I defy you to find the comment where I called another human a demon!!!!!!!
Demons are demons. Yes they are Eric. I didn’t say certain people are demons. You need to take a reading comprehension course.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Daddio to The Eric: You need to take a reading comprehension course.
K: He probably wouldn’t comprehend it… ;-) Actually, it was Eric who called humans demons if I recall correctly.
Daddio Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
When was that Kregg? I must have missed that one. After all I enjoy the fictional writings of Eric and try to catch them all.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
EricG Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Demons are demons.
The people who call others ‘demons’ and stand in judgment of others as if they were the Lord … they are the demons.
Daddio Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Ahhh, ok. I did get that one. I see now. Thanks Kregg.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Alan says: Connecticut Church Performs Gay Excorcism
K: Any reports as to whether it worked?
average james Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I wondered if they claimed success too, Kregg.
The video showed no conclusion.
Will they shun him or stone him if he continues being homosexual ?
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
James said: Will they shun him or stone him if he continues being homosexual ?
K: We’ll never know – unless things go badly for him. Its not in Alan’s personal interests to report successful events and outcomes.
jasperjava Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 11:22 am
I fail to see how you can expect a succesful outcome from screwing up and abusing a confused teenager because of his sexual orientation.
If the kid is gay, he needs love, understanding, and support. He doesn’t need to be told that his sexual longings are the product of demonic influence. That’s just a recipe for serious psychological damage.
Kregg Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Jas said: I fail to see how you can expect a succesful outcome from screwing up and abusing a confused teenager because of his sexual orientation.
K: I think it should be obvious that THEY did not consider their exorcism to be ’screwing up and abusing’ this kid. THEY apparently believe that his homosexuality to be the result of demon possession and so addressed the cure in a way that they saw fit. You and I may believe differently but to judge their actions by your beliefs isn’t really valid.
J: If the kid is gay, he needs love, understanding, and support. He doesn’t need to be told that his sexual longings are the product of demonic influence. That’s just a recipe for serious psychological damage.
K: With this I would agree.
average james Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Jasper,
I tried to choose my words carefully when I asked—-”I wondered if they claimed success…”
Success as they would define it, I would imagine, would be the boy renouncing homosexuality?
Please do not mistake my question for approval of exorcising homosexuals. I do not approve.
EricG Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
There is no such thing as it ‘working’ since gayness is not a demonic possession. Thus there is little point in that part to me. Maybe Alan feels the same, who knows?
You can’t ‘pray the gay’ out of yourself or others. No matter what twisted belief people have.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
The Eric said: You can’t ‘pray the gay’ out of yourself or others. No matter what twisted belief people have.
K: What, then, do you say to the former homosexuals who say they HAVE?
Daddio Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Belief in God and prayer will work miracles Eric.
You consistently belittle the belief of Christians.
I believe you have called yourself a Christian. I think you are a little confused.
libpatriot Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Kregg Reply @ 2:55
I say to them, “I think you’re just pretending to having been changed from homosexuals to heterosexuals to gain approval and avoid further condemnation. I think in reality the most change you’ve gone through is changing from being practicing homosexuals to being celibate homosexuals.”
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Lib said: I say to them, “I think you’re just pretending to having been changed from homosexuals to heterosexuals to gain approval and avoid further condemnation. I think in reality the most change you’ve gone through is changing from being practicing homosexuals to being celibate homosexuals.”
K: How about they’d say: “I know that I am by physical nature homosexual but I have prayed for and received the power to act – along with all my brethren who have their own physical or mental issues – in the way requested by my God.”
K: The predilection toward homosexuality – just like the predilection toward HYPERsexuality – can be controlled by the power invested in us as we ask God for that power. Does the non-practicing hypersexual individual retain the predilection? Yes. Does he succumb to it? No, by the power of God. Same with homosexuality, I figure…
Daddio Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
You speak well Kregg. I wish I had some of your talent to put explanations in the form that you do.
Your above comment is ever so true.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Daddio said: You speak well Kregg. I wish I had some of your talent to put explanations in the form that you do. Your above comment is ever so true.
K: Thank you. I haven’t noticed you stumbling over your words on this board, though. Plain truth is plain truth – eloquent or simple. I struggle constantly to put my thoughts into the simplest statements possible. Its fun – and good practice.
Daddio Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Yeah, the Bible said that Moses was slow to speak. Had trouble expressing himself. I, in no way comparing myself to Moses. But I guess we have something in common. :)
I’ll try but I am a very simple person.
Thanks Kregg.
TDro319 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I think Kregg and Daddio should start their own website. That way they don’t have to associate with us liberals.
Now if you decide to go that route, please visit this church and have them exorcise the Liberal Land out of you.
flap Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
“I think Kregg and Daddio should start their own website.”
You don’t enjoy the conservative lovefest, TDro?
“I struggle constantly to put my thoughts into the simplest statements possible.”
I think we all do, and it’s fun to try to debate or argue with people who agree with virtually nothing you believe and come from a completely different angle. It challenges your assumptions and makes you think. One reason I’m a fan of Alan is he’s a reasonable liberal (if that exists, ha!) and makes me think, even if I disagree with 90% of what he says.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
TeDious said: Now if you decide to go that route, please visit this church and have them exorcise the Liberal Land out of you.
K: No need to, a simple bath is sufficient.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
K prv: “I struggle constantly to put my thoughts into the simplest statements possible.”
Flap said: I think we all do, and it’s fun to try to debate or argue with people who agree with virtually nothing you believe and come from a completely different angle. It challenges your assumptions and makes you think.
K: If you ever think you have your thoughts down on a particular subject get a piece of paper, head it with the words “Regarding __________________ I believe…”, fill in the blank and write in a single paragraph what you believe about any particular topic. You’ll often surprise yourself on how difficult it is to get into a few sentence all that you know and believe about topics you thought you had down pat.
average james Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Hey gang,
I have a similar take Flap, Kregg, Daddio, Goliath, Bliss etc.. I appreciate you on the right, especially when I get called on something, you guys challenge my preconceptions.
Ya make me think.
My comrades on the left do as well.
I must applaud Alan on a forum that allows more than one side to be aired. Most other sites(that I have checked out) send your post into cyberlimbo and maybe not publish it at all.
The civility here is usually at a fairly high level. This is not the case on other sites.
craig7120 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
I really cant compare Alan’s site with others simply because this is the only political site I visit. Ive made some comments out of anger and was embarrassed to post again. I type, copy, erase more times than I care to admit.
I do enjoy the debates and the people on this site.
Cheers to me mates on both sides of the aisle on libland.
Kregg Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Daddio said: I’ll try but I am a very simple person.
K: Daddio, take heart, this is what the Apostle Peter said about being “simple”:
1 PETER 5 – “But all of you, leaders and followers alike, are to be down to earth with each other, for— God has had it with the proud, But takes delight in just plain people.”
average james Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Kregg,
Eugene Petersen ?
Willio,
You do allright in stating your mind as far as I can tell, for a righty.
Then again maybe my saying such a thing is not all that complimentary. A scholar I am not.
Kregg Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
James said: Kregg, Eugene Petersen ?
K: El Correcto…
average james Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Today’s lingo.
I like that translation, it really nails it for today. Hard for study though.
Kregg Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
James said: Hard for study though.
K: For study I use NIV along with KJV and a lexicon. A lot of fun, actually. The English translations don’t really capture some of the nuances of the Greek and it is VERY helpful to look words up and get their full meaning.
average james Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Yo bro,
I’ve got a greek/hebrew interlinear bible that is quite helpful. Strongs is really helpful.
New American Standard, NKJV, TNIV are what I use most.
I grew up KJV. It bothers me now. It has interpolations(summaries of previous verses) all over it, and it reads like Shakespeare.
Kregg Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
James said: …and it reads like Shakespeare.
K: KJV and Shakespeare were contemporaries, weren’t they? I’m no Shakespeare expert…
Daddio Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 10:46 am
James comment June 26 at 12:04.
“You do allright in stating your mind, as far as I can tell, for a righty.”
I really appreciate your kind remarks James. I do like the way your threw in “for a righty”. Good jab. :)
Most on the left here are ok. Some, like Eric, doesn’t seem to appreciate differing points of view and can become very dis-respectful.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
There are ‘demons’ in this world.
Very few of them are homosexual and very many of them often speak of ‘God.’
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
The Eric said: There are ‘demons’ in this world. Very few of them are homosexual and very many of them often speak of ‘God.’
K: The demons mentioned in the bible knew God. From what knowledge do you determine that ‘very few of them are homosexual’?
craig7120 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
would a homosexual demon be a flamer?
something u would find in the xtian crypto quips
Um Cara Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
LOL!
average james Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Flamer Ha ha ha ha ha
Daddio Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
The demons mentioned in the Bible also feared God.
In fact Jesus commanded demons to enter a herd of swine then the swine herd ran off a cliff.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Well, taking into account Craig’s suggestion to homosexual demons, there’d of been plenty of fried pork to go around…
EricG Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Yes, I’ve read the Bible too.
Would you mind showing me the parts where Jesus addresses homosexuality directly, abortion directly, and issues like multiple religious perspectives on social issues?
Because the way how conservatives like yourself talk it sounds to me like a burning bush told you the answer to these questions.
And we both know that you are just repeating what someone else told you.
I’ve read the whole Bible, several times and not one word of it can be called absolute. Not a single word.
So why would anyone take an absolutist view on the Bible?
Maybe the swine represented swine and were not truly swine. Maybe the demons represented demons and were not truly demons.
If you think instead of blindly follow you’ll read the scripture with new eyes and see many things denied to you by those whom you respect to deliver you The Word.
The Word comes from where? Why use a another to hand it to you when you can get it yourself?
—
I’m not going to talk people out of the pew on a website but that’s what I’m thinking these days. People are getting harmed by church-going. Not helped. Only because they refuse to think for themselves.
Um Cara Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
In fact Jesus commanded demons to enter a herd of swine then the swine herd ran off a cliff.
Yep, it always bothered me than an all loving omnipotent god chose to harm an innocent, defenseless animal in that way.
Why not just banish the daemon?
Or if He really isn’t omnipotent, and had to cram the demon into something, why not just send it into an amoeba or something? Why cause such suffering to a higher life form.
Seems needlessly cruel, to me.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Um said: Yep, it always bothered me than an all loving omnipotent god chose to harm an innocent, defenseless animal in that way.
K: I guess an omnipotent creator who brought a pig into the world can choose to take a pig OUT of the world. Besides, the people present didn’t know what an amoeba was and sending a herd of them over a cliff wouldn’t have made the dramatic impact that sending a herd of pigs did…
Daddio Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
An omnipotent God, creator, can destroy any and all that He created. The same as if you built a garage and one day you just decided to knock it over. It is yours, you built it, and if you so choose, you can destroy it.
This is not our world. We are only here for a very short time. While we are here we are suppose to be caretakers of His creation. While we are here we are to use His creation and the resources He gave us.
But, He also can, as sole owner, creator, can take it all away.
Um Cara Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
An omnipotent God, creator, can destroy any and all that He created.
Obviously, part of the whole ‘omnipotent’ part.
He could have gotten rid of that demon in many different ways (another part of the whole omnipotent thing), but he chose to torment an innocent animal.
Daddio Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
God does things in His own way for His own reasons. He is our creator. He is our God.
OldLefty Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
What does GOD have to do with this??
Um Cara Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
God does things in His own way for His own reasons.
Erm.. everyone does everything for their own reasons.
What’s yer point?
He is our creator.
Some folks certainly think so.
He is our God.
Some folks have multiple gods, in fact – some folks think mainstream Christians have three gods. At least one of which chose to pick on some poor pig, minding his own business.
That’s just rude.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Um said: …but he chose to torment an innocent animal.
K: Um, the value judgments reflect only the perceptions of the valu-er. The fact is that God chose…an…animal. Since you and I are finite and not really in a position to judge or evaluate the ‘rightness’ or the ‘wrongness’ the actions of an entity which is omnipotent it may be more enlightening to simply accept what He did rather than judge it.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Lefty asked: What does GOD have to do with this??
K: With what – the exorcism? Everything – at least to the participants – in that they are beseeching God to drive the demon from the member. Whether it worked or not would be interesting to learn but I don’t hold my breath on Alan reporting a success.
OldLefty Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Brings to mind three quotes from thomas Paine:
“One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.”
“That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not”.
“There are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express commandment of God, that are shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice.”
craig7120 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Age of Reason? excellent book btw Lefty did you get the post I left ya on the Neda Agha Soltan thread regarding the article on Iran from Azar Majedi?
OldLefty Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
craig7120,
Yes I did….I agree about 75%.
The people who my husband knows who have family there says it’s like urban and university areas like NYC or LA v Oklahoma…..kind of like our red state blue state map.
craig7120 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
good glad you got it. yeah she wrote some other articles and its refreshing to get another perspective on the issues.
OldLefty Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Yeah, I don’t know if anybody REALLY knows whats going on…..Hope for the best.
flap Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Thomas Paine: “Shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice…”
Shock and moral justice based on WHAT? Where is the measuring stick? Everything “moral” is arbitrary without a transcendent source!
In other words, what is WRONG or RIGHT with anything God is supposedly doing without God existing?
Why is it libs and/or atheists throw these loaded words around related to ethics when there’s NO FRAME OF REFERENCE without God?!
Kregg Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 11:54 am
K prv: “…wouldn’t have made the dramatic impact that sending a herd of pigs did…”
K: Nor the splash…
OldLefty Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Flap said,
“Shock and moral justice based on WHAT? Where is the measuring stick? Everything “moral” is arbitrary without a transcendent source!”
………………………………….
Why?
Every imaginable evil has been done in the name of God AND outside the realm of religion.
I don’t see Paine’s quote as anything other than pointing out that much that written in the Bible is shocking to our sense of morality. He sees no connection between the Bible and God.
Kregg Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Flap prv: “Shock and moral justice based on WHAT? Where is the measuring stick? Everything “moral” is arbitrary without a transcendent source!”
………………………………….
Lefty said: Why?
K: I’d figure ‘moral justice’ to be based on a ‘fixed’ or ‘ultimate’ or ‘unchanging’ truth. And, since societal mores change over time and circumstance a ‘moral truth’ must come from a ‘measuring stick’ outside society. Just my two cents worth…
trees are people too Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 2:11 am
Maybe sin only represented sin and was not truly sin….maybe murder only represented murder and was not truly murder….maybe lust only represented lust and was not truly lust…maybe lying only represented lying and was not truly lying….
Maybe we can insert our own meanings into the text and change it’s (the bible) meaning into something we are more comfortable with…..
Maybe we can say that it says that we are really Gods and that whatever we say and do is the word of Gods and is therefore “ok” and that if we want to say things that it doesn’t say, well, we can ignore them and say “whatever, dude”……….
You see it really doesn’t matter what anyone says, or does, or thinks, we can all be right simultaneously……
Truth is whatever you want it to be………
A lie really isn’t a lie it’s only the truth disguised as something else……..
The world isn’t really real, not really, it’s just an illusion, and you only think it’s real, but really it isn’t real…..
Why bother going to college and listening to educated men teach?
Just teach yourself, dude…….make it up as you go along…………….
goliath43 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Romans 1:26-27 (King James Version)
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
OldLefty Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
goliath43,
I guess that’s fine for those who believe that this has ANYTHING to do with God.
goliath43 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Eric asked where in the bible it discussed Homosexuality and I simply pointed out a couple of verses. I’m not sure myself what this has to do with God or his teaching either.
There are some crazy folks out there…lol
OldLefty Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Sorry if I was butting in.
average james Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Goliath,
Even using that scripture reference from Romans, it implies that the homosexual recieves in himself the recompense….it’s personal.
I have never found scripture to give ridiculing liscenses to others. Scripture slapping is uninviting in the exteme.
There are some crazy folks out there, for sure brother.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
USA beat Spain woooohoooo!!!! ooops wrong blog
nevermind
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Craig said: USA beat Spain woooohoooo!!!! ooops wrong blog. nevermind
My kid just came in yelling the same thing! USA, USA, USA….!!!! Oh, I’m sorry. For the libs” “usa, usa, usa – we’re sorry, spain, we’re sorry, spain, we’re sorry, spain”. There, that should do it…
craig7120 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Bring on the Brazil nuts…. we aint skeered
craig7120 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
thats if they beat RSA
craig7120 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Brasil 1-0 with minutes to go
the spelling of Brasil is a shout out to our Portuguese brothers n sisters. ;-)
flap Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Craig, I watched that game. One of the GREATEST upsets for the USA in soccer history.
Any of you folks who don’t know about soccer, Spain is ranked #1 in the world. And I’m not sure what we’re ranked. But we beat the world #1! Bodes well for the World Cup next summer!!
craig7120 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Flap dude I grew up eating and sleeping soccer. Ive taped all the games and try not to listen to any news outlets when out or working.
Yes one of the greatest upsets in US sports history imo.
World Cup 2010 cant wait
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Craig said: Yes one of the greatest upsets in US sports history imo. World Cup 2010 cant wait
K: Yeah, but will they whip off their tops and wave them around their heads like wassername did?
Um Cara Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Yes one of the greatest upsets in US sports history imo. World Cup 2010 cant wait
I sure as hell hope Brasil wins next year, I don’t look forward to the months long malaise should they lose again…
craig7120 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
without googlin Brandy Champlain? thats wrong, but lets hope they(u.s. mens) get inside the finals.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Craig said: without googlin Brandy Champlain? thats wrong, but lets hope they(u.s. mens) get inside the finals.
K: Couldn’t remember her name but that was a kick ass moment – and not just because she was in her sports bra. She was INto that celebration. BTW, T. Venturini is from my hometown. Her father put ear tubes in my youngest kid. She’s one of our biggest claims to fame…
craig7120 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
As long as those smug Italians dont win it. With their long dark hair and strong muscular thighs and all that sweat dripping down… ooops go USA!! Is there an exorciser in the house? LOL
craig7120 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
I made my daughter watch the movie Dare to Dream on hbo, she got into and put a lil ‘tude’ in her personality.
You said it Kregg what a moment especially for our girls.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Craig said; made my daughter watch the movie Dare to Dream on hbo, she got into and put a lil ‘tude’ in her personality. You said it Kregg what a moment especially for our girls.
K: You couldn’t have scripted that moment for a million dollars, and you’re right, it will resonate for years and for generations of girls who don’t think they’re skilled enough, cute enough, smart enough, etc…
EricG Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I’m sorry for the cons … my need to speak plainly and without spin must be so hard and often painful for your ears trained to hear only partisan lies.
—
Oh … I thought we were finding new and exciting ways to attack the other side … Spain likes their drinking … I wonder if they are drowning their sorrows right about now?
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Earth to Eric, earth to Eric… Come toward the light…
June 25th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
The only question, and maybe i missed it, DID IT WORK?
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Alan didn’t answer that question, Hah, because it would be inconvenient to him if it DID work. And, don’t expect Alan to actually research the issue as his ‘journalism’ is limited to posting work done by others that ridicule the right.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
The only question, and maybe i missed it, DID IT WORK?
I looked into this, apparently it was only partially successful. He is still gay, but he is 27% less gay.
He still moisturizes, but he has stopped exfoliating. The church is hoping that with additional exorcisms he will lose the ability to choose the perfect tie to bring out the flecks of green in his eyes.
craig7120 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
LOL now that’s funny
average james Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Ha hahaha,
very funny Um.
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Well, obviously they didn’t read the instructions: Wash, rinse, REPEAT!
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Which, BTW, is kind of how sanctification works…
June 25th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
And to think working Americans are subsidizing this church with their taxes. Is anyone gonna exorcise the paedophile demon from Rush Limbaugh??
Kregg Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Jake said: Is anyone gonna exorcise the paedophile demon from Rush Limbaugh??
K: Excuse me?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I have no comment.
average james Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Neither do I.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Actually, I DO have a comment on this – I watched the movie MILK this week. It was wonderfully tragic. I will not be watching it again. Too sad.
But I loved how Sean Penn channeled Harvey’s passion and courage in the face of fear. I LOVED the speech Harvey gave when they marched in Washington. It’s amazing to think about conservatives (you know, the TRUE patriots w/ the RIGHT understanding of our founding fathers and founding documents… and the ones who want govt the hell out of their lives) discriminating against gays bc it’s not how God wanted it (Adam and Steve and all that). Well – I guess Thomas Jefferson was wrong when he concluded that we’re all created equal. Madison, Mason, Jefferson, and crew were also wrong when they concluded and wrote that we all deserve to freely express who we were created to be. The founders were definitely idiots.
average james Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Actually, so do I.
Good post.
Provacative post CherylCarroll.
Our founders sheesh, what bafoons.
Like your style, makes ya think.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
[...] of True Colors, an advocacy group for gay youths, discusses the troubling details of the “gay exorcism” of a Connecticut [...]
June 25th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
This is just ridiculous.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
How sad to see people abusing their faith this way and further abusing a young man like that. Poor thing. Yes, say a prayer for that boy to find truly loving people who will help him to find peace and acceptance. And also say a prayer to heal the fear and hysteria in those others who currently surround him with such negativity and disabling judgement.
average james Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Preach it.
craig7120 Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Very well said Epiphany.
flap Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Don’t we have freedom of religion? Unless they strapped him down against his will, it’s their right.
People talk about freedom of religion UNTIL they are a little uncomfortable with it, then they want to get rid of all who disagree.
Alan said certain organizations don’t change a homosexual’s desire but BEHAVIOR. Doesn’t change their desires? Maybe I desire to be in a polygamous relationship…so what? We all practice certain behaviors based on certain desires. Some of those desires, in some people’s opinion, should NOT be acted on by certain religious groups. It’s their right.
flap Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
And to the caller who said gorillas practice homosexual behavior so it’s okay based on that…
Gorillas also rape each other, practice polygamy in essence, and probably fling poo.
flap Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
The female homosexual caller: why would a “freethinking” person be “religious” but not part of organized religion? New Age idiocy. Be an atheist. Good grief.
Why are people offended when they DISAGREE with someone’s religion? That’s like saying “I HATE BAR MITZVAHS! THEY OFFEND ME!”
jasperjava Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I have no problem with other people’s religious beliefs, as long as they don’t preach hate and abuse others. I don’t think the church here passes that test.
Kregg Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Jas said: I have no problem with other people’s religious beliefs, as long as they don’t preach hate and abuse others. I don’t think the church here passes that test.
K: Jas, to THEM they are preaching hate or abuse. Their world view is that this kid’s behavior is controlled by a supernatural force. Now, you and I would obviously see it differently but the fact that they care enough about the kid to conduct the ritual shows they care about him and should be evidence that they don’t consider what they’re doing to be abuse.
average james Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Flap, we certainly do have freedom of religion.
Noone has expressed a desire to limit that.
I’m with Epiphany on this. That was a good post that I agree with. Pray for all involved.
flap Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:01 am
I don’t even know if I even agree with exorcisms. Faith healing and that directly “channeling God” crap generally annoys me.
Anyway, you’re right, she said nothing about limiting it. I don’t know…I guess it’s bothersome that everyone thinks religion is okay until it’s some practice that they personally disagree with.
Um Cara Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Anyway, you’re right, she said nothing about limiting it. I don’t know…I guess it’s bothersome that everyone thinks religion is okay until it’s some practice that they personally disagree with.
You mean like when you talk bad about polygamy?
average james Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Gotcha Flap,
Religion is a touchy subject. It’s intensely personal.
I am loosly affiliated with a church in the area myself, but have some serious misgivings with the direction and structure.
Of course if there ever is a perfect church, they wouldn’t let me in. He he he
flap Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 1:11 am
“You mean like when you talk bad about polygamy?”
I don’t care if people want to practice polygamy…that’s their right. I was mentioning that in the context of some caller dude saying that homosexuality is okay because gorillas do it. Gorillas also do a lot of things that we don’t/shouldn’t do.
Um Cara Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
I don’t care if people want to practice polygamy…that’s their right.
Ah, I see.
Gorillas also do a lot of things that we don’t/shouldn’t do.
Yea, one of the examples you gave was polygamy.
Erm… Hmm.. Let’s try this again.
I don’t care if people want to practice polygamy…that’s their right.
Ok, I’m with you so far…
Gorillas also do a lot of things that we don’t/shouldn’t do.
One example you gave was polygamy.
Nope, you still don’t make sense.
flap Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 1:18 am
“I am loosly affiliated with a church in the area”
I don’t go to church that much but I guess it depends on how you personally interpret the Bible. I tend to be closest to Baptist from my study so whenever I decide to go that’s where I attend.
You have to choose carefully. If it’s ever about “control” instead of “accountability” then scram. HUGE difference. Domination vs. love. I think most of the popular denominations are pretty good, but there are some wacky people out there.
Kregg Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
James said: Of course if there ever is a perfect church, they wouldn’t let me in. He he he
K: Then you always be assured an entrance because there will NEVER be a perfect church because ALL churches are made up of imperfect people.
average james Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Total agreement Kregg.
Kregg Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
K: Typo patrol: They do NOT believe…
June 25th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Ok, if a 16 year old boy is in front of me and his body is convulsing, I think he’s having a seizure and may need medical attention. I hope this young man wasn’t hurt in any serious way from this “exorcism.” One day somebody is going to get hurt from these “exorcisms” and the lawsuits will be coming.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Whoa! It really is the “Invasion of the Brainwashed Bible Bigots” tonight!
Um Cara Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Pretty sure that’s ever night, GR.
flap Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Are you two anti-Christian bigots? What’s the difference?
Tolerance only works one way, right?
Um Cara Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Flap,
Do you ever listen to Alan’s show?
Do you not hear these kooks who call in?
Um Cara Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Are you two anti-Christian bigots?
And actually, come to think of it, what do you think a ‘Invasion of the Brainwashed Bible Bigots’ has to do with Christians, anyway?
You seem to hold a low opinion of Christians, Flap.
flap Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Because you are talking about the homosexual issue, and as one caller to Alan astutely pointed out, MOST Christians believe the Bible condemns homosexual behavior.
You may not be TOLERANT of that, but that’s what most Christians believe. I think it’s bigoted to be against the vast majority of Christians who believe that.
Um Cara, I agree that some of the callers are a little extreme and sometimes uneducated.
Um Cara Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 1:01 am
I think it’s bigoted to be against the vast majority of Christians who believe that.
Hey, you are the one who made the leap from ‘Brainwashed Bible Bigots’ to Christians, not me.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Uma, I am not just talking about Christians..I am talking about all discrimination in any kind of religion….
Um Cara Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:27 am
I understood you Rob, I was chastising Flap for his bigotry in assuming that ‘brainwashed bible bigots’ was referring to Christians.
Flap seems to have some beef with Christians, but hopefully he will come around and understand to be a bigot is not equal to being Christian.
Gay Rob Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Ok, I am sorry..I just misunderstood
June 26th, 2009 at 12:21 am
You are trying to use one of those “Gotcha” questions, In other words, prove to everyone that the homosexual is prejudiced and that makes everything alright. I am on to people like you.
flap Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 1:03 am
“Invasion of the Brainwashed Bible Bigots”
See, that’s what I disagree with. MOST Christians think homosexual behavior is sinful. That in and of itself makes them bigoted? I think it’s intolerant to believe that. I’m not intolerant. I don’t criticize people who practice homosexuality or hate them. But it’s my right to also disagree with the behavior based on religious views.
Now, I am NOT condoning weird exorcisms like the above or mistreating or not loving someone who wants to live that lifestyle. A parent may STRONGLY disagree with a son or daughter’s choice of careers, but that doesn’t mean that parent stops loving him/her. Loving everyone is important.
Gay Rob Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 2:29 am
I know flap…some of your best friends are gay…LoL
This is typical how people will rationalize their discrimination…But I don’t care if you disagree with the sexual orientation I was born with. And yes, you are entitled to your religious beliefs, but, not when it infringes on my rights as a tax paying citizen of this country.
As one senator said “I put my hand on the bible and swear to the constitution, “I don’t put my hand on the constitution and swear to the bible”!
There is no heavenly quill that descended from the clouds and wrote the bible. It was written by a heterosexual man, and supposedly God gave man “free will” to decide what is good and evil. So naturally, if your a homophobe and believe that “your beauty is only in the eye of your beholder” your going to interpret homosexuality as evil. The Greek and Romans did not have these silly restrictions on what beauty is.(and their civilizations lasted for thousands of years).
Oh, by the way, I was not molested as a child, I did not come from a dysfunctional family, and I was not trying to rebel against society. I WAS BORN THIS WAY!
One other thing…there is no such thing as a “homosexual lifestyle”. My lifestyle is the same as yours!
flap Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
“some of your best friends are gay”
I don’t have to justify the way I live my life to anyone. I’ve had several acquaintances who are gay. I’ve had no “best friends” who are gay. But I hate no one.
Discrimination? I don’t want to discriminate against anyone. Let’s say I was born with a very high libido, so in context with the Christian faith I can’t go practice polygamy and justify my high testosterone level as the cause.
“not when it infringes on my rights as a tax paying citizen of this country.”
Back to the polygamy example. I think the case could be made that as a tax-paying citizen that should be allowed in the context of marriage, as well as loosening it up to allow other things. Marriage has a long tradition and is a cultural, civil, as well as religious institution. I don’t think it infringes on your taxpayer rights to not allow it, when you are free to do EVERYTHING that a heterosexual can do. You are free to marry…but marriage has been traditionally defined as between a man and a woman.
“There is no heavenly quill that descended from the clouds and wrote the bible”
Most Christians believe it was inspired by God, so in essence it was a “heavenly quill.” You don’t have to agree.
Again, Rob, let’s say I was born with a high libido. That does not necessarily justify polygamy in context of the Christian faith. A scientific study was done where those males with a heterosexual inclination are generally attracted to females who are 17-years-old. If a 55-year-old and 17-year-old get together, and say some religion forbids it, is that justifiable in the context of that religion because he was “born that way”? We all have certain drives. Most Christians believe that acting on homosexual behavior is incorrect. I don’t doubt for a second that it is part of your nature to be attracted to other guys. Most Christians believe it is wrong to ACT on that. Again, you don’t have to be a Christian and you don’t have to agree. Obviously you do not.
I don’t know anything about a hetero or homosexual lifestyle. All I know is that a behavior is different than a race.
I mean no ill will to you, Rob…I hear you call Alan all the time and you seem to be a nice guy.
flap Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
And we’re kind of mixing two topics…gay marriage versus being bigoted because you disagree with homosexual behavior.
My initial point was that it is NOT bigoted to believe that and you are being intolerant for calling people names who believe that.
Again, there is a HUGE difference between a propensity or inborn behavior versus a race.
Um Cara Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
If a 55-year-old and 17-year-old get together, and say some religion forbids it, is that justifiable in the context of that religion because he was “born that way”?
In most states, it would be perfectly legal for a 55 year old and a 17 year old to not only ‘get together’ but to get married. Parental consent would be required (for the 17 year old, the 55 year old’s parents wouldn’t get a say) – unless the girl were pregnant, in which case they could get married in several states, even without parental consent.
flap Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Well, Um Cara, I think the whole question is whether or not it is intolerant and or bigoted to disagree with a specific behavior irrespective of inborn drive. In this case, homosexual behavior.
I say it’s not.
Um Cara Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 1:11 am
MOST Christians think homosexual behavior is sinful.
I think I understand what you are saying now.
When majority of Christians thought black men should not look white women in the eye, much less marry them – it would have been intolerant to have a problem with that belief, right?
Because majority rules.
Can’t say I agree with you there, Flap.
Gay Rob Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Go for you, Um Cara…I couldn’t of said it better myself
flap Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
“Christians thought black men should not look white women in the eye”
HUGE difference. Why is a behavior or a predisposition equated with race? It makes absolutely NO sense and is not logical. Civil rights are not the same thing as “behavioral rights.” The drive to want to live a homosexual lifestyle, in context of the Christian faith, is the same as my drive to want to eat high calorie meals. It can be acted on or not acted on.
Most people who are Christians believe that ACTING on that is incorrect or sinful or whatever term is to be used. Now, you don’t have to AGREE with them, and you don’t have to LIKE them, but that’s what they believe. Behavior is not the same thing as a race. That’s what annoys me about the movement to somehow equate the practice of homosexuality with race. It’s not the same thing.
By the way, when people believed that, it was their right to believe that. And, Um Cara, according to you, there is no true basis for morality other than some arbitrary “Golden Rule” so it’s not “wrong” to believe that any more than it’s “wrong” to believe that rape is morally wrong.
(And I don’t think rape is morally correct, so get it through your thick skull, Um Cara.)
And another thing, not that I have to justify how I live my life to any liberal, but most or all of the people who I believed to be homosexual in my life have been very grounded, fun-loving, caring individuals whom I liked. I’ve been friends/acquaintances with several. I hate no one. Believing that a certain BEHAVIOR is incorrect is WAY different than hating someone.
I know you libs (even if you won’t admit it) think anyone who thinks homosexual behavior is wrong is automatically an intolerant hater, but that’s your problem.
But just because a lot of Christians think a certain way doesn’t make it morally correct, I agree with you.
Um Cara Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
HUGE difference. Why is a behavior or a predisposition equated with race? It makes absolutely NO sense and is not logical. Civil rights are not the same thing as “behavioral rights.”
We weren’t chatting about ‘rights’. We were chatting about intolerance.
Most people who are Christians believe that ACTING on that is incorrect or sinful or whatever term is to be used.
I know, many Christians used to think a black man ACTING on his desire to spend some quality time with a white woman was incorrect.
I know you think it would be intolerant to consider a person with such a belief intolerant.
And, Um Cara, according to you, there is no true basis for morality other than some arbitrary “Golden Rule” so it’s not “wrong” to believe that any more than it’s “wrong” to believe that rape is morally wrong.
You are the one who keeps bringing up Confucius’ golden rule (did the J. man ever attribute him for it, by the way? I sincerely hope he was not a plagiarizer, that would be theft, which is a sin.)
I’ve explained several different times why it is wrong to rape, regardless of whether a superDude is looking over your shoulder. If you still don’t understand, just please try to keep your faith intact.
And another thing, not that I have to justify how I live my life to any liberal
Erm.. who asked you to? I don’t care if you justify how you live your life to a moderate or a conservative or an apolitical person either.
Believing that a certain BEHAVIOR is incorrect is WAY different than hating someone.
Where did I say you hated anyone? If I recall correctly, you said something about loving everyone, right? (Though I may have you confused with someone else, or one of your other personalities).
But just because a lot of Christians think a certain way doesn’t make it morally correct, I agree with you.
Good, then we can just ignore all that nonsense you were talking about earlier.
flap Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
“We weren’t chatting about ‘rights’. We were chatting about intolerance.”
But it’s really the same thing. Why is a behavior or a propensity or a predisposition equated with race? Why is that intolerant if I disagree with a behavior? You disagree with Mark Sanford’s behavior…is that intolerant?
“I’ve explained several different times why it is wrong to rape”
I must be a little dense…please explain again. Because you think it’s wrong? If gentleman A (and I won’t say “me” because your hard head will think I sanction rape) think it’s correct, who is right? Because you believe it would be bad if it happened to you? Maybe gentleman B is a sadomasochist. You haven’t provided me with squat. Society? Parents? You can’t provide me with a answer that has any basis because there is NONE without a transcendent/supernatural source. That source may not be Yahweh/Jehovah, but if it’s coming from this world then it’s all opinion.
“Erm.. who asked you to? I don’t care if you justify how you live your life to a moderate or a conservative or an apolitical person either.”
No one asked me to, but I know you libs or moderates or whatever you are love to throw labels on people as intolerant or haters because someone else has a differing viewpoint.
“I know, many Christians used to think a black man ACTING on his desire to spend some quality time with a white woman was incorrect.”
Nice try. Homosexual behavior versus being black. Christians who discriminated were doing so based on a RACE. That is virtually anatomical. Behaviors are VERY complicated (thus bisexual, etc.) and not even close to the same thing.
“Good, then we can just ignore all that nonsense you were talking about earlier.”
Nonsense? You don’t even agree with morals in the first place…oh wait, other than saying something is wrong because “you’d feel bad when it happens to you.” You and Christopher Hitchens need to get together to talk about “human solidarity” being a basis for morality, which is laughable.
Um Cara Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
But it’s really the same thing.
Tolerance and rights are not the same thing, grab a dictionary.
You disagree with Mark Sanford’s behavior…is that intolerant?
Absolutely, I am intolerant of dudes who run around on their families. You aren’t?
I must be a little dense…please explain again.
I’m beginning to think so, but read through the previous posts and give it another shot.
No one asked me to, but I know you libs or moderates or whatever you are love to throw labels on people as intolerant or haters because someone else has a differing viewpoint.
You seem very intolerant of my belief that folks should not act out on their desires to exhibit bigoted behavior.
Nice try. Homosexual behavior versus being black. Christians who discriminated were doing so based on a RACE. That is virtually anatomical. Behaviors are VERY complicated (thus bisexual, etc.) and not even close to the same thing.
The behavior of a black man meeting a white woman in the eyes (or in the back of a car) is virtually anatomical? You are making less sense tonight than usual.
Nonsense? You don’t even agree with morals in the first place
Sure I do. We just disagree on the necessity of those morals coming from a supernatural being.
flap Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 2:16 am
“Tolerance and rights are not the same thing, grab a dictionary.”
“Absolutely, I am intolerant of dudes who run around on their families. You aren’t?”
Certain rights are applied based on tolerance, at least in some sense.
I guess the crux of my whole argument is that there is a monumental difference between behavior and race, and I don’t know if I accept the idea that if I disagree with a certain behavior I am being “intolerant” of that behavior. I disagree with practicing the Islamic faith, so is that intolerant? I disagree with spanking, so is that intolerant? I disagree with homosexual behavior, so is that intolerant? Does tolerance equal pluralism or endorsement where I (or society) must accept all actions and beliefs? Does our society ban homosexual behavior? No. Is the fact that society is (generally) against the radical redefinition of marriage intolerant? I don’t think so.
Disagreeing with a certain race being equal AND not wanting to give “equal access” in society is certainly intolerant. Racial tolerance? YES. Behavioral tolerance? I don’t have to agree with anything you do or anyone else does. Is that intolerance? Perhaps if it’s equated with disagreement.
“You seem very intolerant of my belief that folks should not act out on their desires to exhibit bigoted behavior.”
It’s not bigoted behavior in the first place…I was pointing out your logical mistakes. But, hey, THAT SUPPOSEDLY “BIGOTED” BEHAVIOR WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY. They had no choice!
“The behavior of a black man meeting a white woman in the eyes (or in the back of a car) is virtually anatomical?”
The discrimination and intolerance was only indirectly because of the act. It was based on the RACE performing that act with another RACE. Huge difference. Black and white is anatomical. Hetero/homo is behavioral based on a variety of things. Makes perfect sense.
“Sure I do. We just disagree on the necessity of those morals coming from a supernatural being.”
You haven’t told me where you think those morals come from. What’s the source? The golden rule? An eclectic mix of your personal experiences? Your parents? Society? Tell me anything else than a supernatural and/or transcendent source and I’ll tell you why it’s arbitrary and relativistic and essentially meaningless.
Granted, if Yahweh/God does not exist, my morals are essentially meaningless too. And if there is no transcendent source then nothing is good and nothing is bad and you can’t give me a logical reason why good and bad even truly exist.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:24 am
average james- shank u
flap- i agree w u in that freedom of relgn is freedom of relgn, period. we csnt only support it when we want 2. thats y im so pissed… this isnt a theocracy but 2 many treat it as if it is, especially repubs. 4 them, its a theocracy n the only qstn is what exact interpretation of our fundamentalist bible do we force feed 2 evryone?
dont be offended if i dont reply… im doin this on my cell. nice phone, but still not a laptop.
flap Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Well, we’re not a theocracy…I think Alan missed your sarcasm when you called.
BUT, I still do think we have a strong Judeo-Christian religious tradition. That’s very hard to reasonably deny. A lot of people think homosexual behavior is wrong. So what? We live in a fairly enlightened society…most people are pretty tolerant, even those of us who disagree with the behavior.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Daddio gushing over “Kreg’s” religious and psycho-babble “double speak” is truly hilarious.
But then let ry to put this in a proper perspective…Hypersexuality is not the same as Homosexuality. Hypersexuality is a choice of how much wants to engage in a promiscuous behavior (and that applies to both heterosexaul and homosexaul orientations.
Kregg Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Rob said: Daddio gushing over “Kreg’s” religious and psycho-babble “double speak” is truly hilarious.
K: What was “psycho-babble” and ‘double-speak’ about it?
R: But then let ry to put this in a proper perspective…Hypersexuality is not the same as Homosexuality. Hypersexuality is a choice of how much wants to engage in a promiscuous behavior (and that applies to both heterosexaul and homosexaul orientations.
K: It was an EXAMPLE of the ability to control a behavior, Rob. Are you implying that you cannot control your behavior? That your body just goes out and does what it wants without your mental consent and control? If not, then you need to admit that what I said was not ‘psycho-babble’ at all but a statement made from common sense.
Gay Rob Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Kregg: this is always the same argument…nauture vs nurture. I am not a person that has many partners..being gay man does not mean I can’t control my behavior. Can you control your heterosexual orientation? You keep confusing these isssues.
Polygamy is about how many partners you can have. It is the subset of the sexual orientation…not the sexual orientation itself. In other words, the desire for a woman is your sexual orientation… how many partners you want is a “choice”. There are many hetereosexul men who rape…Do I blame them because they were born straight, therfore they are rapists because they can’t control their behavior? Also, pedophilia is a subset of a sexual orientation..A man or woman, who molests little boys or girls, should not be blamed for their sexual orientation..I don’t molest little boys…do you molest little girls?
I know I will never be able to convince you that I was born gay. And even if you were not a relgiouos man, would you still believe that I am abnormal.
Fundamentalists keep telling people like me that I can be gay man but I can enact on the behavior. They use comparsions such as you can fantasize about stealing or murder, but this does not mean one should engage in these criminal acts. But these are violations of another person’s rights! Consensual homosexual oriented behavior is not hurting anyone else. And if polygamous practices were to be legalized, then it should pertain to both heterosexual and homosexuals marriages!
Mass has just celebrated it’s fifth anniversary of gay marriage. Have you seen thousand of people clamoring for polygamous marriages, or have you heard of anyone wanting to marry their dog? No!
God created ape adam and ape eve..and those adam & eves begat other ape adams and ape eves, and eventually, they begat aaron and steves..And that’s how gay and lesbians got here!..Do unto gays, as gays would do unto to you!
Kregg Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 2:57 am
Rob said: Kregg: this is always the same argument…nauture vs nurture. I am not a person that has many partners..being gay man does not mean I can’t control my behavior. Can you control your heterosexual orientation? You keep confusing these isssues.
K: Rob, first of all you have to learn to read straight. I said nothing about controlling orientation. I am not confused on the matter at all – you are. I said you could control BEHAVIOR. Behavior is NOT orientation. Nor, did I say that you cannot control your behavior. In fact, I said the exact opposite.
R: Polygamy is about how many partners you can have.
K: In fact, it is not. Polygamy is defined as the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.
R: It is the subset of the sexual orientation…not the sexual orientation itself. In other words, the desire for a woman is your sexual orientation… how many partners you want is a “choice”.
K: Exactly. This is exactly what I said in my post.
R: There are many hetereosexul men who rape…Do I blame them because they were born straight, therfore they are rapists because they can’t control their behavior?
K: Rape is not an issue of lack of sexual control. It is the crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will. Gay men can rape as easily as straight men.
R: Also, pedophilia is a subset of a sexual orientation..A man or woman, who molests little boys or girls, should not be blamed for their sexual orientation..I don’t molest little boys…do you molest little girls?
K: Pedophilia is the direction of sexual feelings toward children and gay men and women can be pedophiles as easily as straight men and women.
R: I know I will never be able to convince you that I was born gay. And even if you were not a relgiouos man, would you still believe that I am abnormal.
K: Wrong. I believe you WERE born gay. And, unfortunately, that make you ‘abnormal’ by definition as your mixed sexual orientation is not the norm.
R: Fundamentalists keep telling people like me that I can be gay man but I can enact on the behavior. They use comparsions such as you can fantasize about stealing or murder, but this does not mean one should engage in these criminal acts.
K: You just argued in this very post that you CAN control your behavior. So, which is it? Either you CAN control your behavior – or you CANNOT. But it can’t be BOTH.
R: But these are violations of another person’s rights! Consensual homosexual oriented behavior is not hurting anyone else. And if polygamous practices were to be legalized, then it should pertain to both heterosexual and homosexuals marriages!
K: I’ve not said that homosexual oriented behavior hurts anyone else. I don’t understand the meaning of your second sentence…
R: Mass has just celebrated it’s fifth anniversary of gay marriage. Have you seen thousand of people clamoring for polygamous marriages, or have you heard of anyone wanting to marry their dog? No!
K: What I HAVE seen regarding polygamous marriages a state government raiding, arresting, and prosecuting a whole sect of people who weren’t bothering anybody.
R: God created ape adam and ape eve..and those adam & eves begat other ape adams and ape eves, and eventually, they begat aaron and steves..And that’s how gay and lesbians got here!..
K: God created Adam and Eve. Male and Female. Biological ‘error’ produces all kinds of anomalies and IMO homosexual orientation is one of them.
R: Do unto gays, as gays would do unto to you!
K: I would have gays respect the millenia old institution of marriage as being only between a man and a woman. I will gladly vote to extend ‘civil union’ to them.
K Look, Rob, don’t get me wrong, if a homosexual individual is not a christian then I see no particular reason to do anything other than pursue a gay lifestyle and gay sex. Persons who do NOT rely on the bible for their instruction yet object to the ‘normalizing’ of homosexuals and homosexual unions must make their own arguments for denying same.
flap Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 2:20 am
The propensity to practice homosexual behavior is no different than my propensity to eat Star Crunch snack cakes.
Doesn’t matter if I have the inborn drive to eat Star Crunch snack cakes, I still have the ability to NOT eat them.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:20 am
wat the hell thats what he or it gets for being gayish a big demon up is butt!!!
June 26th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
If love is the only requirement pertaining to the marriage covenant and if homosexuality is going to be recognized by the government on this basis then polygamous practices must be allowed and recognized as well…….
If two men love each other and desire to be married then three men who love each other and desire to be married MUST be granted the privilege as well…..
ANY OBJECTION TO THIS IS SIMPLY BIGOTED AND INTOLERANT.
Um Cara Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
If love is the only requirement pertaining to the marriage covenant and if homosexuality is going to be recognized by the government on this basis then polygamous practices must be allowed and recognized as well…….
Many Christians agree with you, including much of your family. I guess that is why legalizing polygamy is so important to you.
trees are people too Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
I do not support polygamy and it’s legalization will likewise be opposed by me, I merely present the reality of it in relationship to this issue.
You cannot allow for homosexual marriage and not include polygamy, they are coequal in regards to this issue, as both are sexual behaviors.
I also do not consider the beliefs held by my “family” to be consistent with Christian beliefs.
Reality is objective, that is it exists independently apart from ourselves, and is not subjective……
For instance, I could label myself a Hindu but my proclaiming this does not make it true……
I can claim that the color white is really black but because of objective reality you could easily identify the error in such a statement…..
There is an objective moral standard that exists outside of ourselves and by it we can understand moral principles, for without it we would be in a moral dilemma unable to determine right from wrong….
If society as a collective is the determiner of morality then a successful Nazi regime that conquered the globe and eradicated all opposing thought would have been perceived today as morally upright, for they would have eliminated any and all contrary views.
Could you envision such a scenario?
Do you think it would have ever been accepted?
I saw the movie “The boy in the striped pajamas” recently, have you seen it?
If you haven’t seen it I would recommend watching it.
It will leave an impression.
Um Cara Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
You cannot allow for homosexual marriage and not include polygamy, they are coequal in regards to this issue, as both are sexual behaviors.
So you are saying you can’t allow for heterosexual marriage and not include homosexual marriage, they are coequal in regards to this issue, as both are sexual behaviors.
Glad you have come around on the issue!
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
however, homosexual sexual behavior is unnatural behavior as it does not lead to the sexual organs doing what they were meant to do: procreation (ref our conversation about a month ago on this issue).
In this regard, heterosexuality and homosexuality are NOT coequal.
Marriage isn’t a sexual behavior.
Um Cara Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
however, homosexual sexual behavior is unnatural behavior as it does not lead to the sexual organs doing what they were meant to do: procreation (ref our conversation about a month ago on this issue).
I wish you would get off your soapbox about post menopausal women doing unnatural things when they have sex.
Your wife will go through menopause someday, and since you are still going to want to have sex with her – it is in your interest to not convince her it is unnatural for her to have sex with you after menopause because it will not lead to procreation.
Um Cara Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
If society as a collective is the determiner of morality then a successful Nazi regime that conquered the globe and eradicated all opposing thought would have been perceived today as morally upright, for they would have eliminated any and all contrary views.
Yea, it was a good thing the godless commies made such a huge sacrifice in that war, and helped us to defeat the Nazis.
June 26th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Just because I am gay does not mean I have multiple partners. You are again confusing a promiscuous behavior with a person’s sexual orientation.
These are two separate issues.
trees are people too Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 2:22 am
If four gay men wanted to participate in a polygamous marriage would you discriminate against them?
Should gay men also be allowed to practice polygamy?
June 27th, 2009 at 2:12 am
Polygamy is a choice in how many partners one desires..it is not the sexual orientation itself. Of course, your argument always is referenced by “Nurture vs Nature” and that I am abnormal. And if there was a law that legalized Polygamy, than it should pertain to both homosexual and heterosexual marriages.
Mass has celebrated it’s fifth anniversary of gay marriage. Have you seen hundreds of people clamoring for polygamous marriages or have you heard of anyone wanting to marry their dog? No!
trees are people too Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 2:34 am
You haven’t answered my question.
Should Gay’s be allowed to practice polygamy?
On what grounds will you deny them the right to practice polygamy?
The fact that traditional marriage denies polygamy isn’t a valid argument as it also denies homosexual marriage.
The fact is there is no basis to deny polygamy according to your argument, is there?
flap Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 2:27 am
“your argument always is referenced by “Nurture vs Nature” and that I am abnormal”
Hey, Rob, we are ALL abnormal. Honestly. I hope I speak for all conservatives on here saying that we like you…you call Alan relatively often and you seem to be a nice guy.
I may disagree with you on certain things but you disagree with me on certain things.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:26 am
God created “ape adam” and “ape eve”, and those adam and eves begat other adam and eves,…who eventually gave birth to “arron and steves”..and that’s how I got here! But even if you were not a religious man, you not believe I was born this way.
trees are people too Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 2:40 am
You are deliberately avoiding answering the question regarding polygamy, why?
trees are people too Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 2:52 am
Rob, it’s a simple question.
Should there be a limit to the number of participants who can form a marriage union?
Yes or no?
Why or why not?
trees are people too Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 2:58 am
I’ll check back tomorrow for your answer, have a good night Rob.
Sincerely, your friend trees.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:38 am
If the law denies polygamous marriages for both heterosexual and homosexual marriages, then at least it is not being discriminatory according to a person’s love and sexual orientation.
You may disagree with the “seat belt laws”, and even disobey them..but that law applies to everyone, not just one sect of people.
But then “King Solomon (a very wise ruler) had many wives and a few concubines on the side. He was one of the biggest polygamists of all! LOL
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 5:25 am
…then at least it is not being discriminatory according to a person’s love and sexual orientation.
So what you’re saying is that discrimination is OK as long as everyone is being targeted equally?
Unfortunately, GAYROB, your argument doesn’t make much sense. Polygamists are being discriminated against based solely on their lifestyle choice…regardless of the law…and regardless of their sexual orientation.
That’s your argument for gay-marriage right? That the law cannot discriminate against you because of your lifestyle? If you were truly interested in equal rights for all people of non-traditional marriage practices…then you’d be all inclusive…hence TREES’ question.
average james Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Equal treatment under the law sounds right to me.
Laws are restrictive by definition, equality under law is essential to a just society.
The absurd argument for polygamy may tug at some but I’m not taking the bait. Straw dog diversions and ridiculous projections are fast becoming the hallmark of the conservative right.
It’s a shame really.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
AVERAGE JAMES,
How funny is it that you say that “equal treatment under the law sounds right to me.”
But then say the case for polygamy is absurd! Why is that? Why are you all for equal treatment under the law…but not for polygamists?
Would you like to clarify your position? Either you’re for equal treatment…or you’re not…which is it?
Um Cara Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Unfortunately, GAYROB, your argument doesn’t make much sense. Polygamists are being discriminated against based solely on their lifestyle choice
Homosexuality is not a ‘lifestyle choice’, any more than the fact that I prefer morenas to loiras is a ‘lifestyle choice’. Or the fact that I am only attracted to intelligent women is a ‘lifestyle choice’.
That’s your argument for gay-marriage right? That the law cannot discriminate against you because of your lifestyle?
I’ll let Gay Rob speak for himself, of course, but I sincerely doubt that is his argument. It is usually (not always) folks bigoted against homosexuals who talk about ‘lifestyles’ when discussing these issues.
average james Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Lifestyles for sexual orientations
EITs for torture
liberation for invasion
spending bills for budgets…………………
I’m seeing a pattern. A pattern of the right changing terminology, trying to control the argument.
It smells like Gingrich.
Daddio Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Hey James, tell me which party doesn’t change terminology to control an argument?
average james Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Fair enough Willio,
I see through my liberal specs.
This is what I’ve noticed outta the right lately.
Your taxes are gonna go sky high.
reality= there will likely be some increase.
Government is taking over buissness.
reality=some buisness recieved loans and are subject to conditions of the lender.
Marriage will be destroyed, beastiality and man-boy love and polygamy are next.
reality=gays deserve the same rights as straights, no more no less.
Obama is weakening our military and being soft on our enemies. The threat to america is geater now because of this.
reality=A different diplomatic approach is underway and military growth needs realistic management.
Bureaucrats in Washington will ration health care and it will fail and bankrupt our nation.
reality=A single payer system would simplify every aspect of health care and reduce costs as well as providing equality of availabilty for all.
There are alot more examples of ‘the sky is falling’ negative fear based arguments coming out of the conservative right recently. I haven’t the time, I’ve got things that are not going to do themselves to attend to.
You’re a bud Willio, but you are still wrong.
Daddio Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Ah come on James. I’m still wrong? Not all the time. :)
I’ve got things to do also. Have a good day.
average james Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 11:14 am
OK,
You are not ALWAYS wrong, just mostly.
Politically speaking.
Now I really gotta go.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
AVERAGE JAMES,
You’re right…spin is como siempre for politicians…choosing to believe you’ll get the truth out of a politician is wishful thinking.
For example you said:
Your taxes are gonna go sky high.
reality= there will likely be some increase.
The actual reality is there has already been the highest commodity tax increase in recent history — during a recession.
The actual reality is the non-partisan congressional budget office and a representative of Obama’s own budget office indicate the increase in household energy costs will most likely be TRIPLE what the White House is pushing.
You also said:
Government is taking over buissness.
reality=some buisness recieved loans and are subject to conditions of the lender.
The US Government is the PRIMARY shareholder of GM…meaning they have majority control of the company. What you did there: “are subject to conditions of the lender”…is exactly the same as “lender controlled”. That’s called “spin”.
Then you said:
Marriage will be destroyed, beastiality and man-boy love and polygamy are next.
reality=gays deserve the same rights as straights, no more no less.
If you’re willing to scream for “equal protection for all”, then you MUST extend protection to all fringe groups who feel they are being discriminated against. 40 years ago…gay marriage was as taboo as beastiality is today…what do you think will be acceptable 40 years from now?
THEN you say:
Bureaucrats in Washington will ration health care and it will fail and bankrupt our nation.
reality=A single payer system would simplify every aspect of health care and reduce costs as well as providing equality of availabilty for all.
We only have to look to other, one-payer systems to figure out what might happen with our own. To think that our government is able to run a business is the proverbial “shot in the dark”
trees are people too Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Yes, it is.
“Choice” is the issue…..
The fact is, you make decisions concerning the practice of sexuality, whether to engage in sex or not is in itself a decision.
You are not out of control, careening around abstractly falling on top of women haphazardly.
You have specific goals, and you methodically plan out a course of action or a strategy for achieving these goals.
This is premeditation.
The “root” of your desire is not what vindicates behavior, and you know this.
You, yourself have indicated a desire for multiple simultaneous “partners”.
Woman + woman + Um Cara = very cool. I think that was the formula you cited, if my memory serves me correctly……..
If this is your hearts desire why would you deny the inclinations of your heart?
Why would you deny others who desire to be united in a polygamous marriage?
Shouldn’t the polygamist be entitled to the same freedoms as the homosexual?
Shouldn’t you be understanding and tolerant?
You surprise me Um, I would have thought you would be a willing supporter of polygamist’s rights.
Um Cara Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
You surprise me Um, I would have thought you would be a willing supporter of polygamist’s rights.
We’ve talked about this, there aren’t enough chicks to go around.
Plus, I already have enough causes and I don’t think I could be nearly as effective a promoter of polygamy as you have proven to be. I would not be a bit surprised to learn you had convinced many to support it with your numerous posts calling for it.
If I could show but half the skill you have displayed with your argumentation for polygamy with my argumentation for same sex marriage, I am convinced we would have same sex marriage in all fifty states.
Your kung fu is most impressive, Trees.
trees are people too Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 12:44 am
When you can snatch the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper, then you will be ready………
On a serious note, homosexual marriage will clear the way for polygamy, and marriage can then be redefined at will for whatever group desires to make it (marriage) conform to their image……..
Truth shines like a light in the darkness, I’ve only won the argument by holding up the truth.
trees are people too Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Sure it is, discriminating is exactly what the law is doing.
It is limiting the marriage covenant to only two participants.
Until very recently, the marriage covenant was limited to only heterosexuals, and this was not discriminatory in the sense that it allowed for any two of the opposite sex to be married.
You desire to change the definition to allow for any two to be married, but two is just a number, it is arbitrary and insignificant to the discussion.
If the definition of marriage is changed to allow for a new group, then it subsequently must be changed for any other group that desires to be united in marriage.
The precedent that is currently being established is that the only requirement for marriage be a loving relationship.
If you can’t define this relationship to consist of only opposite sex participants, then you can no longer define it to consist of only couples either………
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
TREES,
I guess “discrimination” only applies to line items on the liberal agenda…
So sad…
average james Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Nah,
I really don’t think so boys.
The sky is falling eh ?
Damn that slippery slope of freeing the slaves.
Damn that slippery slope of allowing women to vote.
That’s a ridiculous ‘inevitable’ conclusion.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Nah,
Damn those liberals who only advocate anti-discrimination legislature for items they consider discriminatory…
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
If you think liberals did all that on their own you are living in a dream world.
average james Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Bliss,
I comepletely agree. Lot’s of people were involved.
The point I was trying to convey was, the outrageous inevitable conclusion trying to be argued is laughable.
Anytime freedoms/rights are extended to any group, that is a positive.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
AVERAGE JAMES,
But you just said you don’t think polygamy, beastiality, etc. deserve equal protection…even though you argue for “freedom/rights for any group”. You said it yourself…so, where’s the disconnect here?
Which is it? Freedom for all, or freedom for some?
average james Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 1:39 am
Nice try Jared,
I’m still not taking the bait.
Have a good night brother Jared.
libpatriot Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 2:03 am
Freedom for all adults to choose monogamous relationships with other consenting adults!
(My problem with polygamy is that inevitably the increasing frequency of jealousy issues would result in an increase in domestic violence–including murders–if polygamy were legalized. Heck, jealousy issues can get serious enough and occur frequently enough in MONOGAMOUS relationships, let alone POLYGAMOUS relationships!)
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 2:43 am
lib…using that rationale even dating should be outlawed…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 3:02 am
AVERAGE JAMES,
No baiting here…just wondering why you would advocate blanket freedom from certain discriminatory actions…but not others.
You are a lib, right? “Tolerance and acceptance”…right?
libpatriot Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Guido: “using that rationale even dating should be outlawed”
I don’t think so, Guido. You know perfectly well that marriage as a legal contract is far more binding than agreeing to go on a date. People with multiple spouses will invariably favor one spouse over the rest, and this is very likely to lead to violence. It would be an institutional guarantee for more domestic violence occuring.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that we legalized both gay marriage and polygamous marriage for a ten-year period of time, with the option of making the legality of either permanent after that time period. I think we would see that polygamous marriages cause an increase in domestic violence but that gay marriages do not. And then no one would be asking the question, “If we legalize gay marriage, why not polygamy?”, ever again.
libpatriot Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:04 am
Pssst…GuidoVanHorn!
(One post above this one)
(If you have a reply, I’ll answer it tomorrow evening. I’ve REALLY got to hit the hay for now.)
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:42 am
well oral contracts have been found to be binding in court…. ;)
I don’t think domestic violence incidents are a good reason to create marriage policy…one way or the other. It’s sort of like saying, we’ll legalize gay marriage and polygamy and whichever one produces more children gets to stay…just completely irrational thought processes..at least in my infantile thought process.
I have morality issues with homosexual relations which cloud my judgement (I freely admit that) however I balance that with my feeling that I think govt. shouldn’t be involved in marriage to start with. I don’t really care if homosexuals want to create legal bindings (or if some church feels like providing gay marriages for that matter). I don’t care what they call it Civil Unions/Marriages…
Reasons for marriage have often been obfuscated…is the purpose of marriage to unite people that love each other? Well people that hate each other get married (and stay married) all the time. Is the purpose of marriage to bring children into the world? Lots of people get married when they are older, lots of people choose to not have kids, lots of people are physically unable to have kids. People get married to secure benefits, some people don’t get married so they won’t lose benefits, People get married because they have children, people get married to prove that they are no longer children, people get married to have sex, people get married because they are tired of sex. People get married to unite kingdoms, people get married to hide their homosexuality etc…….
My libertarian side says c’est la vie, I know that specifically contradicts the official statements from my religion of choice, but religions aren’t politics nor government.
I know people overuse hate the sin not the sinner, but that is exactly how I see it. I have a very strong conviction that homosexual sex is a sin, and I personally cannot condone it. Politically I’d rather err on the side of freedom though, and if Gay Rob chooses to pursue his sexual desires it’s far from me and my puny desires to try and restrict him.
If we look at the history of polygamy in the United States, the legal battles are rife with religious intolerance and bigotry. Polygamy isn’t for everyone…just like homosexuality isn’t for everyone. Does that mean we need to restrict it, I think more damage has been done by restricting it than anything else.
libpatriot Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:36 am
Good post, Guido! And it’s true, the anti-polygamy laws were more often than not really anti-Mormon laws thinly disguised. While I still think there’s truth in domestic violence being increased by legalizing polygamy, I am hard-pressed to find an example of a democracy that legally sanctions polygamy as a widespread societal practice, so am forced to admit that I have to resort to a hypothetical situation.
“Reasons for marriage have often been obfuscated…”
Yes.
“…but religions aren’t politics nor government.”
I appreciate your ability to grasp this, GuidoVanHorn, as many on the right apparently cannot.
“Politically I’d rather err on the side of freedom, though…”
I would too, mostly.
“…I think more damage has been done by restricting it [polygamy] than anything else.”
(Sigh.) You may be right!
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:10 am
of course I’m right…;)
libpatriot Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:17 am
I should have known!
:-)
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 8:12 am
well..as long you recognize it, now I just need to conv1nce everyone else.
June 27th, 2009 at 3:55 am