Yesterday marked the 38th anniversary of an American tragedy which is made even more tragic by the fact that so few people know about it.
On June 24th, 1973, firebombs were thrown into a former church in New Orleans which had been converted into a Gay bar...and 32 men burned to death, screaming for help that would never come. Never. Because the crime was never solved, nor even thoroughly investigated.
At the time, a lot of people thought that burning "queers" was just fine...the same way other people thought that "niggers" looked good swinging from a rope. It helped to assign dehumanizing labels, you know, to avoid any unpleasant feelings of conscience or remorse.
Great progress has been made in the past 38 years, but here at Hope n' Change we cringe when we hear contenders for the Republican presidential candidacy berating Gays (unavoidably including Gay conservatives and Gay Christians). With so many insanely critical threats to our country right now, what makes them think this should even be on the list? Can we please fix joblessness, the economy, national security, and an inconceivable deficit and then (and only then) move on to judging peoples' love lives?!
As has been said here before, Hope n' Change doesn't take a religious perspective on this (or any) matter. We don't want to debate what is or isn't "sin" according to the Bible, but do want to share our personal definition of right and wrong.
Two men or two women in a committed, monogamous relationship? We know a number of people who fit this description and it's fine with us. Hating or even killing people because of how they were born...with no more choice in the matter than their skin color? Unacceptable. And such hatred should be a sin by anyone's standards.
Whatever our personal beliefs or feelings, we've undeniably reached a point in America in which we need to consider broadening our views at least enough to team with any allies whose core political beliefs align with our own...or suffer the consequences as the Left firebombs our entire country and leaves all of us to burn.
-
67 comments:
Sorry, but this is one of the rare times where I disagree with you. - There are NO "gay Christians"; the Bible is explicit about that issue, despite what numerous liars in the media would have us believe. Homosexuality is a choice, like drug use, pedophilia or robbing a bank.
There are also very few "gay Conservatives". Homosexuals are overwhelmingly liberal in their politics, and have pushed their liberal agenda at the expense of family values.
There is a reason why two men/two women are biologically incapable of creating a baby...
@Anonymous-I totally disagree with you....I know quiet a few "gay" couples that are stand up member of the community and are probably a lot more conservative then you.....also they display and act more "Christian" then a lot of the homophobic bigots out there. Also Mr. Anonymous (why) I believe there is a line in the bible that reads something like "He without sin cast the first stone!" So since you are all ready to start casting stones at gay folk I guess you are without sin....you have lived your entire life and never committed a sin? In all your years you have never broken one of the ten commandments? Sorry but I don't believe that at all.....so until you can say you have lived without sin don't go spouting your narrow-minded fanatical interpretation of the bible, because next you will be wanting to stone my girlfriend and I as adulterers since we live together without being married and the nice old cat lady down the street as a witch!!!!!!
@Stilt-you said it the government needs to get it f*cking nose out of peoples bedrooms and personal lives in general and focus on more important issues that are plaguing this country like the unauthorized and illegal "kinetic military action" in Libya, the unemployment rate which is almost twice as high in the USA as in Mexico, the out of control spending, and run away deficit.
One a lighter note there was a bipartisan bill introduced by Barney Frank and Ron Paul to remove marijuana from the federal list of controlled substances.....this will allow states to decide whether it is legal and how they will regulate/tax it....for once the there is a bill offered that will take power away from the federal government and put it where it belongs in the hands of the individual state. Of course I just can't believe the Barney Frank and Ron Paul would be able to agree on anything.....but bipartisanship of any kind is a start.....I would like to see more laws of this type ...removing power from the Feds and giving back to where it belongs.....the state!!!
Thank you Stilt, and thank you Dave -- and anyone else who comments here today in a positive note, I will pre-thank you -- and in light of NY State's approval of gay marriage last night, let me say we gay folks are so elated today, nationwide -- despite this unknown atrocity - which I spent the last few days bringing to the attention of dozens of websites and thousands of people -- of which "Anonymous" couldn't even display a shred of humanity and shed a tear.
As for you, Mr. or Ms. Annonymous -- let me tell you sir or madam of genderless confusion -- don't ever compare gay love with pedophilia again -- the latter is a crime -- and you have no evidence whatsoever that any gay man ever did any such thing. Nor robbing a bank. You are making false criminal charges -- which in all 50 states is itself a crime. Put up or shut up.
And furthermore, sir or madam -- Jesus said "put your light upon the basket" and I notice "anonymous" -- you have not put your light upon the basket but hide yourself, and in a Free Republic to boot -- and I'm one of the few people on any blog anywhere who uses his real name, for I fear not. And I treat others as I wish to be treated, I love my neighbor more than myself, even you. And you may "believe" gayness is not natural, you are like Al Gore believing in global warming -- yet gayness exists all over God's green & blue globe in the exact same percentage in every society ever known or known now. It's like autism, it's just natural. So put us on the autism spectrum -- a little brain wiring issue -- and be done with it, and soothe your hard heart. And I knew I was gay when I was 10 years old -- I made no choice about the matter, but had to find out later that there were people like you against me to the point of burning us to death by the dozens for "Christian" and "family values" no doubt.
And don't dare tell me I'm not a Christian -- you have no right to do so; I'm just not a member of your denomination. Furthermore, if people like you would be friendly towards gays you might well find that most gays are very conservative -- we own our own businesses because we were fired from so many jobs because of attitudes like yours that we had to. And do you think I don't pay the same confiscatory tax rates? Do you think I have a special card that exempts me from gasoline prices, but I get it at oh, 69 cents a gallon? But you have chased gay folks into the Democratic camp -- do you wish I vote for the Democrats? To spite your own face while cutting off your nose? Dems whom themselves are hypocritical SOBs on the matter. Obama himself yesterday gave a "separate but equal" speech in NYC, the bum.
I post twice this AM:
And oh genderless "anonymous" one -- how are gays against family values? How dare you make the charge? Other than being gay there is not one shred of evidence that any gay person ever attacked a family, church or this nation, or prevented you or anyone from doing what you do, and we're the florists who provide the brides' bouquets for heaven's sake! But we have begged for inclusion and acceptance -- which is why it got better -- obviously I must still beg you, which I do. It is your preconceived notions that we wish to make you gay or something, oh, your views are so mush-headed I don't even know how you think we're against family. I'm with my 60 member family right now -- how is this "anti-family"? What on earth are you talking about? Plus, there are many hetero couples who have no children -- and what the hell do you think all those fertility clinics are in business for? And what autistic or mentally retarded people are having babies -- but are still allowed to marry?
Oooh, I could go on and on and demolish your mush, but I have no time -- because me and my family are reconfiguring the family investment portfolios to preserve our wealth before that socialist in the White House destroys it all -- and before I go down to NYC to enjoy the gay pride festivities all weekend -- which came about because of the police raids against us, which I have experienced at your behalf "anonymous" -- and let me tell you, it's not pretty when cops come into the bar and start to swing nightsticks as they have swung at me.
And I'm not proud because I'm gay -- but proud because I survived the onslaught against me for the past 40 years. So thanks Stilt, and all, and anonymous, get a grip and be more Christian.
@Anonymous (Top)- The responses from Dave and Jim Hlavac cover everything important (and very well). But I'd still like to add a couple of words about my personal perspective because I know this can be a divisive issue, and my goal on this blog is to unite rather than divide whenever possible.
As I mentioned above, I'm not really church-oriented and it's not my business to tell any church or church member what to believe. But this remains a democracy rather than a theocracy, and it's important for us to try to find ways to balance those elements in our lives. For instance, Barack Obama accomplished this balance by going to church for 20 years but never actually listening.
Similarly, you can believe that homosexuality is a sin (although I wish you didn't), but still realize that "sins" are the business of the church and of God, and not necessarily lawmakers. Where are the laws against coveting another's wife or property? The laws against graven images? What's in the penal code about failure to honor your mother and father?
Separation of church and state is good for both. That doesn't mean people shouldn't let their beliefs shape their morality or affect their choices. But it's good to remember that the dividing line between church and state is what protects the freedom of any and all churches. It's what protects the U.S. from Shariah law.
As I've said on this blog before, I have no tolerance for what I consider promiscuous behavior - straight, gay, or whatever. Which means I'm more offended by Arnold "Sperminator" Schwarzenegger knocking up a servant, or Anthony Weiner tweeting his genitalia, than I am by Ellen DeGeneres living monogamously with another woman.
I've had, and have, many Gay friends. And maybe it's just been the luck of the draw, but they've tended to be quiet, considerate, talented people.
The idea of lumping them in with bank robbers and pederasts is beyond offensive...but in this country you have a right to believe what you want to believe. But those beliefs do not and should not have the power of law.
Are many Gays liberal? Probably. But that's not a reason to write all of them off as potential political allies. We can't allow ourselves the easy (and ugly) intellectual laziness that presumes the Democrats automatically own the votes of all blacks, all hispanics, all gays, or anyone else.
Especially since those groups are increasingly looking at the Obama administration, which had a Democrat supermajority, and realizing that nothing was done for them. The Left takes their votes, and then turns their back. Which is why the Right should be extending a hand rather than waving a fist.
These are hard and personal choices, and I'm not making light of anyone's beliefs or faith. And I'm truly sorry if anyone is offended by what I'm saying here today, but not sorry that I'm telling you what I honestly believe.
I feel that whether or not you are gay is a personal matter and a personal choice....although, I also feel that people who are gay have really been pushing the matter publicly in a major way. Also, marriage has been one man and one woman for eons....why change that? Marriage is what marriage is....
So...I am definitely not for bias...for killing people....for anything like that. However, I am AGAINST people changing longstanding rules and traditions because they want to. There has to be a standard of marriage, and its one man and one woman. Its not one man and many women, its not many men and one woman, and its not two men and its not two women. Its one man and one woman, who can physically have children and have a family.
So I say all this to say YES the government should stay out of people's love lives...and THAT INCLUDES redefining what the love life is. The government can't tell you that you can't sleep with a new person every night...but they sure shouldn't be changing the laws to make a new marital relationship just because you want to do it.
No offense intended of course....and I repeat, I am against cruel biases and killings and all that. I realize America is a land of freedom and people have the freedom to do many things that might be personally offensive to me...however the government should not be changing the laws to accomodate every minority group that wants something changed.
“It’s time America realized that there is no gay exemption in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.”
- Barry Goldwater
Equal Rights for everyone (not special rights, just equal rights) should always have been a Conservative issue, embodying the concept of adherence to the Constitution, and it's guarantee of equal protection under the law.
It's well known that in court, a wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband; yet a gay couple, no matter how long they've been together, will be classified as "roommates", and can be compelled to testify against each other. And, while it's nice that New York has chosen to recognize gay marriages, it still won't matter to the IRS, who do not recognize gay marriage (the full implications of which, may not become apparent until you get divorced.) There are more disparities as well - adoption, inheritance, insurance coverage, and etc.
So, how does any of this equate to "equal protection under the law"? It doesn't. It's a further symptom of government intervening where it has no business intervening, picking winners and losers.
At the same time, I have no problem with people who say that their church will never perform a gay marriage. One could wish that you would be more tolerant, but if those are your religious beliefs, so be it. It's not a proper role of government to dictate what your religious beliefs ought to be. At the same time, your religious beliefs cannot interfere with another persons Constitutional rights, nor should your religious beliefs drive tax law (or any other law.)
And no, I'm not gay.
For the 100000000000000000000000000000 time, one can not be a Christian and living the homosexual life style any more then a person can be a Christian and be a chronic liar of a Christian prostitute or a Christian pedophile. The Bible is completely black & white on Homosexuality. In both the Old Testament and the New testament it condemns it as SIN. Now you can reject the Bible if you want (No REAL CHRISTIAN would) but it is a simple fact that every Christian has the Holy Spirit and the main job of the Holy Spirit is to convict the Christian if sin so that he STOPS DOING THAT SIN. Any person that lives in sin proves that they do not have the Holy Spirit in then and thus cannot be saved. Sure Christians fall into sin from time to time but no Christian dwells in sin. You can not be a Christian drunk or a Christian druggie because every time a Christian sins the Holy Spirit is right there to call you on it and either you can stop that sin or you can make your heart so numb to the conviction of the Holy Spirit that you no longer hear His conviction - if you go that far then you are no longer saved. So you can be a Christian who used to be a Drunk, you can be a Christian who is still tempted to get drunk but you can't be a Christian who lives the Drunk life style. You can be a person who is so damaged by their life that you fall into Homosexuality like any other sin and learn to be attracted to the same sex just as some people are so damaged that they are attracted to children or dead people. You can even be a Christian who still has these feeling but you are commanded by God not to act on them.
When my wife chose to love herself more then me and abandoned our marriage 11 years ago I had a choice. I could do the Biblical thing and remain celibate or I could use the hurt and pain as an excuse to go out a live in sexual sin. I as a REAL CHRISTIAN BELIEVER chose to remain with God and I have been celibate for every day of those 11 years. Have I lusted after a female in that time? YES, but I didn't live in that lust because every time I did lust, the Holy Spirit did His job and convicted me of that sin so that I stopped. The most miserables person on the planet is a Christian who has just sin and is now under conviction. So the Bible is very clear on this and every sin. There are two and only two choices 1) You can live in that sin and die an unredeemed sinner who will burn in Hell. 2) You can become a Christian and with God's help stop committing that sin and live the Holy life God has called every Christian to live. because as the Bible says - "Without Holiness, NO ONE WILL SEE GOD"!
So now the pseudo-Christians can attack me because like the prophets of old I have told you exactly what the Bible says on this subject but remember, attack me all you want but your real problem is that you love yourself more then you love God and that is why you choose you pet sin over the God who died for you. See God doesn't save people to make them happy, He saves people to make them HOLY! God is not a Walmart parrent who lets His kids run amuck and do whatever they want to, God is a loving parent that isn't afraid to to "get the belt" to save His kids.
There are NO "gay Christians"? I don't recall where Christ took a position on this either way.
Oh yes, it is in the Old Testament. But then again, how many of you gay-bashing Christians are keeping Kosher like the Old Testament prescribes?
Rick Swartzentrover said it well when he said, "The Bible is completely black & white on Homosexuality. In both the Old Testament and the New testament it condemns it as SIN. Now you can reject the Bible if you want (No REAL CHRISTIAN would) but it is a simple fact that every Christian has the Holy Spirit and the main job of the Holy Spirit is to convict the Christian if sin so that he STOPS DOING THAT SIN."
It is true that there can be homosexuals who act more 'Christian' than those who call themselves such, as one poster previously stated. Being a homosexual doesn't make someone a *bad person* anymore than any other sin does, but living a homosexual lifestyle necessarily separates one from being a Christian due to the multiple passages in the Bible where it is said those who live in such a way are not being disciples of Jesus, will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, etc.
Homosexuality isn't about love, it is about lust. I love my mother, I love my father, I have both male and female friends whom I love, but I don't have the need to engage in sexual intercourse with any of them to prove how much I love them. True love isn't about sex, but that's what the homosexual community and liberals who support the homosexual movement have tried to turn it into. They aren't fully to blame, for mainstream entertainment media (i.e. Hollywood, etc.) has for years been portraying 'true love' in a way that is in reality simple lust and infatuation. The homosexual movement doesn't want true equal rights, they want special treatment. They currently have the same rights as heterosexuals: to marry somebody of the opposite sex. Now they want rules that will apply to them and their special lifestyle choices. Homosexuality is an action, it is a decided way of life. Regardless of what they feel might be their natural urges, it is still a course of action they decide to take. A homosexual doesn't just come out of the womb having sex with another man or another woman.
To compare the homosexual 'civil rights' movement to that of blacks and other minorities is an insult to those of us who are ACTUAL minorities or who have adopted them into our families. People simply ARE black. They simply ARE Hispanic. If you look at them, they are. There is no choice to it. It is not a behavior which they choose, it is not a lifestyle choice which they can change. To discriminate against one for their race, for the color of their skin, for something they have entirely no control over is wrong. But the homosexual community, who chooses to engage in sexual activities with those of the same sex, and who choose to mistakenly label it as love, demands that society changes its rules and norms and morality to fit with their twisted view on what they think love to be. It is wrong.
All that being said, it is equally wrong to firebomb a group of people simply because they are homosexual. I do not approve of the homosexual lifestyle, of homosexual marriage, but it makes them no better and no worse than any other person. I will never support the lifestyle of those people I know who decide to engage in homosexuality, just like I will never support the lifestyle of those I know who decide to abuse alcohol or other drugs, for example, but it doesn't mean they are bad people and should be abused or violently targeted or bullied in any way.
On an aside: Jim Hlvac has also misquoted the Bible and it is kind of lol that he is doing so and trying to argue religion with a Christian. Oooh, I could go on and on and demolish Jim's mush, but I have no time -- gotta go to the bank and make a withdrawal so I can continue to spend money and support the fantastic institution that is capitalism.
John the Econ - Try reading the New Testament first and then act like you know what it says. Try starting with Romans chapter 1 where the Holy Spirit through Paul condemns Homosexuality. Then try reading the Book of Revelation were it says NO HOMOSEXUAL will enter Heaven. Jesus Himself condemned Homosexuality when he called the Old Testament Law GOOD! The Mosaic law has 3 parts. The Moral Law, The Ceremonial Law and the Dietetic/Cleanliness Law. The Ceremonial Law was a prophecy of Jesus and it was this set of laws that Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law. The Dietetic/Cleanliness Law were done away with by the Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts because they were put in place by God to protect his people from bad foods such as under cooked pork. No where in the New Testament did God do away with the Moral Law because they are still in effect. Sleeping with your Mother-in-law is still a sin so is murder, stealing and Homosexuality. It was the Moral Law that Jesus was speaking about when he said Not one jot or title would stop existing until he returned.
niteowl - does that equal rights apply to Necrophiliacs? Should they have the right to sex up dead people? They are not hurting anyone and they were "Born that way" so they can't help it that you are a Necrophiliphobic bigot. See once you call a sin normal then ALL SIN BECOMES NORMAL. If Homosexuals have the right to live in sin and call it normal then so do all the other dysfunctional people out there. If a 12 year old girl is mature enough under U.S. Law to murder her own baby then she is old enough to sell her body to Pedophiles so lets call that normal as well and we can all live in a warm fuzzy world. NO! even if every human on the planet called Homosexuality normal, it would still be a sin committed by dysfunctional people who love themselves more then they love God - just like all Unrepentant Sinners.
@Suzy- Well and compassionately said. For a long time, my views about Gay Marriage were identical to yours. Whatever the relationship between two members of the same sex was, it wasn't and couldn't be "marriage." But over time, I've come to believe that at least in a civil context (any church can do what it wants), a Gay union is less of a threat to the institution of marriage than the many, many heterosexual couples who make a complete mockery of it.
I do not support laws which would tell a church what marriages they must perform or even respect. I do support equal rights for monogamous gay couples, whether that's in the form of a civil union or a marriage - a distinction I'll leave to the semanticists and theologians.
@niteowl- Good comment. Of course, I'm not sure it's the strongest argument to promote Gay marriage/unions on the basis that one partner can't be compelled to testify against the other in case of legal troubles (grin). I think instead of the situations where a life partner can't visit their significant other in the hospital, or help make medical choices, or share the same benefits that other couples do.
@Rick Swartzentrover- There's no way I'm going to argue theology with you (or anyone); it's not my place...and I respect people who live their faith (as you obviously do). My whole point is to draw a distinction between sin and law. In countries where there is no such distinction, women are stoned to death for being raped.
The "sin" of homosexuality, if it truly exists, will keep a Gay couple out of Heaven. But man's law should not keep them from owning a home in my neighborhood prior to judgement day.
@John the Econ- I believe the Old Testament is pretty clear about homosexuality, but the New Testament is open to broader interpretation. And before anyone jumps on me for saying that, I'll point out that if the Bible wasn't being interpreted in MANY different ways, then there wouldn't be so many different church denominations. Otherwise, like "Starbucks" all of those beautiful places of worship would just have signs out front generically-saying "Church."
@Anonymous- You bring up an interesting distinction, that homosexual orientation may not be a choice, but homosexual activity is. But what if there was a law saying that you could be black, but not act black? It would seem ridiculous, and be seen as a covert way of discriminating against the whole person and not just the theoretically unacceptable "action."
Jimmy Carter admitted to the sin of "lust in his heart" when thinking about attractive women. Lust is biological, and as inexorable as the drip, drip, drip of testosterone into a man's veins. That doesn't mean he has to act on it...but it does mean that it's virtually impossible not to at least feel it directed according to whatever your sexual orientation is.
You say that you will never support the lifestyle of those who engage in homosexuality, and that's your right (and you express yourself very well). But when there comes a time of choosing, here on Earth, between equal rights for Gays and potential loss of rights for all...which I believe to be the case right now...which will it be?
Personally, I'll choose to side with conservative "sinners" over socialists every time.
Stilton, it's too bad you had to come out on this issue! Like all the gays, you should have kept it to yourself.
Stilton Jarlsberg - I really don't care if Homosexuals buy houses or hold jobs and neither do most Christians. The reason the church is now so outspoken about the Homosexuality issue is because Homosexuals try to make it normal and even go as far as to twist the Bible so they can sleep at night. When everyone knew the truth that Homosexuality was a sin, the church didn't have to say anything but since the great PR campaign that made Homosexuals appear normal the Church has had no choose but to speak up.
If someone wants to live the Homosexual lifestyle in their own home then I really don't care but when they want to preach their religion (and that is what it has become) to kids in school and tell everyone that they are born Homosexual so they have no choice then they is where I draw the line. Kids in school don't kill themselves because they are Homosexuals that get picked on anymore then nerds do. Kids kill themselves because they hate having homosexuals thought and then are brainwashed into thinking that they are doomed to live that way forever.
Homosexuality is like a lady taking a dump. Everyone knows it happens but I don't want to see or hear it and I sure don't want that lady to tell me if I don't watch her on the toilet then I'm a bigot because God loves excrement.
@Brian R- Trust me, it was a temptation not to say anything. Though we're not supposed to give in to our temptations, right? (grin)
Seriously, I knew I was going to catch flak over today's post but did it anyway because I fear for our nation's very existence. I feel like we're hanging by a thread, and it pains me to see the voting blocs that Conservatives freely give away to the damnable Left. So "keeping it to myself" would have been the easier, but less responsible option.
@Rick S- Your opinions about homosexuals buying houses or holding jobs is the same as my own. Everything else you're talking about is theological and not my bailiwick. It's not my business what churches or churchgoers say or do, and I'll happily let others take on those arguments. I'm only interested in the law, and the 2012 elections.
Rick, in your last post, that is what I'm talking about....gays have been pushing things WAY too much. Sex ed has no place in schools, in my opinion (NO sex ed)....but especially not "alternative" sex. Why do people feel the need to force issues that should be behind closed doors???? My neighbor doesn't want to know about what I do with my husband...why do I want to know what my neighbor does with their partner?
Honestly...people get angry at Christians who go around parading their views. So...why should gays go around parading theirs? If we have free speech...then lets have free speech and stop getting so offended at every little thing. But if we can't protest abortion, and churches can't talk about politics, and prayer is banned from the public, then I don't think people need to be protesting publicly about their sex lives, either.
I'm okay with equal rights...the problem is, a lot of these minority groups (not just gays) seem to want "rights" that are not truly "rights" (and there are a LOT of "rights" that people think are "rights" and they are NOT basic human "rights", in reality.)
I still do not think gays need marriage. Lots of heterosexual couples live together just fine for years. (Not agreeing with it on a personal level, just stating facts). I don't understand why gays can't deal with that? There is a standard definition for "family" and once you start breaking that down, there are no longer limits. Laws are on the books to keep a certain order in the country....they are not there to make everybody happy, nor to fit everyone's lifestyle.
Do we really want to have a country where everyone is forced to say "Johnny, please go home and ask Parent One and Parent Two if you can come spend the night with Georgie." May as well add Parent Three in there, while we're changing laws to fit our lifestyles....and then apologize to the Mormons as well for legislating their sex lives?
Sorry so long winded. LOL. Again...not biased against gays as human beings...but I do NOT believe that laws should be changed based on the personal choices of American citizens. There are many ways for gay people to make their own lifestyle choices without changing the laws for everyone else.
I could make a whole 'nother argument theologically, but I am keeping it to logically/politically speaking for the sake of this discussion.
I have no idea why I'm still surprised at all of this, but how come I've never heard any non-biblical argument against homosexuality? Don't get me wrong, I do consider myself a Christian and to me, it doesn't seem too Christ-like to hate on an entire group of people who do no harm to anyone else. I honestly can't imagine Christ hating ANYONE. He forgave Judas, for cryin' out loud!
If homosexuality is a "disease" or a "mental disorder," why don't you hate people with Tourettes, spouting profane and inappropriate language? How can you claim to be Christian and hate someone with a "mental disorder"? (note: I am NOT saying that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Trying to prove a point)
If homosexuality is NOT a disease, and it is a personal choice and also a sin, why cant you let them live their lives freely, as long as they do not harm anybody? And if they are sinners, I'm sure they'll be judged accordingly. (Note: I do not believe homosexuality is a sin; once again, proving a point)
Murder and burglary and rape and pederasty harm people. You are taking something from them by force, against their will. The two people involved in a monogamous, homosexual relationship harm no one, are not taking anything from anyone. They live their lives peacefully. They do not deserve the hate thrown upon them.
Rick, I have read the New Testament. Many times. The passages to which you refer are the interpretations of those other than Christ. It would have been quite helpful if Christ himself had taken a stand either way, but he didn't. My point stands.
Maxwell...one fairly obvious non-Biblical argument against homosexuality is that men and men don't make babies together. :-) Nor do women and women, for that matter.... and families/marriage means that two people join together to have offspring and thus create families. If the world was full of only gays, the world would soon become extinct of humans.
I do not hate gays. Just answering your challenge. :-)
@Readers- I'm not sure if today's post will generate the most comments, but it is surely generating the longest (and most passionate) wordcount!
Suzy: A valid point; however I am pretty sure the world would not turn full of gays. And if our population was declining, I can certainly see the point of having laws against homosexuality. But for now, it's not.
Rick S @ 9:47, sorry about the "wife loving herself" thing. Reminds of the Proverb: "I felt sorry for myself because I had no woman. Then I met a man with no hands."
Sorry Stilton, I know this is a serious post, but I think I've been waiting about 10 years for the opportunity to use that Proverb.
Interesting comments today. All I can add is my experience through the years hearing many friends and neighbors talk about their gay brother or their gay daughter or son or granddaughter or grandson. These are all pretty traditional families and most are Christian. The families pretty much acknowledge that their family member's "gayness" is not a choice; it's how they were born. So I've personally come to the same conclusion. But I admit to being offended by how some gays flaunt a promiscuous lifestyle in the same way I'm offended by prostitutes on the street corner. I'm not gay, but I've always been curious about just what percentage of the in-your-face gay activists ruin it for others who are just trying to live productive and moral lives.
John the Econ - Ne the entire Bible are the words of Christ because he is the one that inspired them - ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED - 2 Tim 3:16 there are no difference between the words of Paul and the words of Jesus. Peter even called Paul's writings Scripture. If you reject that then you reject the Bible. As I explained, Why would Jesus waste time talking about a moral issue that did not exist in 1st Century Judaism? He never spoke on Test tub babies or the Atomic Bomb (well OK he does describe a A-bomb in Ezekiel) but it would not make since to speak of a problem that didn't exist. do we debater the moral implications of sleeping with volcans? No! When Jesus but his stamp of approval on the Mosaic Law, he did stat His teaching on it. He said it still stands.
Maxwell Wergin - cut the "Hate" crap there is nothing hateful about telling a person who is playing with fire that he will get burned. It would be more hateful to not say that Homosexuality is a sin and let them blindly go to hell. I get so sick of you fools calling everything you disagree with as "HATE" Hate is when the liberals declare that every one but he is not to judge. In fact by you saying it is hate, you are guilty of hate - you must be a Christaphobic bigot - see how it feels and how cheep it is to stand behind the "Hate" lie. You should be on the liberal blogs because that is the same cheep unintelligent card they they pull every day.
alan markus - Thanks but I'm well over it. I pray she still makes it to heaven.
Stilton Jarlsberg - I wouldn't have said anything but you used the term "Gay Christian" I know you have never to my knowledge claimed Christianity so I don't have a problem with you backing Homosexuality and if you had not used that "Theological" oxymoron term of Gay Christian I would have remained silent.
Stilt, I think you summed it up...
"
The "sin" of homosexuality, if it truly exists, will keep a Gay couple out of Heaven. But man's law should not keep them from owning a home in my neighborhood prior to judgement day."
Now, I am a traditional christian, I would not turn away an Arab, a black, a gay person, etc...
you get the point I think.
In the book of Romans, Paul listed a whole potpourri of horrible behavior that he said people were guilty of, and his use of homosexuality was merely an example of the whole gamut of sin (which is transgression of God's divine law, not just a bad behavior that we choose subjectively).
If you truly are a born again child of God, show compassion to those you believe God is reaching out to; this is after all, America land of the free...free to be you, free to be me, and God still has it all under control anyway!
The general acceptance of homosexual unions will kill masculine friendship. Many men form strong bonds with their closest friends, closer that blood, closer that romantic love; BUT NOT IF THE WORLD HALF-EXPECTS THEM TO GET MARRIED.
Others have said it better than me, but I'm in the 'you can't call yourself a Christian and not follow Christ' camp. Homosexuality is a sin even if New Yorkers say it's not.
God have mercy on our country though we don't deserve it.
@Alan Markus- Bless you for a moment of much-needed levity!
@Earl- I'm in complete agreement about promiscuity. I've seen pictures of rather extreme Gay pride parades in which there is abundant nudity, and sex acts being performed on the sidewalks. These people belong in jail. Pick-up sex in restrooms or through (heaven forbid) "glory holes?" You get no sympathy from me.
But I feel the same revulsion for the straight people who cheat on their spouses, or who go "dogging" (if you don't know, I ain't going to explain it), or who treat abortion as a form of birth control.
I am against promiscuity. I am for fidelity and taking responsibility for your sexual behavior. Period.
@Holypig- I'll let you debate the theological points with the other folks here, but you called me out (not in a bad way) about my use of the term "Gay Christians." Here's the thing - there are a lot of people who self-identify as "Gay Christians" and, as I've said repeatedly, it's not my place or intent to pass judgement on who is Christian and who isn't. If someone says they are, then I'll take them at their word.
@Anonymous (two above)- I'm not entirely sure if you're kidding or not. You think that men won't hang out together because there's a chance someone will think they're a Gay couple? Who the heck wants to live their lives worrying about what other people incorrectly think? Are you afraid to take your Mom to a restaurant because people might think "Damn, that is one old broad he's banging"? Seriously, all we can do is try to live our lives morally and honestly...because we can never control what other people imagine or assume.
@Kathy- Again, I won't/can't debate theology and I respect your beliefs without necessarily agreeing with them.
But I certainly and enthusiastically agree with your final summation and, in my own fashion, pray for it daily.
@Suzy –What you said? +1
@Stilton – What the heck did you expect … there is NO WAY you can talk about “Gay Marriage” without getting into religion, faith and beliefs … none at all!
As to how people self-identify: so if McCain says he is a republican and a conservative, he is?
@All – I draw a line between faith and government. Why is the (secular) government involved in matters of faith at all? I am a male … “married” to a woman. I have 3 kids (would have been four but we lost one to a miscarriage –yes, unborn but a person none the less … and her absence makes me poorer).
Why do I pay more (as a family) in taxes than I would if we were single? Why is “marriage” a concern of government at all?
Moving on: why do same-sex couples want to insist that there is no difference? There is a difference. Sorry. If you can’t see it, then I’m really sorry for you … you know there is but refuse to admit it.
Why do same-sex couples care if I accept their “lifestyle”? I don’t care what YOU do, but that doesn’t mean I have to approve, does it? You want approval, go to someone who cares. If it does not hurt anyone else, it is not a civil crime. If God doesn’t like it, that is between you and God. But, don’t expect me to embrace your lifestyle!
Look, there are certain truths that are “true” no matter what (and the left has real problems with the idea of hard and fast TRUTH): A man with a woman can produce a baby. A woman with a woman cannot. A man with a man cannot. The “natural” (designed) purpose of sex is procreation. Sorry to all that would choose to disagree, but that is the way it is. You can dance around it all you like, but these are facts and beyond negotiation. Sex without procreation is fun, but fruitless (and I’ll be the first to admit I enjoy the fun!).
Are you a man attracted to a man? Are you a woman attracted to a woman?
I DON”T CARE and don’t ask or expect me to “approve”.
Society is based in a foundation of the nuclear family. By nuclear I mean that the family has a nucleus: Mom and Dad. From that are offspring: sons and daughters who are, to one another, brothers and sisters. They live in neighborhoods with other “families”. They choose individuals from among their community to take care of the common good (law and order, roads, fire protection) and the communities come together to select individuals to do the same thing on a greater level, and so on. Lose the nucleus and lose the broader society, IMHO.
And then, when you aren’t paying attention, along comes the LEFT and their social engineering, and everything goes to hell in a hand basket!
“Gay” (used to mean “happy” but apparently they are not unless I think it is okay?), Straight … it’s all a distraction.
@Stilton – in the future, please try to stick to politics? Here, at least, we can come together regardless of our sexual preferences, religion, or faith. We are at a crossroads, and the future hangs in the balance.
@Kathy - Amen
Stilton, the subject of your cartoon was certainly a tragic event, a stain on our history (along with many others). However I take some exception to your use of that event as the lead-in, or backdrop, for the discussion of the larger question of gay rights and the conservative movement. If it is an accusation, as if to say that all critics of homosexuality and the gay rights movement are the equivalent of those who committed that atrocity, then you're being worse than disingenuous. But if it is simply to provoke thought, to have us ask the hard question regarding each criticism of whether it is motivated by hatred or not, then I approve.
As for my own position, I am a christian with traditional views. I consider homosexuality to be a dysfunction, abnormal, and the acting out of such urges to be sinful. I do not hate homosexuals, and I too have some friends and colleagues who are gay. We manage to have a good working relationship even though they are aware of my views. I do not think that sexual orientation is determined at birth nor that it is fixed and unchangeable (there are many documented counter-examples), but neither is it something that is easy to change without the help of skilled therapists or other change agents. But that, in my mind, has little bearing on questions of gay rights.
Politically, I am more or less libertarian (lowercase 'l'). I do not believe that our laws should try to mirror our morals in all aspects, partly because of the diversity of our individual morals, and partly because laws can never turn us into good people. For example, I believe that abortion is terribly sinful and immoral, but I reluctantly believe that our laws should not ban all abortions. In the same way, I think gays are entitled (in fact, they are already entitled) to equal protection under the law.
I agree that the priority tasks of conservatives are those you mentioned: protecting the security, borders, and sovereignty of our nation; reigning in government spending and the scaling back the creeping governmental control of our lives, etc. If conservative gays want to join the cause against Obama, the Democrats, and all the other socialists, then I welcome them. But if you're a gay conservative, don't expect to be exempt from the RINO filters that I apply to everyone else. If you fail to denounce NAMBLA and the rest of the pederasts, you're out. Don't ask me to approve of teaching homosexuality (or any other sex ed) in elementary schools. And take the "gay marriage" issue off the table while we are fighting this battle -- remember our priorities?
There are many good reasons for traditional marriage and laws that encourage them -- Suzy has touched on them -- not all of which are religious. But if we as a society decide that those are no longer important, then I am libertarian enough to be in favor of a new class of social contracts. Call them civil unions or something, but please don't expect me to honor them with the term "marriage". List out all the rights that you would like to have for such unions, like those mentioned above, such as rights for union partners to have agency for medical decisions, visitation rights, etc, and give them legal backing. But at the same time, if we are going to create a new class of contracts, and if you want to avoid being a hypocrite, then we also need to include ones for unions of more than two partners. I have no problem with some guy in Utah having several wives, or for that matter, a woman having several husbands. There is a heck of a lot more historical precedent for multiple partners than there is for gay marriage.
I agree....my eyes are crossed from reading all these comments : - D...and we're all still as divided as before.
Finally, after Jim Hlavac has made a daily ritual of hijacking every thread around his personal gayness, finally Stilton you gave him a thread he didn't have to 'gayjack'.
Back to original topic. Firebombing gay bars=Bad. Converting a church into a gay hookup bar in 1973 = offensively tasteless, even for 'Nawlinz.
Gays in America (1%? 2%?) already enjoy ALL the legal protections of their fellow Americans, which is to say greater freedom than 99% of the rest of the planet can dream of, much less ever aspire to. I think we're all fine with that.
As a Libertarian I'm fine with adults, consent, closed doors, yadayada.
But I see 'gay marriage' as just ludicrous--a farce, a charade, a Rocky Horror dress-up exercise in wishful thinking ("It's just a jump to the left..."). I'm fine with anyone pretending any fantasy that makes them happy so long as they don't harm anyone else--tell the world you're a magic princess or Buckaroo Banzai or Obi-Wan Kenobi or Napoleon, enlist your friends to play along, I'm fine with that--but you're still pretending and playing a dress-up fantasy. To forget that is to flirt with psychosis--a very Leftist inclination.
Lots of humorless and witless gay-agenda myths, delusions and 'magical thinking' I'm personally weary of are being dutifully parroted today, mostly by Leftist straights with no skin in the game, lol. My personal thoughts (YMMV):
The organized gay-agenda movement is irreversibly hard-core Left. Every aspect of their ideology, PR narrative and media tactics have always been classic Left and pure Feinstein/Pelosi/Obama Demo Party. No signs of that ever changing. Gays who identify as conservative must be a pretty lonely, statistically almost invisible minority within a minority. Not enough votes there to court, much less debate making cultural compromises over.
Gays in 2011 are not black folks in 1957. Repeat that as often as necessary. Gay activists push the DNC false narrative comparing themselves to oppressed blacks. Pure delusional conflation. It's classic Leftist Playbook that each newly incorporated special interest minority be so conflated; giveaways are the shameless misuse of terms like Jim Crow, lynching, segregation, apartheid, yadayada.
A certain type of Gay activist loves to play parking-lot theologian with conservative Christians, a tiresome formulaic dialog that inevitably devolves into name calling, cliche accusations about Christian scripture and history (often from people who are otherwise proud of not having darkened a church doorway in X decades), and finally personal attacks charging hypocrisy and all manner of closeted hatreds. Sigh.
All gays aren't pedophiles, but it's really, really alarming that the MAJORITY of real life known pedophiles (arrested, tried, defended, convicted, sentenced) are gay. Those Catholic priests aren't seducing girls..they're adult gay men, pursuing their chosen objects of 'love'.
Gay activist groups like the Man Boy Love Association (MBLA) are totally open about their pedophile agenda. Concerned folks do have a point that 'Who are you to say who we can love?' relativism can be instantly applied to a host of horrors, from Boy Scouts outing pedophilia to keeping your love object chained in the cellar for a few decades. Or Islamic style child-bride-rape. Really, who are we to say their love is wrong?
Stilton Jarlsberg - I agree, it is not your place to pass judgment on who is Christian and who isn't. It is however the job of the Church and Christians to judge those who are truly Christians and those who are pseudo-Christians who call into question the Word and Grace of God. In fact 70% of the New Testament is made up of the writings of the Apostles judging who are Christians and who are not. From the Circumcision Group to the Gnostics. They spoke up against false doctrine and Cultic heretics and every church leader since then has used their writing to call the newest heretics on the carpet. From the "Give me your money" Heretics on TBN to the new Chrislam Cult of Joel Olsteen, it is the command of God that Christians judge the church and expose them as one day we will judge the angels.
Holypig - You essentially accuse me of doing an ad hominem (attacking the person, not the issue) by...using an ad hominem attack? Clever.
YOU might not think of it as hate, but if a gay person is hearing shouting that he/she's gonna be burning in hell's fires, well, it sounds like hate to them. Just saying some compassion would be a good idea.
And, how I'm arguing this should be proof enough that I am not suited for a liberal blog; I try to use logic and reason for what I debate, not point to a holy book, an try to have God defend himself.
Government shouldn't have any sort of hand or anything in marriage. Let the individual churches decide who and how many people they marry. As long as the marriage contract is between two or more willing adults, why should we care? People on the gay rights side of things shouldn't try to force churches to acknowledge gay marriage. The government steps out of the whole issue of marriage altogether.
So, finally: gay marriage and gay weddings and government licenses.
I'm all for a nice party with special outfits and gifts and good eats. And I'm all for folks finding some happiness in their fleeting moments on this planet, and if two lonely old souls want to combine their pensions, furniture and cats in their golden years, I'd seem pretty mean spirited to object. I'll smile bemusedly at the childlike affectation of two men or two women addresings each other as 'wife' and 'husband', just as lonely childless couples sometimes call each other 'Mommy' and 'Daddy'.
But it can never be, IMHO, a 'marriage'. We have evolved and kept an aeons-old definition of marriage for some sound reasons. I can't invite some friends over and announce that I am marry my Mom, much as I love her. I can't marry a dead film star, cool as it might have been to have been married to Kate Hepburn. I can't marry my first cousin in most states, a law founded on proven DNA and birth-defects science. I can't marry famous wonderful dead heroines from history, no matter how much their 'soul' speaks to mine across the centuries. I can't marry Sigourney Weaver or Gwyneth Paltrow, both because they're already married and because we've never met. I can't marry my dog, or my horse, no matter how genuinely I 'love' them, because we as a society still believe that's biologically wrong. Although, if I can marry another man why discriminate against an AKC with papers?
I could gather whoever would come and ANNOUNCE that I am marrying my dog, or Kate Hepburn, or Joan of Arc or Mary Wallstonecraft, and I would if lucky be dismissed as pathetic, but harmlessly delusional. I could announce I'm now married to Gwyn Paltrow also, but I'd definitely be hearing from her lawyers and certainly the local police stalker's task force. That pathetic-delusional thing.
Because it's ridiculous, it's a delusional fantasy based on a huge denial of obvious external reality. Which IMHO is what the Left, and its small but very vocal gay-agenda subset, is all about.
Those of us old enough to have memories longer than Bill Clinton's second term can remember when homosexuality was an officially diagnosable psychiatric disorder, more to be pitied than punished by the compassionately enlightened. Jim H would like it considered an inherent biological oddity, like autism, he writes. Well, I'll defer to his experience on this, but it doesn't help his position. Like several of the other eloquent posters above, I don't really care--I just have to draw the line, at some point, on private lunacy becoming institutionalized official public insanity.
The whole open-homosexuality-as-mainstream notion was last tried in ancient Rome. Not encouraging, but then the Left never reads histrory.
Again, YMMV. May we all be happy while here, free of the crutch of fantasy and free of the fascistic urge to have the State coerce the semblance of approval from the larger community. Just sayin'.
Might as well put my 2 cents worth in. Man should be judge by man on Man's Law. Man should be judged on God's Law by God. I don't think its anyone's business to judge man on God's Law but God. When someone gets to the pearly gates and is met by God, I don't think he will be seeking anyone else's input on what He will do. He is a kind and forgiving Supreme Being and will do what He believes is right. So why do people try to do God's job here on earth when they don't have the authority to judge them on what God will eventually. Just sayin'...
Stilton...good post today. BTW, I'm with you on this one, as I usually am.
Bobo - try reading the Bible. It commands that the church judge the church. I could give a rip what Homosexuals do in their den of Iniquity but the second they misuse the Bible or claim to be Christians then Christians are commanded by God to Judge our so-called brothers. Now the often misquoted verse about You Should not judge lest you be judge when taken in context as all Scripture should be really means something very simple. If I am guilty of committing a particular sin then I should not judge others that fall into that same sin. So if I have a drinking problem and I'm not trying to overcome that sin, then I have no right to call someone else out on their drinking problem. I am however commanded to call the sex addicted person out on their sin as long as I am not living in that sin. We are our brother's keepers. I do get so tired of those that know nothing about the Bible yet love to pontificate on it as if they where a theologian. If you want to back Homosexuality then fine but leave the Bible to those of use who have read it. BTW, if you don't base man's laws on God's Laws then all you have is public opinion. The Homosexual groups ran a great PR campaign to brainwash people into thinking Homosexuality is "Normal". NAMBLA (The North America Man Boy Love Assoc.) who's motto is "Sex before 8 or it is too late" is now using that same RP stunt to get sex with kids seen as "Normal" so tell me, in 20 years will you be backing your 8 year old grand kid's right to sleep with pedophiles? If you think this is stupid, just check out how females teachers now get a slap on the wrist for raping their students and how little girl's cloths put out by Madonna is made to make 8 year old pre-teen's butts look like they are 18. Sin is a slippery slide and you sir are putting more WD40 on it.
OH happy, give me some time to answer -- thanks Stilt -- you and I knew this would be the case -- but more importantly -- 32 gay men were burned to death - and no one here shed a tear - -disgusting.
@ Rick, so God will listen to a Christian who says someone should burn in hell and not make up His own mind? Interesting. If two people always agree on something there is no need for one of them. I believe I need God more than I need someone here on earth to tell me what I should be doing. And no, I am not gay.
@ Jim H. I think it is disgusting this murder of 32 men (gay or not) was neither solved nor thoroughly investigated. Murder is murder no matter whom the victim.
Since heteros didn't think it important enough at the time to investigate, I would think there are many gay and lesbian active and retired police officers, arson investigators, fire fighters and attorneys whom would champion the cause and open a cold case file. The incident is only 38 years old, so there should still be people alive who know what happened and possibly know whom are the responsible culprits. Just a thought.
Bobo - What????? Reread what I posted because I was speaking of Apples and you read in oranges. I never said God needs Christians to make up his mind?????????????? I was not speaking of Judging as a Eternity thing but as a telling someone that they are doing something wrong and show them what God says in HIS WORD. You said you need God to tell you what is right and what is wrong well he already has in his Word when he said Homosexuality is a Sin now you may choose to ignore what He says but if you do that, you have a much bigger problem then your wrong stance on Homosexuality. about that odd tow people agree thing - Every Christian agrees that the Bible is the perfect Word of God and if it says something is a sin then guess what IT IS A SIN! Accept that or never call yourself a Christian because you judge yourself.
Opps, Holypig is Rick Swartzentrover - I don't know why it switched my Website with my name.
May I rant? mmm dehumanizing rhetoric, like
Jesus Freaks
Climate Deniers
Warmongers
Racists
KKK lovers
Christo-fascist godbags
greedy fatcats
baby killers
Or, any of these delightful pontifications from a recent tragedy.
http://thegraph.com/2011/01/leftists-take-to-twitter-to-blamethreaten-beck-palin-and-tea-party-for-az-shooting/
As someone who could technically be legally murdered in the state of Missouri until 1976 under:
Missouri Executive Order 44
If I may say this with all due respect and understanding to your situation, the personality types that do these awful things are actually non-ideological or partisan (though they often lead the armies) simply they go where the power is because that's what they crave. Atheism/Religion pro/against it doesn't matter to them for they worship themselves. The current Republican/Conservative movement for now lacks the sufficient media/cultural power to be of any real magnet to the majority of Crusaders and Inquisitors.
That may change some day but even a coordinated motivated coupe of cultural, judicial, education, and media institutions, takes more then a generation. For now you are "safe" as long as your "group" votes 60+% democrat and you mostly hang around Republicans. For evidence, look how Black Americans were treated last time they voted against democrats.
Sigh...I really shouldn't....but I'm going to....
The problem with government today is that, without God, there are no absolutes. There is no basis for morality. Law started with God...without Him, there would be no defining boundaries.
The thing is, government has decided there is no defined God, no Bible that matters, and so therefore we now have no absolutes. Right and wrong are no longer. After all, without God, how can there be right and wrong?
What gives government the right, if there is no God, to say that its okay to be gay but not a polygamist? What gives the government the right, if there is no God, to decide that tobacco is okay but marijuana is not? What gives government the right, if there is not God, to tell us what alcohol is legal and what is not? How old we have to be to consume it? What inconsistencies we have in law today!!! Law seems to float towards whoever is making the loudest protest to change it, or create it. Yesterday's morality isn't today's morality and it won't be tomorrow's morality, because without God, there is no definition to morality at all.
My point is, if we have the Bible, we can see what is wrong and what is right. There are absolutes...there is a foundation upon which laws and rules and boundaries can be built.
Without God and the Bible, we have no absolutes other than the conscience of whatever government we happen to have at the time. (Its getting scarier and scarier). Conscience can change. Absolute truth cannot. Each of us has a different natural conscience, and if that is our only guide, then we end up, eventually, running around like the children in Lord of the Flies, each of us following our inner selves as best as we can.
Which is why I personally believe (and know) the Bible is so very important, and God...because without God, and without the Bible, there are no absolutes, and there is no Truth, and therefore there is no basis for ANY law, or any rule, or any state of being, other than the whim of the people. Our founding fathers knew this...do the research.
***Disclaimer*** This was not meant to be against any one but only to state my personal views on Christianity and law, and the relationship between the two, generally speaking.****
@Readers- Wow. What a freakin' day! First of all, I've got to thank everyone for the opinions expressed, because that's the purpose of this site. Secondly, I've got to say that I knew this would be a hot button, but I spoke my mind because I respect you too much to be dishonest, even if I knew (or at least feared) that it would upset people.
@Chuck- No, I wasn't so naive as to think that religion would not come up in relation to today's post. I wanted (and want) to steer things away from religion, but that's not in my control.
You also asked that I stick to politics (good news! Tomorrow's post I'm back to kicking Obama's ass!) but please understand that it was my intent to be talking about politics today - and the need to make choices between alienating potential political allies or giving them to the Left by default.
@Andrew- You make some good arguments. Are most Gays liberal? I don't know, but I suspect that's probably the case. But should we write off everyone who fits a certain category, denying their individuality? And if we do, will we find ourselves with too few votes to ever save our country?
I honestly don't know...but it's my fear of that possibility that was the genesis of today's post.
@Bobo- Nice to hear you're still speaking to me. All I need is five more friends and I'll have pallbearers! (tired grin)
@Rick S- We're in agreement that it's not up to me to decide who is truly Christian. From what I understand (which admittedly may be insufficient), it's not up to men either.
Regarding your other points, I don't equate homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality, or necrophilia. In these matters, I'd like to hear from scientific experts who can finally determine whether we're talking about sin or neurology. Until I do, I can only offer my opinion.
@Jim Hlavac- It's not true that no one here has shed a tear over the tragedy in New Orleans. There have been quite a few supportive comments, including from people of very strong faith. So please don't look at today's conversations and pronounce them "disgusting," as that's unproductive... and leaves me twisting uncomfortably in the wind as I try to make the case for tolerance and mutual understanding.
@Holypig- You say "Every Christian agrees that the Bible is the perfect Word of God" but not every Christian agrees what those words mean. That's why there are different denominations. That's why there are Bible study classes. But by all means, when the Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Catholics all agree on everything in the Bible, please get back to me.
@Anonymous (immediately above)- "Dehumanizing rhetoric." There's a nice phrase (and I mean that sincerely). Labels which dehumanize the individual are the enemy of freedom... whether those labels are applied to Christians, Blacks, or Gays. No one is a sterotype. None of us has been produced from a cookie-cutter.
I'm not saying that we can't judge our fellow human beings - I do it all the time (and Liberals are found "wanting," to put it mildly). But I am saying that when we judge anyone by the group we assign them to instead of their individual characteristics, there's a good chance that we're doing so out of prejudice...and our judgement will be less than perfect.
@Suzy- Beautifully expressed. I personally believe that people can believe in absolute moral truths without church doctrine... but I'm also either cynical or realistic enough to acknowledge that this isn't true for most people.
You raise great questions about how or why the government can decide what is right or wrong... and I'll happily concede that frequently (especially lately) the government is dead wrong on many questions of morality.
In other words, I don't have all the answers. But I have questions that I felt (and feel) were worth bringing up in this forum.
Stilton, thanks for providing this always interesting forum that has fast become a daily stop for me. Politically I'm all for not writing off votes for 2012, but in my experience gays tend to be single-issue, fantasy-world Leftists...and in any event are too microscopic a numeric minority, frankly, to matter.
We're capsized at sea in such a perfect storm of converging crises for both America and Western Civilization, each at its fatal tipping point, that one specific tiny niche lobby's bottomless need and endless shrill demands for adult attention, adult approval and external confirmation are an unaffordable distraction from the adults' urgent and serious fight for survival. These are serious, life and death times, and the gay agenda single-issue activists prove constantly that they have nothing more to contribute than the same old falsetto chorus of 'Don't Dream It, Be It." Yawn. Next?
@Andrew- You make a great point. We're at such a critical point that all of us should be looking past single-issue politics, and focusing only on what it takes to win a conservative supermajority in 2012. And whether people agree with me or not, that was the crux of today's post.
@Holypig: Exodus 35:2 states that those who work on the Sabbath shall be put to death. Since this is the clear word of God, who shall be the one who casts the first stone?
I have horrible vision, so I wear glasses. Leviticus 21:17 - 21:20 says that I cannot go to church, even though I have gone to church, numerous times. Have I sinned?
I'm sorry that there are those of you out there who think that marriage should only be between a man and woman. I'm not going to judge you as being wrong, only disagree. If it helps, call it a civil union and let our FELLOW MAN live in a society that is that one step closer to being truly egalitarian.
Finally, to those who have the twig and berries to decide whether or not I'm a good person, based on this post, I want you to think about a couple of other things, before deciding that your “Christian” views are the only right ones. Christianity is a faith of MacGyvering one's self. Our celebration of Christmas is taken from a millennia-old PAGAN tradition, based on the god and goddess of nature. Our celebration of Easter is from a similarly old PAGAN tradition, based on the fertility of Spring. It's quite literally based on a GIANT SEX PARTY. Many of our hymns can be traced back to folk songs that had nothing to do with Christianity. And finally, our entire faith is based on what we now consider a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT RELIGION. WARS have been fought over the differences between old and new, and you want to have a conniption over a PEACEFUL change in the law of man? The only reason that the fight for egalitarianism on the sexual front is so prominant now, is that we had to wait for the civil rights movement to give equal rights to heterosexual couples whose only sin was being born with a different skin tone, first. People in the times of the civil rights movement wondered why there was such a big fuss over that, as well. Their argument was the same as the person who made the claim about marriage being between a man and a woman “for eons,” except it was directed toward blacks being less human than whites.
With all of that said, I'm going to go to bed, and dreaming of a world where people will not judge others- Period.
Blessed Be – Kim
Okay, first things first, I haven't the patience to attach names to every point that I'm about to make. There are too many people with similar arguments.
I'm afraid that I've not the total command of the Bible and all of it's companion material from the many denominations of the world to make a definitive, quotation by quotation response to the gentleman with all of the verses, but I would like to point out that regardless of whether Christ said any of the laws from the Old Testament were/are "good" he DID stand up for, protect and forgive people who committed sins. He was the one who tried to teach us to THINK before we judge others, regardless of what they're doing, or have done that might be "against the law," and if you really THINK about it, didn't he also have a thing about "judge not?" I'm not saying that it's possible to never judge even one person in a lifetime, that's beyond anyone, but I am saying that, as you might do with a neighbor who has an unhealthy obsession with pink plastic flamingos and twinkle lights, let it be.
For those of you who think that there is only “one good and true interpretation of the Bible and the words of Christ,” do you still read it in the original languages? If you don't, I would ask that you don't try to tell me what my Bible or Savior are saying, because unless you can read, fluently and in the mindset of someone OF THE TIME WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN, you have no place to tell me that your TRANSLATION holds the only true meaning of the texts, as a student of the languages of the world, I feel it necessary to point out that, unless you've been born and lived to adulthood, immersed in a language and it's respective culture, it is HIGHLY unlikely that you will ever command the full understanding of it, as has a native speaker.
To those against sex ed, and the teaching of alternative sexualities, are YOU going to explain to your children? Will you explain to your little girls the ins and outs of their reproductive systems? How about the many misconceptions in how to use contraceptives (Please don't try to fool yourself into thinking that your children are perfect, and that every single one of them will have the good sense and will power to remain abstinent.)? Are you going to explain to your children what sex IS, before you send them off to college, or marriage? If not, you need to send them to sex ed, because this knowledge is important. Furthermore, learning about alternative sexualities is not a subliminal message, telling your children to go out and do the sideways tango with others of the same sex, it is simply another bit of information on how the world and people work. Sexuality is completely hard wired into your brain, and sexual attraction can't be helped.
(This apparently didin't post the first time...)
@Kim Cz & Grizzly- Both of you made comments which ended up in the mysterious and much hated "spam" folder. Kim Cz had already reposted her remarks, and Grizzly's comment is now back in the stacks above. I'm sorry for any inconvenience; as I've said before the spam filter isn't something I can control.
@Grizzly- I'm glad I found your comment and restored it, because it's a good one. As you surmised, I wasn't in any way equating opposition to Gay marriage to burning people alive...I was simply using that anniversary as an entryway to today's talking points.
You and I politely disagree about whether homosexuality is inherently immoral... but we seem to agree on most of the other points, including legal protections and civil unions.
And most importantly, we seem to agree that the very highest priorities for our government in the near term should be structural/financial rather than social. Which, come to think of it, is always how the system was supposed to work.
Stilton wrote "Seriously, I knew I was going to catch flak over today's post but did it anyway because I fear for our nation's very existence. I feel like we're hanging by a thread, and it pains me to see the voting blocs that Conservatives freely give away to the damnable Left. So "keeping it to myself" would have been the easier, but less responsible option."
No Stilton. Voting blocks are just mobs. Mobs are Liberal. You should read Ann Coulter! She is not anti-gay, but she is anti-mob. When you start trying to please every special interest group out there, you have just become a politician, another word for liar. We may be hanging by a thread, but its not because were old-fashioned!
@Brian R- We're actually in agreement here; I wasn't proposing that Conservatives start trying to please every special interest group to artificially win votes, as the Left does. We need to win in 2012, but our victory also needs to mean something.
So, in order to atone for this admitted atrocity, we must now discard 6,000 years of civilization and destroy the family completely?
Next thing you know this cartoon will come out in favor of reparations for slavery.
@Anonymous (above)- You certainly don't have much faith in family structure if you think it's solely a construct of laws, and only continues to exist because of them.
As far as reparations for slavery, I'm not only against them - I'm against continuing present day slavery in the form of abusive taxation and unrecompensed labor which the government takes by force...and which has already been levied on the children and grandchildren yet to be born on the politicians' plantation.
Kim CZ: Yes, parents have LONG been responsible for the "sex ed" of their own children. Public schools began to teach children reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic....not social issues and certainly not sex. One reason our country is going downhill is because parents are too lazy and irresponsible to raise their children and have gladly given up those FREEDOMS to the government...and now we have the government trying to parent, and doing an awfully BAD job of it. Our reading and math scores are dramatically lower than the scores of other countries...but by golly, our kids know how to recycle and use condoms!!!!
What people do behind closed doors in the privacy of their own homes is their business. What I find offensive is the militant, in-your-face attitude of gay activists, in trying to force me to accept something I will NEVER ACCEPT as an 'alternative' lifestyle. The gay lifestyle violates the very laws of nature and I find it reprehensible and repugnant. Go back in your closets and keep the gory details between consenting adults, I don't care to know. I know there is at least one gay poster here and I have nothing personal against him, nor do I hate him or any other gay person. Neither does he try to prosetlyze to the rest of us about his 'lifestyle', so kudos to him. Besides, anybody with conservative principles can't be all bad.
How 'bout those Cubs?
Good Lord, I thought I was going to see my next birthday before I got through all those comments. (grin)
@Suzy- Strongly agreed! Too many parents seem to have accepted the idea that someone else can do the parenting for them, be it the schools, the television, or the streets. Dereliction of parental duty is one of the biggest reasons that our schools are turning out students who know less and less each year...but learn to put a condom on a banana before they learn long division.
@79firebirdman- There are aspects of gay culture that I'll never accept as an "alternative lifestyle" too... just as I don't accept that label as an excuse for bizarre or promiscuous behaviors indulged in by some heteros. The flip side is that I can accept the alternative lifestyle of a pleasant "out of the closet" same-sex couple who live down the street and are just good neighbors.
@Robert- "How 'bout those Cubs?" has to be my favorite post of the day. Thanks!
Maybe I'll feel sorry about the dead gays in New Orleans around the same time that the Left feels sorry about the entire Roman Catholic population of Moscow that was eliminated during the 1917 revolution, or the thousands of priests and nuns slaughtered and raped by the Spanish Republlican Army or the kids in Northern Ireland hassled during their walk to Holy Cross school or...
I am going to have to point this out on the subject of Gay Christians because I really don't understand how any Christian can get past this scripture ...
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Don’t you know that the unrighteous l will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Notice though, that it lists adulterers (which I myself have been in the past) before it lists homosexuals. In the context of sin, there is no difference between cheating on your spouse and practicing homosexuality. (so if you are sexting that hot girl from work behind your wife's back, you really dont have much moral ground to stand on while you bash your gay neighbor. And just to be crystal clear, this passage does NOT mean that if you commit one of those sins that you will automatically go to hell (see verse 11), what it means is that anyone who practices ANY one of those sins without guilt more than likely does not have the love of God in his or her heart.
For those of you who call yourselves Christians and wish to hurl accusations at gay people, beyond remembering Jesus's admonition that only those without sin should cast stones, Paul went further to say ...
Galatians 6:1-4
1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor.
The bottom line is that we are each responsible for our own spiritual walk, and not for anybody elses. You waste your time and actually do harm to the kingdom of God by spouting narrow-minded hate speech. So if you really are concerned for the souls of gay people, do what Jesus would have done--love them. (Jesus chose for his first disciple Matthew, who was both Jewish and a tax collector. To be Jewish and a tax collector was considered the worst sin imaginable and utterly unforgivable by the religious leaders of the first century.)
@Anonymous (two above)- You know, having compassion for the victims in both groups won't make you "bi."
@Andrew- Amen.
Tolerance - Yes
Acceptance - No
Force Acceptance - baseball bat to head, no compunction
@Anonymous- Tolerance (including in a legal sense) is all anyone can ask. Acceptance is a personal decision. And Forced Acceptance isn't something that can, or should, be legislated in America.
Post a Comment