Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

"Am sick to my stomach about the Maine marriage equality vote. How would ANY OTHER group feel about having THEIR rights put on a ballot for others to vote on?" http://www.kennethinthe212.com/

It wouldn't pain me a bit if we decided to start taxing churches the way we tax other interest groups. It isn't like they stay out of politics or anything.

Come on guys..... What outcome do you expect when you ask people to violate their beliefs and support that which is strictly forbidden by their God?

And as far as any other group having their rights being put on the ballot.....
The only thing that separates gays is with whom they have sex. Name me one other group that falls into this category. Not blacks - even the black community refuses to acknowlege that it is a civil rights issue such as they faced in the past. You cannot chose your race. You cannot chose your gender (without surgery). You cannot chose your ethnicity. You can, however, choose with whom to have sex.

I, personally, love each and every human being on this planet. I will always show civility and respect to all I meet. I will not, however, condone or legitimize choices of behavior that violate my faith.

I would suppose that you would have me change my faith or "edit" God's commands. I just cannot do that. Apparently, the folks in Maine could not as well.

TMV has been over this until we're all blue in the face on the nature/nurture aspect. Again the fallacy... No one is telling you to change your faith, just stay out of others bedrooms.

The fact your faith, and everyone else who uses the fallacy, seems so weak is... interesting.

I absolutely agree with a portion of your statement:

"Stay out of other's bedrooms".
Sounds awesome. Only way to do that is to keep what you do in the bedroom - IN THE BEDROOM. That goes for homosexuals, heterosexuals, or nonsexuals.

How is being against flaunting sexuality considered "going into other's bedrooms"?
This is one of the bad byproducts of the 60's and 70's free love movement. It's one "gift" I wish the baby boomers would take back. It's done nothing but damage just about every aspect of our culture.

If you want to dress up like Hitler and have sex with poodles - I don't care. If you want to have sex with another man, I don't care. If you want to have sex with every man, woman, or hermaphrodite you meet, I don't care. Just keep it in the bedroom. No one has the right to legislate what goes on there. But when you drag your sexuality into the public arena, don't expect the rest of us to cheer and issue you a set of your very own rights.

Nature/Nurture. Efforts to say that homosexuality is born have failed. There is no gay gene. There is no predisposition. The burden of proof on nature versus nurture falls, then, upon the minority that suggests it. Yes, we have talked this to death. The only fallacy here is the one which states "I can't help who I put my genitalia on or in". That's crap.

We simply aren't as civilized as other western nations. Look how long it took us to give up our slaves. We are behind Europe in the same way the Middle East is behind us.

There's a reason our ancestors left Europe, shannon.
This ain't Europe. Thank the good Lord for that!
I've been all over Europe. It is not a place I'd want to live. Nor it is a place in which I wish to model my nation's government, economy, or culture.

But hey.... They've got GREAT food!

I expect them to understand their "beliefs in God" don't mean jack shit when we're talking about civil policy.

Seperation of church and state and all that

Our ancestors left Europe because they weren't allowed to live as they please. They were being persecuted. Europe back then is nothing like Europe now.

Actually Europe back then looks alot like the US now

In many ways, Europe is worse today.
You can have it. If I liked it, I would have stayed there.

But by all means.... If you think it is the golden shining light, I'm sure there are flights out of LaGuardia or JFK to suit your schedule.

"I expect them to understand their "beliefs in God" don't mean jack **** when we're talking about civil policy."

No, rafter.... That's not how it works. You don't leave your entire being or character outside when you step into the voting booth. Your beliefs go in with you. If you believe in abortion, you will choose whom? If you believe in gun rights, you will choose whom? You will choose the candidate or (in this case) vote for the referendum that matches your beliefs. Correct?

"Separation of Church and state and all that".
As the founding fathers explicitly set forth, the federal government was not to prescribe a religion. It was NOT to totally turn their back on God (Vishnu, Allah, Jehovah, etc). Separation of church and state does not mean "no God". I have listed statements of the founding fathers saying exactly that. "In God We (should) Trust".

Sorry, JD, but I can't agree with you on this one at all.

People have their religious beliefs, and they're welcome to practice those beliefs and persuade others to also practice those beliefs.

But the last time I read the Bible, there was nothing in there about Christians using the government to force others to live by their beliefs. The Bible also forbids Christians to worship false idols. And yet Christians do not insist on the government imposing laws forbidding people from worshipping false idols.

No Church, Synagogue, or Mosque is being forced to marry homosexuals. So the idea that gay marriage is an attack on religious freedom, as some conservatives have claimed, is a joke.

J.D., I can agree with what you've written here. Your comments about Europe are interesting. My two children grew up overseas, and were enrolled for many years in French-sponsored schools. The outlook on life, in terms of morals, is profoundly different. We counterbalanced that at home.

The United States has a strong religious impulse stemming from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Sometimes this is overlooked when economic issues are at the fore-front. I find it interesting, however, that almost no candidate for public office claims to be an atheist. (Howard Dean is a notable exception). Most voters want their candidates to believe something even if it's much different than their own faith.

It's simply NOT what America wants. People Know that same sex attraction is a sickness. Almost as bad as JD.

My fundamental position is and always has been that the legislatures and voters need to make the decision. I do not have strong opinions either way on allowing or not allowing gay marriage. But the will of the people does seem to me the correct way to decide this.

However, anyone who has remotely followed the overall battle over gay marriage knows that regardless of which side won this vote, lawsuits are coming. The only question was who would be the plaintiffs.

We may actually still be a full generation away from absolute equality for gays in America. It's coming, but like every other hurdle we've had to overcome for women, blacks, etc. it takes time for a societal shift toward enlightenment. It will happen, but America is clearly not ready for it yet.

As to the whole "biblical law" thing, I've always found that something of a red herring. I'm completely on board with total separation of church and state, but just because something appears in the bible, it doesn't automatically preclude it from becoming secular law. The bible very clearly states "thou shalt not kill" (though it turns out that was something of a bad translation from the original) but that doesn't stop us from having laws on the books against homicide. Anything can be made into law if the members of the society believe in it strongly enough among a sufficient majority to enshrine it into either our constitution or our body of laws. But that doesn't mean that we always get it right. Remember, "separate but equal" was the law of the land for a long time. But hey, we tend to learn. Sometimes slowly, but we do learn eventually.

Homophobia truly is the last "acceptable" form of bigotry in American society, with the others - discrimination against women, blacks, Jews, etc. - having been driven out of the fold to hide under dark rocks. Of course, being that society as a whole has become more aware of civil rights in general, practitioners have at least learned to be very careful in a Jerry Seinfeld, "not that there's anything wrong with that" kind of way. They're quick to point out how they have "no problem" with anyone being gay, but that they're fighting for some sort of legal, social or societal fabric or guideline which has to be protected. The almost humorous thing (in a dark, twisted kind of humor way) is that the arguments being used today against gay marriage are almost line for line identical to the arguments made against school integration and bussing back in the 60's and 70's.

But, as I said, we're getting there. It's just going to take longer than many of us would care to see.

Here we go again, these arguments have all been examined and thrashed out before (and with much greater scrutiny than we're seeing here). More growing, more evolving, more thinking, less superstition, less paranoia, more getting up to speed please. Yes, there has always been a religious component to our culture in America, but the founders were very intelligent, perceptive, and experienced people who understood the need for need for a country to not be shackled by religion. They talked about this at length and clearly understood the difference between being informed by a personal faith and being held hostage to it in any authoritarian sense. The result is what we refer to as the separation between church and state. If someone needs religion in order to bring meaning and control into their life then fine, but that's a personal decision, and not everyone requires it nor should they. This is a democracy, not a theocracy, and it was never intended to be a theocracy. When it comes to sexual orientation we can't afford to let our society to be shaped by backward, wornout attitudes. Think civil rights here... and I do mean "think" in the classic sense of the word.

The issue has nothing to do with what goes on in anyone's bedroom. Homosexuals are demanding state recognition and elevation of their sexual preference to preferred status. Preferred because they also demand laws (i.e. so called "hate crimes" laws) and speech codes that provide special sanctions applicable to criticism of their sexual preference. Those opposing such an endorsement of homosexuality are vilified, their churches attacked, and their freedom of speech curtailed.

If you want my respect, support, and recognition for your allegedly genetic predisposition, crapping on my religious beliefs, demanding special recognition, and trying to restrict free speech is not the way to go about getting it.

jazz -

A comment on your very fine post.

Homophobia truly is the last "acceptable" form of bigotry in American society

No, it is just the current one being addressed. There are more, certainly, in the minds of those who feel oppressed, but their fights come later. The question always remains, as with this one, what does and does not constitute a groups deserving of civil rights protection status.

I think to that there is too much of a conflation of opposing gay marriage = homophobia. I am and remain torn on the gay marriage issue, probably leaning personally towards allowing it, but understanding the position of the opposition, even if it is not mine. I am, however, not in the least homophobic.

"You can, however, choose with whom to have sex."

JD:



We are all still waiting for your irrefutable scientific proof that homosexuality is an "acquired thing"

Thank youi

One additional comment about gay marriage vs. the civil rights movement.

There is a key difference in the attitudes of the people as a whole towards both. The civil rights issue had large contingencies of supporters, including entire states that easily voted to support civil rights. The same is simply not true about gay marriage rights, which is now 0-31 in votes, That says that across the country, in diverse areas and religious/ethnic/social/political mixes, including some of the bluest of the blue states that exist, the people reject equating gay marriage to the civil rights movement.

That track record cannot be ignored.

DaMav wrote: "... crapping on my religious beliefs..."

And you, DaMav, justify (and credit to your religious beliefs) the crapping on of basic human rights and common decency to your fellow man.

From what you say can we assume that your particular form of religion saw nothing wrong with slavery or Jim Crow laws either?

"...once again loving couples are denied basic human rights."
**********
Love and sexual conduct are not one and the same. I love plenty of people in my same gender, intensely in one or two instances, but have never felt compelled to have sex with them.

We need to understand what homosexuality is, how it comes around and how it fixates within a population before we normalize it. Maine isn't being "mean" to people. I think they're erring on the side of caution. "Gay culture" may be the thing that kills the homosexual's agenda as it is. The fact that it has become a cultural phenomenon in certain heavily gay areas with more and more of the younger generations turning up gay in comparison statistically to their neighbor cities and so on that are less tolerant means that there may be a social contagion element.

I have argued that there is. Anthropologists will tell you that young primates, like our own children, will mimic adult behaviors. That's how it works folks. And when you have a behavior like homosexuality elevated, like in SF, CA to "normal" status guess what happens? More and more adolescents grow up being homosexual than would occur in other populations.

Maine decided this isn't what it wants. That's their right.

The Maine resolution favored neither slavery or Jim Crow. If you have any familiarity with history, you know that Christianity played a major role in supporting abolition of slavery through a moral crusade. And that Christian churches, both black and white, united in support of the civil rights movement to abolish Jim Crow. (This is not to understate the outstanding contributions of Jewish and other advocates toward justice in these matters.)

I absolutely oppose any efforts to enslave homosexuals or deny them the vote. Who is advocating that besides that straw man you are trying to sell me?

DaMav, As you chose to ignore my point rather than respond to it I'll leave you with a little history regarding Christianity and Slavery:

Christian opposition to abolitionism:

Passages in the Bible on the use and regulation of slavery have been used throughout history as justification for the keeping of slaves, and for guidance in how it should be done. Therefore, when abolition was proposed, many Christians spoke vociferously against it, citing the Bible's acceptance of slavery as 'proof' that it was part of the normal condition. George Whitefield, famed for his sparking of the so-called Great Awakening of American evangelicalism, campaigned, in the Province of Georgia, for the legalisation of slavery; slavery had been outlawed in Georgia, but due to George's campaign it was legalised in 1751.

Reason behind the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention

"... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example" - Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention.

My point is NOT that the majority of Christians now (or in Maine) are pro slavery... my point is there was a time and place where individuals used their religion and the bible to justify things that now so obviously wrong we don't even consider them as anything but wrong.

In reading your comment, and the comments of others here, it seems to me that you are all doing the same thing.

I'm sure there is some guy in a cave in the Middle East saying..

"Well this ain't America. We don't let our women walk around without a mask" :)

The problem AR is the goal posts keep moving. First it was "The courts shouldn't decide it should be left to the State legislature". Maine's legislature DID pass the law, so now what's the goal post? Majority vote? What will the new goal post be when that occurs?

We may find out soon with Washington State's results.

If there is a "social contagion element", then this behavior needs to be stopped with a heavy hand. All in all The "social stigma" should return, but I am emphatically against unsanctioned violence against sexual behavior.

I think everyone understands that sexual behavior is not established before birth, which is laughable from the outset.

My response addressed your comment: "From what you say can we assume that your particular form of religion saw nothing wrong with slavery or Jim Crow laws either?"

Your statement was an ad hominem attack on me and a gratuitous attack on Christianity. Dredging up the fact that a group of Christians favored slavery at one time is irrelevant. As you yourself stated, "My point is NOT that the majority of Christians now (or in Maine) are pro slavery". So why even bring it up? The issue is not slavery or Jim Crow. The issue is state recognition of homosexual marriage which is opposed by most Americans even in liberal states like Maine and California.

We don't let our women walk around without a mask

There are people in America saying that, unfortunately. Look at the sad case of Noor Faleh Almaleki

The goal posts are not moving at all, IMO. I clearly said legislature or voters. It was "The courts shouldn't decide it should be left to the State legislatures or the voters."

Are you saying the voters should not have the right to overturn their legislature if they disagree with a law passed? It doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on, or even what laws we are talking about. I think you are wanting to stop the process when you get the result you want.

"We may actually still be a full generation away from absolute equality for gays"--

NEVER! You don't give equality to a sickness, much less sexual behavior. It's NOT coming! I submit that legal social rejection of the gay cultural aberration will return as more information becomes available to the public.

The future: the district surrounding and including the University of Maine voted 81% for gay marriage (voted no) and 9% against. At the very least changing demographics are running against the homophobes.

Your statement was an ad hominem attack on me and a gratuitous attack on Christianity.

My QUESTION (not statement) was not an ad hominem attack on you or a gratuitous attack on Christianity. It was a question... I was questioning your and other like minded Christians motives.

Dredging up the fact that a group of Christians favored slavery at one time is irrelevant.

No... I was comparing the "group of Christians" that favored slavery to your "group of Christians" that favor homophobia and second-class status for gays.

The issue is not slavery or Jim Crow.

No it isn't. The issue is how ignorant people are trying to use religion and the bible to justify treating others as second class citizens.

One hundred and fifty-four years ago a noisy minority of Christians tried to stop the abolition of slavery, today a noisy minority of Christians are trying to do the same in regards to the basic human rights of another group of Americans.

As Jazz wrote earlier:

We may actually still be a full generation away from absolute equality for gays in America. It's coming, but like every other hurdle we've had to overcome for women, blacks, etc. it takes time for a societal shift toward enlightenment. It will happen, but America is clearly not ready for it yet.

The correction of this barbaric (my word not Jazz's) treatment of our fellow humans may well be a generation away but 154 years from now your (and my) ancestors are going to wonder what the hell some people were thinking... and I believe mine will be proud.

caveat: I am not gay but I am ashamed of, and disappointed in, how fearful and insecure some 'straights' are acting.

"I think everyone understands that sexual behavior is not established before birth, which is laughable from the outset."

That simply isn't true. If anything, we still have a very healthy debate in regards to nature vs nurture. We see animals having homosexual relationships in nature. It is completely reasonable to believe that sexual orientation can be genetic.

Sadly, the process goes....

old ignorant people die
young people with greater access to information and education are born.

Time is on our side, yes it is.

Debate is over. Gay rights activists have tried for long enough to prove something that does not exist.

Sex is for procreation. A man's rectum is a sewer, not a vagina. It does not take “debate” to understand basic nature.

Are you speaking of the Romans or the Greeks?

University student political trends have a tendency to reverse themselves rather profoundly.

And the prize for bestest opposite-day comment ever: DaMav! With this gem:

"Those opposing such an endorsement of homosexuality are vilified, their churches attacked, and their freedom of speech curtailed."

See what he did here? Genius! It's not the gay people who are being vilified, attacked, and having their freedoms curtailed, it's the *churches*! Yes, in a nation which is majority Christian, where being Christian has been and is considered a minimum requirement to being a "good person" by all other Christians, where we reward Christian churches so much freedom that they don't even have to pay taxes, where there are multiple entire *TV stations* just for the dissemination of Christianity, where we have gigantic mega-churches on every corner, where a politician cannot win in almost any vestige in the country without loudly and emphatically professing his or her undying love for Hey-Soos, yes! This truly is opposite-day gold! And that's not even getting into the multiple and ubiquitous exortations to gay people to "keep it in the bedroom!" (free speech anyone?), takes no account of the huge and disgusting disproportionate violence against gay people, nor the fact that not only can they not get married in most states, but in many states they can be *fired from their jobs* for their sexual orientation! This truly elevates the opposite-day jargon to levels that may have never before been seen!

So congratulations, DaMav, you've earned it!

"Debate is over."

I'm going to suggest you check out number 6, "Danth's Law". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6408...

I also want to point out, once again, how you think about the anatomy of gay sex way, way more than any straight person ought to, and you should probably go get that checked out.

"You don't give equality to a sickness"

Actually, F_T, we do it all the time. Ever heard of disability rights? No? If you really thought of this as a sickness, you should be a little more compassionate. We don't say that people with hemophelia can't get married. But that's not really how you think of it, is it?

" think everyone understands that sexual behavior is not established before birth, which is laughable from the outset."

Why are you so, so bad at science, F_T? I mean, it doesn't come easily to everyone, but most people who are bad at it at least have enough sense to realize that they should probably shut up when the subject comes up.

old ignorant people die

Ageism rears its ugly head here at TMV. Shame on you, Shannonlee. In most cultures in the world, elders are respected and turned to by the young for wisdom.

In most cultures in the world, elders are respected and turned to by the young for wisdom.

Not the ignorant ones redbus, or at least I hope not and I AM a senior citizen.

TO CLARIFY: Elders are one thing... town fools another. I wish both elders AND town fools a long life but many changes CANNOT happen until deeply ingrained ignorance is gone.

Oh, I've said for some time that we should give the churches-- ALL churches of ALL religions and denominations-- exactly what they're implying they should have. When any religion out there is able to give, deny or revoke a marriage license for any reason they personally deem fitting, perhaps the "good Christian" couples will see why it's such a mistake. I personally can't wait for the Baptists to start denying a second marriage to divorced couples or for the pope to revoke a marriage because the couple is found to be using oral contraception. And when some of the Christian churches start administering them to gay couples, the "good Christians" can't complain because they got exactly what they asked for.

Only that's NOT what they're asking for, and if they were honest, they'd admit as much. What they ARE asking for isn't for people to marry according to religious standards. They're asking for the basic civil rights of couples to be determined by the standards of ONE interpretation of ONE religion-- theirs.

The reason why you keep a separation of church and state is because without it we'd have the Inquisition all over again. Or you could just look at some of the Muslim states around the world to see a good example of what would happen. Is that really what we want, or is it just when it applies to the sins that are easy to avoid-- like gay sex?

Flip that on it's ear and imagine straight people didn't have the right to marry.

Would you consider the marriage of a straight couple to be "flaunting their sexuality"?

Indeed, in one of the rare moments where I agree with Jazz. To add to that, those same biblical arguments were also used against interracial marriages as well.

Thinking about how absolutely luscious that Diet Pepsi guy looked with his shirt off and having my own personal fantasy about it is a sin. Sin is sin, and I do it. I deal with it because I'm not perfect. I'm human. Gay people are human. None of us is better than the other in God's eyes. The Bible says so.

Now if folks want to talk about laws and "enabling sin" then they should also be arguing that divorce not be made legal. That was, after all, something that Jesus did specifically address. And even He acknowledged that God's law (not man's law) allowed it in spite of God not approving because he didn't think human beings had the strength to stick to it. So therefore it could properly be argued that the same might be applied to homosexual couples and marriage from a Christian view.

The message of Christianity is and always was supposed to be that Jesus loves us all the same in spite of our sin, and that even though He doesn't approve, He understands that we aren't perfect. He did say that we might be persecuted by others, but he never stated that we had to persecute ourselves or be the ones doing the persecuting. Jesus was never intended to be an excuse for our bigotry and hate.

Not the ignorant ones...and I AM a senior citizen. Elders are one thing... town fools another.

Well, thanks providing such a strong example of the ignorant and town fool for us here at TMV SteveK!

That was just TOO easy and obvious. :-)

It is during conversations like this I am SO glad that I am not religious. Too many contradictions and hang-ups.

Steve -

In one way or another, shannonlee's argument is commonly made whenever social mores of the day are questioned. The thought is: "Older people are conservative, younger people are more open-minded." So, in this instance, it is argued that over time, as older folks die off, so will their more conservative mores re. homosexuality. Is it not possible, however, that the younger generation may espouse the values of their grandparents? So yes, grandparents will die, but grandchildren could perpetuate those values. Is it possible that this is what we're seeing, for example, on the issue of abortion, where there is a recent shift in a pro-life direction? In 2007, Christopher Blunt documented such a change in the attitudes of the young toward abortion, who are gradually more and more opposed to it. You can read his research here. See especially p. 8.

My hypothesis is that the conservative moral trend among the young will not be limited to the abortion issue, but may be reflected across a broad spectrum of issues in years to come, including the question of gay "marriage." Perhaps this will be due to grandparents who more and more are caretakers for grandchildren? Just a guess.

That link didn't work properly. I Googled "abortion attitudes of the young." Look at the seventh hit, "turnaround on abortion." Anyways, the point I'm making is that the next generation may be more conservative than the previous one, and not less.

And we all know that the non-religious never contradict themselves, and never have hang-ups...smile.

Austin - This is the third time in two days that you personally attacked me or my character. I understand that you have personal problems but don't you think it's time to stop this silliness?

In one way or another, shannonlee's argument is commonly made whenever social mores of the day are questioned.

I agree redbus... And from time to time social mores do need questioning. Questioning and revised.

That's exactly the point I tried to make with DaMav earlier in this thread, the point that some highly ingrained social mores are just plain wrong BUT will NOT be changed until a generation (or several) have passed.

The sun orbiting the earth (360 years for the church to apologize to Galileo)... Slavery (150 years before the Southern Baptist Conference adopted a resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery... Woman's sufferage... Equal rights...

IMO the gay 'issue' is merely an extension of civil rights and a legitimate reason to question and correct existing social mores.

Dude -

This time it was a joke, and I did everything I could to make that obvious.

As to attacking your character, I did indeed point out your inability or unwillingness to simply say you misread a comment and should man up about it.

Hell, in the past 24 hours I have backed off two different posts of mine, one for simply not thinking it through properly and saying some grossly wrong things, the other for exactly what you did - simply misreading a post.

I have no issues admitting when I am wrong. You either do, or truly think you are never wrong. I do consider that a lack of character.

Dude - let's just agree to ignore one another.

I'm here to discuss and debate issues of the day with people of different opinions not to play gotcha. I will not let you or anyone else to suck me down to that level.

EDIT: "I will not let..." should read "I try real hard not to let you or anyone else to suck me down to that level.

I still think the right answer is Civil Unions for all and letting religious institutions choose who THEY will and will not marry though those marriages would no longer give any benefits only Civil Unions would, hello separation of Church and State. Marriage is a religious institution and it is an abomination in my opinion for them to be enshrined in law in a nation that is supposed to treat all people equally. Equality includes gender and sexual orientation(as does the pursuit of happiness part) therefore by literal language you cant tell me not to marry Charlie and then give the green light for Jennifer to marry Charlie.

Children do tend to be more like their grandparents then their parents, depending on birth order which also has a good amount of data supporting this difference, but I have never seen any good data in regards to social issues but politically it has worked much that way. The baby boomers rejected their new deal parents and acted much more like the Gilded ages kids and now the Xers and Yers are talking and moving in a new dealesk direction but where as numbers may shift around abortion(and they may shift again many women are anti-abortion until they need one and they tend not to change views much after that so this could be a result of a very large demographic at a relatively young age or it could be an actual change) they are actually the most vocal group for gay rights. The Gen X and Gen Y set are more offended by what they perceive as bigotry than they are by gays or gay activity since many have been raised with it. This does not mean that you cant fight gay marriage it just means much like Maine you have to be somewhat careful of the language or you could accidentally motivate them to show up and vote which can often go badly.

On a final note this nature/nurture debate is shite, we have multiple studies that can track homosexuality to families. It has also been noted as correlated to brain size(some boys are born with female sized brains and the reverse as well and in these cases their is a high correlation to homosexuality or gender confusion(meaning sex change issues). Another thing not commonly discussed is that girls born with enlarged genitals or males born with malformed or small genitals are sometimes gender re-assigned without the parents even being informed(most commonly done in the 60's/70's) in these cases gender confusion was extreme and the nurture argument for gender identity was actually destroyed because of it once it was found that the doctor tied to the study backing the nurture argument had hidden the many suicide attempts and rejections of the assigned gender. These are only a few examples of the roots of homosexuality many other reasons exist, sexual trauma yadda yadda. Of course animals commonly have homo bi and heterosexual elements just like people and they have also been common throughout cultures and throughout history. The only difference is how those cultures in their allotted time periods treated their fellow citizens and for the religious among us only one example exists if you are a follower of Jesus, you love them, the rest is up to god. Please stop trying to act like you are god, it is not your place to judge.

Sorry dude, but it was those religious zealots that you're ragging on, who wrote the first amendment. Believe it or not, almost every country in the world has marriage, including the atheists of that country. If you read the above comments, you'll notice that Father_Time, an atheist (as far as I can tell), is putting up the most protest here. This is more a cultural issue than a religious one. You may proceed to rag, but please rag on the culture, at least for this issue.

Roro80: "See what he did here? Genius! It's not the gay people who are being vilified, attacked, and having their freedoms curtailed, it's the *churches*! "

It's called "playing the victim" and it's nothing new.

"TO CLARIFY: Elders are one thing... town fools another. I wish both elders AND town fools a long life but many changes CANNOT happen until deeply ingrained ignorance is gone."

Problem is sometimes "ingrained ignorance" is passed onto the next generation. Our current "Elders" and "town fools" were not really too long ago the younger generation.

Oh, shannonlee -- that 2nd sentence: really dead on target. Very well said.

Ramie wrote: "Problem is sometimes "ingrained ignorance" is passed onto the next generation. Our current "Elders" and "town fools" were not really too long ago the younger generation."

I agree Ramie we'll not be around to see a lot of the current problems resolved.

The next set of "Elders" and "town fools" are starting high school and their replacements are the oven. :-) All we can do is our best.

As the founding fathers explicitly set forth, the federal government was not to prescribe a religion. It was NOT to totally turn their back on God (Vishnu, Allah, Jehovah, etc). Separation of church and state does not mean "no God". I have listed statements of the founding fathers saying exactly that. "In God We (should) Trust".

The Founding Fathers were just as divided on religion as we are now. But the viewpoint that won out was that of Jefferson and Madison -- and that viewpoint is more than just no prescribed religion. It was also no mixing of religious belief with government, with public policy, with the laws of our nation. Jefferson, especially, believed very strongly that government should not promote any policy that was based in specific religious beliefs not shared by everyone.

The issue has nothing to do with what goes on in anyone's bedroom. Homosexuals are demanding state recognition and elevation of their sexual preference to preferred status.

I agree with your first sentence; disagree with the second. Homosexuality is about a person's essential nature, just as heterosexuality is. No one is heterosexual just in the bedroom; neither is anyone homosexual just in the bedroom. And therefore, what gay and lesbian Americans are demanding is nothing more or less than what you have, DaMav, or any other American has: Equal treatment in law.

Preferred because they also demand laws (i.e. so called "hate crimes" laws) and speech codes that provide special sanctions applicable to criticism of their sexual preference. Those opposing such an endorsement of homosexuality are vilified, their churches attacked, and their freedom of speech curtailed.

This is false. Federal hate crime law protects persons -- any persons -- from physical attack, injury, or harm based on sexual orientation, OR gender, OR race, OR religion. The law protects everyone against physical attack based on these factors, not just homosexuals, not just women, not just Jews or Catholics or Protestants or Muslims, not just blacks or hispanics or South Asians or whites. Everyone.

Federal hate crimes law does NOT provide any sanctions, special or not, against "criticism" of anyone's sexual preference. It does not criminalize belief. It criminalizes beating people up or killing them because they're gay, or black, or Muslim. And I will just add this: If people here who oppose federal hate crimes legislation do not want to be told that they support physical violence against gays and lesbians, then they should not state their opposition to federal hate crimes legislation, because federal hate crimes legislation ONLY prohibits physical violence. If you *know* this, and *still* insist on saying that federal hate crimes legislaton restricts free speech or religious belief, then don't be surprised if we get confused and think you're in favor of beating up or killing gays and lesbians (or anyone else protected by this law).

Love and sexual conduct are not one and the same.

You're right. They're not. Ever heard of a one-night stand?

I love plenty of people in my same gender, intensely in one or two instances, but have never felt compelled to have sex with them.

Because you are heterosexual, not homosexual.

Maine decided this isn't what it wants. That's their right.

Well, of course, it's their right. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Or, as Martin Luther King, Jr., put it (quoting someone else, but I don't know who), "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

I believe that, with all my heart.

Father_Time, no matter how much you wish it to be true, debate on this subject is not over. Objectively, that is undeniable. Maybe you think debate should be over. But the fact is -- it isn't.

Also, sex is NOT solely for procreation. That idea is just as abhorrent as the idea that sex is just for casual fun.

Ask the Artificial Insemination Industry about how sexual behavior is not only aquired but also affected by the environment and associative conditioning during the critical imprint ages of preadolescence and adolescence.

There exists an ENTIRE INDUSTRY that not only knows that sexual behavior is learned but that it can be specifically altered by a series of rewards or punishments to be fixated in whatever way the trainer deems necessary for the desired outcome. If not for the longstanding knowledge of aquired sexuality in mammals within this industry spanning many different species, some quite closely related to human physiology [swine, for instance], we would starve to death.

So, every time you eat your breakfast, lunch or dinner, you can think about how sexuality is aquired and how that knowledge has been common and banked on for many decades..

Actually, as examples of ignorance and town fools go, I really think Steve K is one of the poorer ones. I can think of several, right in this thread, who are much stronger candidates for that title than Steve. (And no, I'm not referring to you.) I'm just surprised you pick him when there are so many worthier candidates. (Sorry, Steve, I call 'em like I see 'em.)

Has everyone lost their sense of humor? I was making a play on his own words.

Can no one see my second sentence or the smiley face? I did not add them later. They were part of the original comment. I even bolded the smiley face to make it more obvious!

Talk about thin-skinned. Lighten up, everyone.

No apology or retraction needed or forthcoming on this one, kathy.

No apology or retraction needed or forthcoming on this one, kathy.

Did I ask for either one?

I have two responses to this:

1. LOL

2. HUH?

I know where you are coming from, Nic.....and I agree to a point.

As Christians, we are to honor the laws of the land as handed down by governmental authority - provided it does not violate God's laws.
However, in Constitutional theory as Americans, WE are supposed to be the government. Notice I said, "supposed to be". Thus, as the government, Christians should not support law that violates God's law.

I would also oppose laws that institutionalize worship of false idols. I already stand against laws that institutionalize murder (abortion) and institutionalizing homosexual behavior as the norm (same-sex unions).

I personally do not consider what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own bedrooms an "attack" on religious freedom. They have the right to do as they please in that respect. But when they want government to validate and support their behavior and place it on the same level as "God sanctioned" marriage; they'll get no help from me.

To me, the entire foundation of this nation was built with "Godly principles" at heart, where the founding fathers stated "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (John Adams). I cannot help the humanists tear that apart. To me, that is the very core of our nation's division and cultural collapse.

Did that make sense?

Hey Jazz.

You know I respect the heck out of you, brother; but I have to respectfully disagree on a point you made (or maybe two of them).

Even the black community has said that the homosexual cause is nothing like the fight for racial equality. It is also nothing like the fight for gender equality. When a child is born a black female - that child is a black female. It is not a trait that is chosen. There are those that say people are "born gay". Well, that would be a whole other enchilada if it were proven true. However, thus far, science has failed to prove that theory. Much more info is available on the "nurture" argument, however. This subject has been studied by science for well over 200 years. Not once, has a scientist proven that homosexuality is nothing other than a learned/circumstancial behvior. That alone takes it out of the "just like civil rights for blacks and women" realm.

Secondly, our nation (as I pointed out above to Nicrivera) was, indeed, founded upon a Dieist Godly principle, where a religion cannot be proscribed by the state. The founders, however, did state that God (Vishnu, Allah, Jehova, The Great Spirit, or whatever you call Him) should stay at the core of our government - and that our nation would fail if it did not. People all too often confuse "separation of Church and state" with "no God in government". They are not the same.

1) From psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.:

"Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development." --J. Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

2) William Byne, a psychiatrist with a doctorate in biology, and Bruce Parsons (1993) carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality. They found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation. --W. Byne and B. Parsons, "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised." Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no.3.)

3) Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey state that "a biopsychosocial model" best fits our knowledge of causation, with various combinations of temperament and environmental events leading to homosexuality. They say: "Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality." --R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., Journal of Neuropsychiatry, vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993.

4) From sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D.:

"Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors. I would like to add as a conclusion. If we take the arrow of implication backwards, some people have a predisposition to alcohol, that doesn't mean that they should abuse alcohol and that no therapy is effective."

5) An article on genes and behavior in Science magazine says: "...the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and “intelligence genes" touted in the popular press. Indeed, renewed appreciation of environmental factors is one of the chief effects of the increased belief in genetics' effects on behavior. The same data that show the effects of genes also point to the enormous influence of non-genetic factors." --C. Mann, "Genes and behavior," Science 264:1687 (1994), pp. 1686-1689.




Comer, Ronald J. Abnormal Psychology. New York, W.H Freeman & Co, 1992

"Homosexuality", Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol 6 (Micropaedia). 15th ed, 1990

Macionis, John J. Sociology. New Jersey, Prentice Hall International, 1987.

"Reproduction & Reproductive Systems", Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 26 (Macropaedia), 15th ed. 1990.

"Sex & Sexuality", Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 27 (Macropaedia). 15th ed, 1990.

Smith, Tom. 1998. General Social Survey, Topic 25. University of Chicago.



Ok, Dorian. There's the tip of the iceburg. I've got a cool million of these things which I won't try to fit into a single post. Now it's YOUR turn to prove, irrefutably that "Gayness" is born.
I already know you cannot do that. I've covered most of the ones people use above.

Pretty whitty, Shannon. I liked that one....:)

Supression of women and equal rights or racial equality are not the same as homosexual rights and elevating a subculture. Right now... homosexuality is a behavior you can engage in legally. Go for it. This is America. You can be anything you want - bondage, foot fetish, womanizing, domination, transvestitism; bisexuality, homosexuality, or whatever floats your boat sexually. Just don't expect special legislation to cover your fetish.

Is that really too much to ask?

"We see animals having homosexual relationships in nature. It is completely reasonable to believe that sexual orientation can be genetic."

And the male Beta eats its own young. The female black widow eats her mate after sex. Just how far are you willing to mimic the animal kingdom's habits? These "homosexual relationships" you point to in the animal kingdom are acts of masturbation - a single act to "get off". These same animals have mating relationships with the opposite sex. Maybe that means they're simply bisexual? I don't think so.

Nice try, though.

Incredible response here. I spent the day at the dentist so I just am catching up.

One thing I've always wondered about those who say that sexual orientation is entirely a choice.

Why would someone choose to adopt a lifestyle that results in many people here expressing such hate and disdain towards them ? Why would they choose to be called names, denied rights, etc ?

And the second prize for bestest opposite-day comment ever: roro80! With this gem:

"I also want to point out, once again, how you think about the anatomy of gay sex way, way more than any straight person ought to, and you should probably go get that checked out."

See what she did here? She challenged DaMav's sexuality and virility in order to get her point across.


And by the way.... This argument isn't about the vilification and attacks upon gays. That is wrong in all ways. No one has the right to assault another human being - verbally or physically. Period. This is about the homosexual subculture demanding equal status and special rights. Once again.... Until the left comes up with irrefutable scientific evidence that homosexuality is a trait you're born with, this argument will continue to be moot.

Here's what I see happening:

Homosexuals are given the right to civil unions. That does not personally effect me, correct?
I should just shut up and live and let live. Right?

Okay.

Then in about a year or so, a gay couple wants to "married" in a Church. The Church says, "no".
Enter the ACLU. Enter Smith VS Bob's Christian Church. This is how all liberal ideals work.

It is a complete subversion of the culture, Almoderate.
First, take sex out of the bedroom and push into the public arena. Check.
Next, eliminate the "anti-sodomy" laws. Check.
Next, get media to promote venues/shows with homosexual themes. Check.
Next, allow homosexuals in the military. Check.
Next, allow homosexuals to "marry".
Next, ???????

It never ends.
The first few were items that most people could get behind. Sodomy laws are wrong. Homosexuals should be allowed to defend THEIR OWN country. That's how it always starts.

And this isn't the interpretation of ONE religion - mine. Do you honestly think that Christianity has a patent on the forbidding of homosexuality? Try Judaism, Islam, etc.

But religion has nothing to do with laws permitting same-sex marriage. Religious belief should not and does not, under our Constitution, govern secular law. There is no legitimate public policy reason to forbid gay and lesbian couples to marry just as straight couples are allowed to marry. The government has no legitimate interest in preventing this, and very legitimate reasons for eliminating this source of unequal treatment. Whatever Christianity or Judaism or Islam or any other religion says about homosexuality is completely beside the point in this context.

This argument isn't about the vilification and attacks upon gays. That is wrong in all ways. No one has the right to assault another human being - verbally or physically. Period. This is about the homosexual subculture demanding equal status and special rights.

You know, you have said this repeatedly, and it's about time someone calls you on it. This is a false dichotomy. You cannot say that an entire group of human beings is sinful, immoral, unnatural, bestial, disgusting, abnormal, undeserving of equal rights under the law, etc.; and then disavow physical violence or verbal abuse as wrong and illegitimate. When you demonize, dehumanize, degrade a group of people based on a single common characteristic, you invite and in effect condone such abuse.

Steve -

It's a clever strategy, to push the "civil rights" (or slavery) angle. And your Galileo example is well-chosen. But these discussions on TMV are missing the elephant in the room -- and that's no veiled reference to the GOP (smile). The "elephant" is that you can't deal with gay "marriage" in isolation from other moral issues. The revisionism of our day would like us to consider homosexuality in benign isolation from the constellation of related subjects, but here I have to cast my lot with Silhouette's often-stated position. It's not just gay "marriage" we're talking about but a revisiting of many issues of which this will only be the first. You may be O.K. with that, Steve, I really don't know, but I'm willing to bet the farm that most Americans won't be. Next up (and already being challenged on the basis of Lawrence vs. Texas) is multiple spouses. And try as one might to disassociate oneself from the "me too" crowd that is waiting its turn, it's hard to do. If I can marry someone of the same sex, why not two of the opposite (or same) sex? Where exactly does it stop, once that Pandora's box has been opened? I've never heard a good rejoinder from those pushing "marriage" for gays.

As for the narrower discussion, there are a few loonies who incite hatred against gays, as was only too evident from the recent beating of a NYC gay man. This is deplorable, and should be denounced unequivocally in the same way that the pro-life movement clearly disassociated itself from abortion clinic bombers. But as public opinion has recently turned increasingly against abortion, barring a judicial intervention (which is always a possibility), the tide of public sentiment may be turning in favor of maintaining traditional social mores on the question of homosexuality. It's possible that one day we'll look back at California and Maine as harbingers of things to come.

Yes, it's too much to ask, because homosexuality is not a "behavior" like "bondage, foot fetish, womanizing, domination.... or whatever floats your boat sexually." Neither is bisexuality. Patrick asked a good question, Jefferson, and I think you should answer it. Why would anyone willingly choose a "lifestyle" that makes them the target of such vileness, such hatred and cruelty?

The best I can say about your cruelty is that I don't think it's deliberate. I think you truly believe what you say. But that doesn't make what you say true, and it certainly doesn't make it any less cruel.

JD,

Cruelty and hatred are not caused by genes, either. As the song say, "You have to be taught to hate and fear." And yet, we don't deny cruel and hateful people the right to marry.

The founders, however, did state that God (Vishnu, Allah, Jehova, The Great Spirit, or whatever you call Him) should stay at the core of our government - and that our nation would fail if it did not.

No, they didn't -- at least, the ones who had the final word did not.

Even the black community

The black community has said nothing. Communities don't speak. The black community, like any other community, is not monolithic. It's true that, statistically, anti-homosexual feeling polls higher among blacks than other groups, but does not mean that all black people are homophobic.

There are those that say people are "born gay". Well, that would be a whole other enchilada if it were proven true.

Why? What difference does it make? The point is, homosexuality is not a conscious choice. No one decides they are going to be homosexual. Whether that is due to genetic factors alone, or a complex mix of nature, nurture, and other environmental factors, is utterly irrelevant and meaningless. Same-sex attraction and same-sex love is innate and immutable, no matter how it got that way -- and even more to the point, it hurts no one. It hurts no one. You know what does cause immeasurable harm to human beings, JD? It's that human enterprise you have spent so much of your own adult life in: war. No gay or lesbian couple who fall in love and want to spend their lives together has ever done the harm that is done by one cruise missile, JD. Yet we pin medals on bomber pilots and tell homosexual couples they are too disgusting to get married.

I said: "Preferred because they also demand laws (i.e. so called "hate crimes" laws) and speech codes that provide special sanctions applicable to criticism of their sexual preference ... (which curtail freedom of speech)"

Your response claiming Federal hate crimes law has no impact on free speech is a debatable but a reasonable opinion well expressed. But it does not address the "speech codes" in my assertion which clearly have an impact on free speech. Surely you would not argue that speech codes (found at many universities for example) have no impact on speech.

"Sticks and stones can break my bones..." is not refuted by arguing that sticks can't break bones and ignoring 'stones'.

"The best I can say about your cruelty is that I don't think it's deliberate. I think you truly believe what you say. But that doesn't make what you say true, and it certainly doesn't make it any less cruel."

Let me address this part first. Nice technique, Kathy. Make me out to be cruel and unfeeling - a cold hateful right-winged Christian nut. Who is vilifying who, now? You can also try "homophobe" next, althought that is the same technique. How dare you attempt to judge my heart!

Next.... Why would anyone willingly choose a lifestyle that makes them the target of such vileness, such hatred and cruelty?
Are you aware that pedophiles use the same defense? Are you aware that prostitutes use this same defense? Why would anyone become a transvestite, Kat? Why would anyone CHOOSE to be turned on by, say, feet or domination? Why do serial killers commit those acts when they know that would "make them the target of such vileness, such hatred and cruelty?"
Let me guess. Those are genetic too, and we should embrace them as well?

"Yes, it's too much to ask, because homosexuality is not a "behavior" like "bondage, foot fetish, womanizing, domination..."

Okay, Kathy. Then tell me what the difference is between a gay man and myself.
Hair color? Ethicity? Skin tone? No....none of those.
We both can perform the same work, hold the same degrees, debate philosophy, or whatever. We are physically the same. We are also the same emotionally as we are capable of love toward both sexes (try not to equate love with sex here, please). There are many men I truly love.

The only difference between me and a gay man is what sexually arouses us. That is the very same difference between myself and someone into S&M or any other fetish.

I agree with your assessment of war. Any true warrior who says he loves war, is no warrior at all - just a scumbag bent on violence. But I will never apologize for killing those who wish my countrymen harm. The many medals on my chest were not my idea. Someone higher than me felt I deserved them. I don't think I did - I only performed my duty with honor. That should be expected, not rewarded. But the thing is, extremists want to physically destroy our nation. Liberals want to culturally destroy our nation. I will spend as much time and effort fighting you and the other cultural dismantlers as I did fighting the enemy in war.

"No one decides that they are going to be homosexual".
Yes they do. That's like someone saying that they didn't decide to become a kleptomaniac or a pedophile. What makes these people steal or be sexually aroused by children? Are they born with that urge? Using your flawed logic, they are. Otherwise your argument holds no water.

"Cruelty and hatred are not caused by genes, either. As the song say, "You have to be taught to hate and fear." And yet, we don't deny cruel and hateful people the right to marry."

Im am neither cruel, hateful, or fearful, Kathy.

I will continue to fight for "Godly principles" and against:

Abomination (homosexuality)
Covetessness (taxing the rich unfairly)
Murder (abortion)
Adultry (prostitution / promiscuity)
Theivery
Lying

"You know, you have said this repeatedly, and it's about time someone calls you on it. This is a false dichotomy. You cannot say that an entire group of human beings is sinful, immoral, unnatural, bestial, disgusting, abnormal, undeserving of equal rights under the law, etc.; and then disavow physical violence or verbal abuse as wrong and illegitimate. When you demonize, dehumanize, degrade a group of people based on a single common characteristic, you invite and in effect condone such abuse."


No, Kathy.... You are absolutely WRONG!
I think drunkeness is wrong and disgusting. Does that mean I wish they'd be beaten in the street?
NO.
I think arrogance and narcissim are disgusting and vile. Does that mean I want them dead?
NO.

I will restate: Homosexuals can now legally "be". They can currently live together. They should not ever be subjected to physical or verbal abuse because of that. But that cannot be confused with allowing them free reign to destroy our culture. I'll never raise a hand against another human being for what they believe or how they act - unless it endangers my family; nor will I condone any such behavior like assault or abortion clinic bombings, etc. I will condemn those acts.
How in God's name is that a false dichotomy? You have to be making this up as you go along.

You and the rest of the humanists will continue to throw everything you can to belittle me and those like me. It's one of the tools in your arsenal that has worked in the past. It's what has gotten you to this point in our nation's history. If you cannot convince, you vilify. If you cannot vilify, you go to the courts. If you cannot go to the courts, you go to the media. Liberalism has become the biggest lie imaginable and I will continue to call you out on it.

Beliefs and statements about homosexual orientation - Religious Tolerance (.) org Recent statements by professional organizations include:

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973.

The American Law Institute continually updates its Model Penal Code, which is a group of laws that they suggest be implemented at the state level. During the 1970s, they recommended to legislators: "that private sexual behavior between consenting adults should be removed from the list of crimes and thereby legalized."

The American Bar Association in 1974 expressed its approval of the Model Penal Code, including its decriminalization of consensual adult homosexual acts.

The World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1981.

The American Psychological Association released a Statement on Homosexuality in 1994-JUL. Their first two paragraphs state:

"The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals."

"Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments."

Follow link for rest of story.

EDIT: I left out my favorite:

In 1999, Just the Facts Coalition -- a group of 13 professional associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers and National Education Association jointly issued a document titled: "Just the facts about sexual orientation." The document was updated in 2008. They:

- expressed concern about harassment of gay and lesbian youth.
- condemned reparative therapy as potentially harmful and of little or no effectiveness
- describe transformational ministries as representing only one part of Christianity -- those faith groups which view homosexuality as outside God's will, and incompatible with Christianity. They cite other denominations as supporting equal rights, and protection against discrimination, for gays and lesbians.

"The founders, however, did state that God (Vishnu, Allah, Jehova, The Great Spirit, or whatever you call Him) should stay at the core of our government - and that our nation would fail if it did not"
"No, they didn't -- at least, the ones who had the final word did not."


Oh yes they did!!!! INCLUDING the ones with the final say! I'll keep posting these just as long as you keep pretending they don't exist.


John Adams:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

John Quincy Adams:
Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837

Benjamin Franklin:
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787

Alexander Hamilton:
For my own part, I sincerely esteem the Constitution a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." - 1787 after the Constitutional Convention.

Thomas Jefferson:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” - 1781

James Madison:
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” - 1778

Noah Webster:
No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” - 1828

George Washington:
"reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..." - Fairwell Address.

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” - 1778

JeffersonDavis, "You don't leave your entire being or character outside when you step into the voting booth. Your beliefs go in with you."

You're correct, unfortunately. In this case your beliefs tell you that it is fine to take the rights of others away, rights you do not think others should have. Does it affect you personally if you can or can not marry another man? No. So why do you believe that people have the right to vote on that which doesn't affect them? In this case it's a right to marry the person we love and want to spend the rest of our life with. You are wrong to tell me I can not do that. How would you like it if I told you that you could not marry?

Hey SBSF.....

I respect the heck out of you, Stockboy. But you and I are looking through two different set of glasses.

You see sexuality as a right. I do too, as long as it is kept in the bedroom. What two gay men or women do in their bedrooms is entirely their business and it does not effect me.

You, however, seem to think that open sexuality is a right. It's not that simple. Homosexuality has been with us since the beginning of human history - but so has prostitution, pedophilia, fetishes of every sort. Who are you not to grant every sexual orientation special rights? We must not discriminate against people who like to have sex while standing on their heads, or for those who like having sex only with green-eyed Jewish people named Opey that wear cowboy hats. According to current logic, these people "can't help" their preferences either. Where does it stop? I maintain that it should have been stopped a long time ago. I consider this a degredation of our culture - one that USED to be very Godly. The further we continue to sink away from that foundation, the further our culture slides into humanistic paganism.

Now, here's my pragmatic side:
Marriage is an institution sactified in religion. We cannot get away from that. If it is deemed legal by our government, it should be called civil union, and never to be forced to be performed in a Church.

Father_Time: "Sex is for procreation."

So how many children do you have? If sex is only for procreation, then I guess the number of children you have is roughly the same number of times you've had sex. But still we're looking at you having sex 20 times, tops? And if your wife can no longer have children- say she's over 45 or so, then I guess you've stopped having sex altogether, since "sex is for procreation".

Besides marriage is not just about sex. Marriage is spending one's life with someone they love and sex is one of many expressions of that love. Why doesn't it surprise me that a gay guy (me) has to point that out to you?

You know what I dislike most about the religious types who try to deny others what they themselves have? It's because they feel that they are so God dam% fu$%ing better than anyone else that no one else deserves to have what they have. They justify it by using religion, and if religion doesn't work then they use science and if they don't like that then they make stuff up, or just read only material they know will support their beliefs, any alternative theory be dam$ed.

Well it's nice to know there's this whole group of people who have no health issues whatsoever (and will never have health issues), people who have lived by the Bible and have never sinned. People who would, if asked by God, are willing to kill their children. Oh and part of being perfect means having no problems- no financial worries, no problems with friendships or loved ones and never an angry voice. So please let me know the title of your book to happiness so I can buy it and give up my slightly flawed life and emulate your life of utmost perfection. I want to be just as good as you so I can enjoy all the rights you have, oh most perfect one.

Father_Time, "I think everyone understands that sexual behavior is not established before birth, which is laughable from the outset."

Haha. That's a laugh. What about personality? How is that established? Nature or nurture? I think it's a little bit of both, but mostly nature. The easiest examples are my two cats. I have a male and female. With regards to personality the male takes after his father and the female takes after the mom. But the only "input" the father cat had was to get the mother pregnant. Once the kittens were born the father cat was not around to influence their personalities. So it is with sexual attraction. Some people are attracted to the opposite sex, some to the same sex and some to both sexes.

Yes, we ALL have a choice of who we sleep with. I don't think you'd choose to sleep with your mother any more than I would choose to sleep with my father. But I choose to sleep with someone I am attracted to sexually. I assume you do the same thing. I don't think anyone chooses to sleep with someone they think is a dog. Do you ever think you could sleep with your mother or grandmother? If not, then why do you think gay guys (or lesbians) would force themselves to sleep with someone they do not naturally find attractive? I don't even know how I COULD sleep with someone I wasn't attracted to. Thankfully I like handsome men. It narrows down my choices of whom to sleep with. ;)

Steve, that's an interesting summary. Notably, these associations (as far as I can tell) are all American. No doubt there are equivalent associations in other Western nations, which would have a similar stance. Which begs the question: Why is the push for gay "marriage" coming from the so-called "developed" world? Recent meetings of the Lambeth Conference, for example - the worldwide meeting of leaders from the Anglican Communion - have been fractious precisely because the areas of the world where Anglicanism is growing the most rapidly are also the most traditional. African bishops have been calling on American ones to "repent." And by-the-way, the 10% figure cited by the APA was debunked long ago. That figure is a relic of the 1950s Kinsey report, which used the male prison population as a supposed indicator of the society at-large, even though many of those men reverted to heterosexual lifestyles upon their release.

I like these quotes, J.D. No doubt, there were godly men and women involved in the founding of our country. Fair play dictates, however, that we acknowledge that not all had this same faith. Even those who sometimes said these kinds of thing were Deists, believing only in a Creator but not a God involved in the everyday affairs of life. (Jefferson is an example of a Deist). That being said, I have noticed that so far, no one has responded to your quotes.

The gay man hiding under roro80 should read your posts.

I find them intriguing and informative and your sources impeccable.

Thank You.

Good Grief.

Tha APA is mostly GAY. Of course they take these radical and unproven stands.

The WHO simply does not track "gay" anymore, preferring to concentrate resources on disease in third world countries where “gay” is not an issue. Furthermore it is not an issue because largely it is socially not tolerated. One could get killed quite easily I have been told.

In any case you need to try out a few other psychology associations. The APA alone does not prove anything because the issue is NOT a forgone conclusion. No matter how much info cheery picking you do. Please look at the entire data spectrum ay least in the name of objectivity.
.

"Ha Ha"

I don't have to prove anything YOU DO.

A rectum is a sewer not a sex organ.

Wow! You call that irrefutable scientific evidence that homosexuality is "an acquired trait"?

If I post an equal number (or more) of quotes, excerpts, links, articles,etc., to the contrary, will you accept that as irrefutable scientific evidence that homosexuality has genetic links?

"Once again.... Until the left comes up with irrefutable scientific evidence that homosexuality is a trait you're born with, this argument will continue to be moot."

I thought you were supposed to come with irrefutable scientific evidence that homosexuality is "an acquired thing."

"The left" has nothing to "prove" as "the left" is not trying to justify the denial of rights to gays and lesbians based on anything scientific, or otherwise. Human rights do not neeed scientific proof.

"You see sexuality as a right. I do too, as long as it is kept in the bedroom. What two gay men or women do in their bedrooms is entirely their business and it does not effect me."

When I see your statements such as this one, I am honestly trying to understand what your problem is then with what two gays or lesbians do in the privacy of their bedroom after they have been legally married?

Hey JeffersonDavis -- That particular comment was actually for Father_Time, not for DaMav. I want to suggest that you look at Father_Time's comments on this post, and count how many times he talks about gay sex in a graphic manner. He does that on every thread about gay people, and quite frankly, it's gross. Unless you think "gay sex is ewwie grossy gross!" is an argument someone over the age of 12 should use, maybe you'll agree that his behavior indicates something perhaps being covered up.
By the way, I don't consider calling someone "gay" to be an insult -- it's merely a value neutral observation that may be true or may be false, but I'm certainly not one to use it as an insult.

""The left" has nothing to "prove" as "the left" is not trying to justify the denial of rights to gays and lesbians based on anything scientific, or otherwise. Human rights do not neeed scientific proof."

That's where you're wrong, Dorian. The "left" is, indeed, attempting to equate gay rights with racism and sexism. With race and sex, it is a determined trait by birth. The "left" attempts to say "you are born gay". The burden of proof, then, rests upon those who make that claim. Every attempt at scientific proof has ended up in a dead end for the left. There is much much more reasearch in existence supporting nurture than nature.

" I am honestly trying to understand what your problem is then with what two gays or lesbians do in the privacy of their bedroom after they have been legally married?"

Dorian....
I have stated this over and over. I do not have a problem with what people do in private between two consenting adults. I do, however have a big problem with a subculture attempting to legitimize itself as something that should be embraced and celebrated. And, yes, that is exactly what they are asking for. They wish to be elevated to the equivalent of a God-sanctioned "marriage". Well, sorry. God does not sanction marriage for the same sex. If they want to get a couple of attorneys and make a union of some sort legal, there is nothing stopping them now. Two men or two women can now make legal arrangements for just about everything that heterosexual couples do. So what's the problem? Could it be that this is just another cog in the overall liberal agenda? Yep.

As I said countless times... The only difference between gays and heterosexuals is what turns them on sexually. Why in the world would I legislate anything in accordance to how people have sex? Should how people have sex give someone special status?

"Well, sorry. God does not sanction marriage for the same sex. "

Do you have some quotes from "God" to this effect? And, I am not trying to be fictitious or flippant, I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

"Could it be that this is just another cog in the overall liberal agenda? Yep."

Could you tell me what you view as the "overall liberal agenda"?

" Why in the world would I legislate anything in accordance to how people have sex?"

Do you really think that is all what marriage is about, sex?

"Should how people have sex give someone special status?"

What special status (other than equality) are those who "have sex" asking for?


Thanks

JD

Sorry, but we'll just have to disagree on "the left having to prove" that gays have equal rights, which is in effect what you are claiming: because, allegedly, homosexuality is an "acquired thing", they don't deserve all the rights "normal people" are entitled to.

It is my personal belief that homosexuals, whether "nurtured or natural" are God's creation and deserving the same rights as others. We'll just have to disagree on this one, too.

o

Let me just ask you: If it is scientifically proven that homosexuality has genetic links, will you then drop your objections to full equal rights for gays--including marriage?

JeffersonDavis, "Marriage is an institution sactified in religion. We cannot get away from that. If it is deemed legal by our government, it should be called civil union, and never to be forced to be performed in a Church."

I agree with you on that. A church should never be forced to perform ceremonies that go against its beliefs. However many churches do recognize same-sex marriages. The law (and people in Maine, as the latest example) prevent these religious groups from practicing their religious views.

The real perspective is that despite whatever the law and narrow-minded people say, the love of two people of the same-sex is just as equal and beautiful as the love in an opposite sex relationship.

Father_Time: "Sex is for procreation."

Sb - you missed the better comeback, which is Woody Allen's quote:

Interviewer: "Is sex dirty?"

Allen: "Only if it is done right."

:-)

Father_Time: "I don't have to prove anything YOU DO."

OK, so what do I need to prove to you? Please let me know. Thanks.

A rectum is a sewer not a sex organ.

Hmm.

Do you kiss when having sex? Or had fellatio performed on you, or performed cunnilingus on a woman? A mouth is for eating, after all, not a sex organ.

Have you ever played with or sucked a woman's tits during sex? They are for feeding newborns, after all, not a sex organ.

And I will guess that anal with a woman is just as bad as homosexuality to you.

No wonder you are so pissed off!

"Then in about a year or so, a gay couple wants to "married" in a Church. The Church says, "no". Enter the ACLU. Enter Smith VS Bob's Christian Church. This is how all liberal ideals work."

Congratulations on falling for the latest lie/scare tactic.

I'm sure there's some rare circumstance out there somewhere to be an exception to the rule, but I've yet to see anyone sue a church for refusing to allow anything they don't agree with on their property-- and there are plenty of legal things to do that would contradict those beliefs.

And again... Take your slippery slope argument and then reverse it. You forgot to include allowing the races to intermarry in your list, by the way. How about making divorce legal and allowing people to remarry? Why don't we start there, since that is in fact something Jesus specifically covered? What was it again that Jesus said to the religious leaders when they asked him about divorce and implied that it was okay? Remind me again? You remember Jesus, right? He's that guy that the whole Christianity thing was founded on... Oh well, I'm sure that what came directly from his mouth and not some prophet or disciple isn't half as important, after all...

So then if we don't allow homosexuals to marry, how about we take away the right to marry for Catholics should they use birth control? How about we not allow divorced couples to be remarried? It seems to me that if you're going to enforce one belief when it comes to marriage, the straight couples shouldn't be immune.

"And this isn't the interpretation of ONE religion - mine. Do you honestly think that Christianity has a patent on the forbidding of homosexuality? Try Judaism, Islam, etc."

And how is that working out for the countries who are ruled by those religious laws? I'm sure you'd love living in Iran. Sounds like a swell place.

And while more than one religion might believe one thing, there are denominations of those religions that are just fine with the opposite. Further, there are several other whole religions that have no problems with homosexuality. In fact, why don't we start adopting concepts of Scientology as government policy? Wicca? Islam? Satanism? Hinduism? I'm sure you'd LOVE that. That's the problem with adopting religious morals as government policy. It's great as long as it's YOUR religion, but you'd better hope that then never happen to disagree with you, because that door can and does swing both ways.

Religious zealots? You might want to go and read a biography or two about the founding fathers. You might also want to go back and re-read that First Amendment if you think it sets up this country as a religious one. That little diddy about religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Allowing homosexuals to marry does not prohibit the free exercise of any religion. Yet to institute a particular moral standard to a legal status and/or civil right that does not apply to many religions DOES in fact respect an establishment of religion. And not even all denominations of Christianity prohibit homosexuality.

But atheism is my point. If in fact marriage is a matter for the churches to decide, then you'd also have to claim that atheists cannot have the right to marry. If there's not such an issue with that, then you have to admit that there's more than a little hypocrisy coming from the religious right.

Additionally, Jesus did specifically address divorce. He stated that God had given Moses a law that allowed it because He knew that men were weak, but that by no means was it okay. It wasn't Paul that said that, and it isn't some obscure reference in the Old Testament. It was said by Jesus. So yes, it is entirely possible for the same standard to apply to other "sexual sin"-- including homosexuality. Sometimes, actually reading the Bible comes in handy. A lot of so-called Christians should look into it.

As for social/cultural issues... Again, it's not an excuse. At one time, Jim Crow was a social/cultural issue. It wasn't okay then, and it's not okay now.

I guess I didn't explain myself very well, so please allow me to try again.

My point is that, regardless of whether it's right or wrong, and despite the opposition from some religious groups, this is really more of a cultural issue than a religious one. Even the prohibition against polygamy is more of a cultural issue than a religious one. I was stating this because you seemed to be ragging on the religious people as the only ones holding this up.

Hey AR -- I think you touch on an excellent point. There are lots of body parts that have more than one use. Even if we look at what is most certainly a sex organ, like the vagina, it's both a sex organ and a birth canal -- there's no reason why that would necessarily have to be the case. Mouths, ears, hair, hands, noses -- all of these have multiple uses, even multiple primary uses. The mouth is an eating hole and a kissing place and a sex organ and food grinder and an exit hole and a noise maker and a breathing hole.

AR (to FT): "Do you kiss when having sex?... No wonder you are so pissed off!"

As we know there are many ways to have sex. I (like others) can't help but be amused by FT's obsession with man to man butt sex.

Thanks!

Hey ProfElwood -- I'd agree with your point, but in all honesty, most objections to gay marriage come from one of two places: 1) religion, 2) ewwwwww! butt sex is groooooossssss!

Number 2, which we've seen demonstrated very well by Father_Time, should probably be reserved for elementary students, and not pretend to be any sort of actual political argument.

That leaves Number 1, which, while I disagree with it extremely strongly, does certainly make sense if you follow the Bible literally. Christianity and religion in general are certainly huge forces in this country, and should not be underestimated.

I guess what I'm saying is that, while I tend to shy away from the logical fallacy of the "argument of personal incredulity", I have a very difficult time believing that the ewwie-gross-boys-kissing objections hold much sway with actual adults, whereas God most certainly does. But I could be wrong. It's also quite possible that people like church leaders are playing off the grossy factor, but instilling it with the handfull of Biblical passages that relate to gay people.

JD, "They wish to be elevated to the equivalent of a God-sanctioned "marriage". Well, sorry. God does not sanction marriage for the same sex."

Haha. Of course your god does not sanction marriage for the same sex. No one is disputing that. But your view of god is but one of many. There are other beliefs and religions out there and they do perform same-sex ceremonies when the law lets them. You're welcome to your views, but you're also forcing them on others, people you have never even met.

Also, "I do, however have a big problem with a subculture attempting to legitimize itself ..."

What about those marriage shows where people meet on TV and then get married... or those "quickie" marriages in Las Vegas. Those actions just denigrate marriage and straights should stop it, they're spitting on God and marriage in their pursuit of celebrity mentality. BTW: I don't see ANY gays engaging in such behavior.

"A rectum is a sewer not a sex organ.

Hmm." etc, etc.

AR, thanks for setting the record straight on normal human sexual behavior.

I debated on how to reply to FT, nervous about (not) using the right words and terms. However, you---by just using plain, medical language, describing normal bodily parts and functions in a straightforward, "non-criminalized" way--did it beautifully for me.

Thanks

roro -

I think you are downplaying the third group, that believes that societal norms have a reason for existing as long as they have. Even most older cultures that were very open to homosexuality did not provide for equal-status marriage of same-sex couples.

And the 'eeew, boys having sex' certainly doesn't apply as soon as you turn the issue towards lesbians, who are not as a whole seen as 'gross' by heterosexual men. Very often, quite the opposite in fact, as the porn industry demonstrates quite graphically (pun very much intended).

This is way too complicated an issue to try to boil down all objections to such simplistic buckets as the two you describe, and as long as the argument is presented that way (all opposition is either ignorant religion or gay-bashing), I think the large middle-ground needed for true change to occur will continue to be non-supportive.

Thanks Dorian.

Actually, my use of that language was driven mainly by trying to avoid the ban on 'naughty words'!

:)

@ JD: "They wish to be elevated to the equivalent of a God-sanctioned "marriage". Well, sorry. God does not sanction marriage for the same sex."

God did not sanction my marriage. My hubby and I were married not in a church or by any sort of church official. My marriage was sanctioned by the state. Funny, nobody called it a "Civil Union" or a "Domestic Partnership". Everyone's still calling it a marriage; it was a wedding; he is my husband; I am his wife. Where is God in this? Oh, there is no God in this. How can that be possible? Let LGBTQ folks get married like I did, in front of a state-ordained JOP or officiant, not in front of an alter if the alter won't have them.

The idea that there might come a time when churches have to perform marriages they don't want to is patently ridiculous. The Catholic church, for example, refuses to marry lots of straight couples -- divorcees, those who admit to having pre-marital sex, those who admit to the intention of using birth control. [ETA: non Catholics!] I mean, marriages between people like this are perfectly legal in every state, but the Catholic church is not forced to perform them. What makes you think that churches would have to perform marriages between gay people if they choose not to?

" Should how people have sex give someone special status?"

How about just equal status?

Almoderate, off topic.... You've mentioned before that you were taught in Alabama public schools, even though Alabama public schools aren't exactly the best in the nation. I think your posts are always intelligent and moderate. I too had the benefit of a good solid Alabama public education (except for the last two years of high school, when I went to John Carroll Catholic in B'ham). When I read some of the comments on TMV or elsewhere, I know the person making those comments could have used a good solid Alabama education in public schools, too. I mean... basic stuff about the US and history that I learned in elementary school many people just don't seem to know. So thanks for all your thoughtful (and educated) comments. :)

"You, however, seem to think that open sexuality is a right. It's not that simple. Homosexuality has been with us since the beginning of human history - but so has prostitution, pedophilia, fetishes of every sort. Who are you not to grant every sexual orientation special rights? "

Homosexuality is not a crime---at least not anymore. Homosexual acts between consenting adults are not a crime---at least not anymore.

In certain places (cities, states, nations), prostitution is illegal.

"Pedophilliatic" acts are certainly a horrendous crime.

"Fetishes"????

Apples and oranges. What point are you trying to make?

Fair enough, AR. It was purposely simplified for effect, but I can see your point. I can imagine some convincing arguments, however, that would tie "societal norms" to religion and religious tradition. I want to make it clear that I'm not explicitly tying religion to (as you put it) "ignorant religion", although there's certainly some overlap; nor am I equating thinking dudes doing it is gross to "gay bashing", although, again, there's some overlap there too.

About the lesbian issue, there seems to be a lot more to unpack (ETA: oy, that's an unfortunate choice of words). There's a world of sexism and phallocentric definitions of sex and bisexuality-for-the-male-gaze-only and all that stuff. For many of those who both oppose gay male sex and love lesbian porn, there'd likely be a lot of confusion and condemnation if they were to come across actual lesbians making out or having sex. As I'm sure you're aware, most real world lesbians aren't like the 5'10" blond bombshells with fake boobs that we're all used to seeing in porn made for the straight male crowd.

"And the 'eeew, boys having sex' certainly doesn't apply as soon as you turn the issue towards lesbians, who are not as a whole seen as 'gross' by heterosexual men. Very often, quite the opposite in fact, as the porn industry demonstrates quite graphically (pun very much intended)."

Excellent point, AR.

I wonder how many of those pure, "God-fearing," heterosexual, American males who detest homosexuals and homsexuality will ever admit to watching---and enjoying---lesbian porn?

Don't expect them to be lining up on this thread to do so.

For many of those who both oppose gay male sex and love lesbian porn, there'd likely be a lot of confusion and condemnation if they were to come across actual lesbians making out or having sex. As I'm sure you're aware, most real world lesbians aren't like the 5'10" blond bombshells with fake boobs that we're all used to seeing in porn made for the straight male crowd.

ROTFLMAO

You are so true there, roro. I have talked about various aspects of my 'wild youth', if you will. One part of that was having as my girlfriend for a while my lesbian neighbor across the hall (that whole story is WAY to long and not really appropriate for here). She and her roommate were lesbians (the real thing, not LUGS or such). We never really had 'sex' per se, but man did she teach me a lot about a woman's body and what they really like. But back to my point, having gotten to know her, her roommate and their friends, and what they were really about and like, was a very wonderful experience. But I cannot look at 'straight' lesbian porn (no other term for it) without laughing at it to this very day.

Actually, Saturday Night Live did a great takeoff about that years ago, when a group of guys find a genie's lamp, and wish for a couple of lesbians. They did not get what they expected!

How dare you attempt to judge my heart!

I'm not judging your heart. I'm judging your words.

Are you aware that pedophiles use the same defense? Are you aware that prostitutes use this same defense? Why would anyone become a transvestite, Kat? Why would anyone CHOOSE to be turned on by, say, feet or domination? Why do serial killers commit those acts when they know that would "make them the target of such vileness, such hatred and cruelty?"

Um, no -- pedophiles do not "make the same defense." Neither do prostitutes. Quote me where a pedophile or prostitute has said that molesting children or charging money for sex is an innate orientation or asked why they would choose to be a pedophile or prostitute if they had a choice.

A transvestite is a man or woman who acts out, via clothing and other ways, the opposite gender. Transvestites are not necessarily homosexual. Transvestitism is not about sexual orientation -- at least not directly. As I understand transvestitism, it's a chosen behavior, not an innate characteristic. And it hurts no one, so who cares?

Why would anyone CHOOSE to be turned on by, say, feet or domination?

I don't know. Why would anyone?

Why do serial killers commit those acts when they know that would "make them the target of such vileness, such hatred and cruelty?"

Any reply I could make to this that would not mean finding an email from Dr E in my inbox in about 10 minutes falls very, very short. But since I don't want to see that email, I will just say that serial killers are criminals by definition of law, and not because of who or what they are, but because of what they have done. And I will add that likening sexual orientation to serial murder is, at best, inaccurate and inappropriate. Also cruel, especially so because there is no truth in the comparison.

Since we're getting off topic anyway, could polygamy also be part of marriage rights? It's not really condemned by any religion that I know of, or anything in the constitution, just our culture.

The difference between you and a gay man is that a gay man is romantically, emotionally, and sexually attracted to men; and you are romantically, emotionally, and sexually attracted to women. Presumably. I know you have greatly resisted acknowledging that falling in love with a person of the opposite sex is part of what makes someone heterosexual.

The only difference between me and a gay man is what sexually arouses us. That is the very same difference between myself and someone into S&M or any other fetish.

No, that is only one aspect of the difference between you and a gay man. Assuming that you are capable of falling in love with a woman, that is more than just sexual arousal. Gay men do not fall in love with women. A gay man can love a woman in exactly the same way you can love a man, but the falling in love part is not there. In just the same way, you, as a heterosexual man, do not fall in love with other men. You may love other men, but that is not the same kind of love as the love we are feeling when we fall in love, or when we are in love.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I have had the experience of being in love, and although physical attraction is a part of it, it is very far from being all of it. And you cannot choose to feel that kind of love. You just can't. Period. End of story.

Hey Kathy -- May I make an attempt to sidestep problematic Dr-E-email inducing language while still making an argument here? Well, here we go:

It's not impossible that there's something "innate" in pedophiles or even murderers. The huge difference here is, of course, consent. A child cannot "consent" to sex in a legal way. Nor does someone generally consent to being murdered. Nor can animals consent to having sex with people or getting married (bestiality is another one of those silly false equivalencies that people often compare to being gay). The point is that pedophiles and animal buggers and murderers -- whether these desires are inherent or are choices or whatever -- are violating other people's rights by committing their preferred acts. Gay people -- again, whether inherent or by choice -- enter into sexual or committed long-term relationships with their partners with full consent and desire from the other person, who has both the wherewithall and legal right to consent to having sex or (if we were to change the laws) get married. HUGE difference, and that difference is why it's illegal to have sex with a minor but not with someone of your own sex. It's also why a person shouldn't be able to marry an animal or a child, but should be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice.

As for fetishists, it's a totally different situation. We don't criminalize being a foot fetishist. As far as I know, nobody who gets turned on by particular traits/body parts has ever been fired for their job for their particular fetish as long as it's within the law (again, having non-consentual sex with anyone/anything is not within the law). Fetishists are allowed to marry the consenting adult of their choice! They do have equal rights already! So the point is kind of moot anyway.

I think drunkeness is wrong and disgusting. Does that mean I wish they'd be beaten in the street?

No, but it also doesn't mean you oppose equal treatment in law for drunks. Do drunks have the legal right to get married? Do they have the legal right to have children?

I think arrogance and narcissim are disgusting and vile. Does that mean I want them dead?

Same reply as above, and this is, if possible, an even more absurd analogy. You had the epitome of arrogance in the White House for the past eight years. Did you consider him disgusting and vile? Did you think he shouldn't have the right to marry? Have children?

Before that, we had a president in office for eight years who was a total narcissist. I'm sure you did consider him disgusting and vile, but only because he was a Democrat. You didn't think he should not have the legal right to be married, did you? You didn't think he should not be allowed to have a child, did you?

But that cannot be confused with allowing them free reign to destroy our culture.

And what right do you have to deny a group of people equal treatment under the law because you think they are "destroying our culture"? Where is that in the Constitution? That an entire class of people can be treated unequally because, in the view of one specific narrow slice of society, they are "destroying our culture"? Who are you to impose legal consequences for your personal opinion about what helps or harms our culture?

Hi JD, just reading back some of the comments, and I'd like to address this comment:
"And the male Beta eats its own young. The female black widow eats her mate after sex. Just how far are you willing to mimic the animal kingdom's habits? These "homosexual relationships" you point to in the animal kingdom are acts of masturbation - a single act to "get off". These same animals have mating relationships with the opposite sex. Maybe that means they're simply bisexual? I don't think so."

See, you're trying to have it both ways here. You're saying that being gay is learned and not innate. When DE points to evidence that being gay seems to be naturally occuring in species that aren't human, you're saying that something being natural and innate doesn't make it ok. Both are fine arguments on their own, but it's not ok to combine them. If you're going to use "being genetic and natural makes something ok", then use that argument; if not, don't. I think most gay people would say they are born that way, but when it comes down to it, is doesn't really matter whether it's chosen or innate -- as you're own argument shows, being natural or innate doesn't imbue morality onto something *either way*. It doesn't make it good, it doesn't make it bad. So please take your own advice and stop saying that being a choice or being genetic has any effect on whether it's good or moral. There's no connection!

could polygamy also be part of marriage rights?

That actually is very likely. If gay marriage is legal, there remains no real legal justification to prevent polygamy, assuming all players are of age.

A surprising number of gay rights and and gay marriage advocates are strongly against any form of polygamy laws being addressed at this time, mainly out of the fear that tying the two issues together reduces their chances of success.

"The fight to keep matters religious and matters of state apart, to institute toleration and equal rights for those of all beliefs or none, was not, for Jefferson, nor for his friend James Madison, a revolutionary afterthought. It was the revolution, just as much as the institution of democracy itself. ...

Jefferson knew that not everyone in America felt quite the same way, especially not one of his personal bugbears: John Adams. ... This argument never goes away. As I write this, the junior senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, ... is holding up the passage of an AIDS-assistance bill through Congress on the grounds that it includes provision for health education that pays insufficient attention to abstinence. This is purest John Adams in his Massachusetts 1780 mode, decreeing any thought of political action uncoupled from religious morality to be a reprehensible abandonment of civic responsibility." --pp 165-166, in Simon Schama, The American Future: A History, HarperCollins: 2009.

Before that, we had a president in office for eight years who was a total narcissist.

I think 16 years and presidents, plural, might be more accurate! Hell, you would be hard pressed to find one that wasn't. Maybe Ford, the accidental president. It's kind of a prerequisite for wanting the job in the first place, IMHO.

Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so. ~Gore Vidal

Thankfully I like handsome men.

Goodness, who doesn't?

Another aspect, that not getting discussed here, is WHY it's a big deal to gays. They can get the equivalent of marriage (in many ways, better) by signing an agreement to share property rights. However, there's some other legal aspects that have come down the pike since then, especially shared benefits like health insurance.

I wonder how the Mormons would handle it if they were combined?

With race and sex, it is a determined trait by birth.

Yes, and guess what, JD? That is exactly the rationale that white racists and Victorian misogynists used to give for denying blacks and women equal rights. Inherent inferiority. Inherent intellectual weakness. Can't give women the vote. They don't have the head for it. They think with their emotions. It's not something they do deliberately. It's just their nature, the way they're made. Can't abolish slavery; it's a benign institution because [insert the "n" word here] are like children, and they're lazy, and they're always happy, and they're savages. It's not under their control; it's inherent to their race.

So now, people like you who want to deny marriage rights and equal treatment under the law in general to gays and lesbians turn that argument around because it doesn't work in this situation. So now we hear that gays and lesbians choose to be that way -- that if homosexuality were really genetic or inborn or inherent or innate, that would be "a whole different enchilada." Now the argument that the object of hatred is not born that way is the one used to keep them down.

I do, however have a big problem with a subculture attempting to legitimize itself as something that should be embraced and celebrated.

Hey, so do I, JD. I have a huge problem with the Christian religious right in this country attempting to legitimize their fanatical narrow religious beliefs and ask all the rest of us to embrace and celebrate their hateful values. And yet, I'm not trying to deny you the right to marry.

A mouth is for eating, after all, not a sex organ.

WOO-HOO! Good one, AR!

Well, I just hope that a) the temper tantrums stop soon; and b) efforts by activists to seek gay marriage continue along the legitimate route, which is through legislation (getting legislation passed in the state legislatures or by initiative or referendum in states that have these), rather than taking the scummy and subversive route of seeking to use the courts to bypass the correct process and use those courts as a political and anti-democratic weapon.

DLS -- You've raised a good point. It's no accident that we've fought ad nauseum over abortion since Roe v. Wade. I hope we don't make the same mistake over the issue of gay "marriage," but suspect that it will be decided by the SCOTUS one way or the other, satisfying no one, really.

I wonder if maybe it's time we adopt the European marriage model? In France, for example, couples are married at the town hall. Then, those who wish to solemnize their wedding in a house of worship can do so. As long as churches weren't forced to perform gay weddings - and I'm still not convinced that this coercion wouldn't be practiced - then this arrangement might work. For absolutists, it would probably seem like surrender, but it may be about the best compromise that could be worked out.

Prediction: Within 3 years, we'll have a ruling by the Supreme Court, but it will take a lot longer than that for this issue to go away, whatever they say.

Very well said, roro. Thank you.

Another aspect, that not getting discussed here, is WHY it's a big deal to gays.

Well, obviously they simply don't want to go to hell.

I'm glad you enjoyed that -- thought you might. But, in the interest of making a semi-serious point, lesbians disrupt the straight male mindset in different ways than do gay men. While gay men get the "ew!" reaction, lesbians are more berated for things like gender presentation, their lack of femininity, and their total disregard for what men want them to do. Not doing what the white-straight-Christian men in the world think you should can cause lots of problems, unfortunately.

Also: yes, "straight" lesbian porn is pretty hilarious.

"Another aspect, that not getting discussed here, is WHY it's a big deal to gays."

I don't know, ProfElwood. Are you married, or do you know anyone is married? Why did you or they get married? Now, take your answer, and apply the knowledge that gay people actually want, in general, the same things in life as everyone else, because they're people just like the rest of us.

There are some pretty good arguments about why *anyone* might want or not want to be married, but I think that's a different conversation. The point is: every reason you or I or anyone else might want to be married also applies to gay people. Love, kids, throwing a big party while publically declairing a loving committment, taxes, health insurance, property rights, social acceptance, stability, power of attorney, end-of-life considerations, showing off wealth, long thought-out consideration, spur-of-the-moment whoopsy Vegas moments, to take half the other person's money, companionship, codependency, fear of being alone. The good, the bad, the ugly -- these are all reasons that straight people want to get married, and they are all the exact same reasons gay people want to get married.

Pretty good stuff. I do have to wonder about the "kids" part, though, unless you're talking about adoption. I wasn't trying to state an opinion on the question, I just thought it was an important aspect that wasn't getting into the mix.

I'm not quite sure what you point is, but okay.

Hey ProfElwood, yes, it's much harder to procreate without an opposite-gendered partner. It's not impossible though. Besides adoption, there is also artificial insemination, surrogacy, and children from prior relationships.

It's possible that this issue wasn't getting into the mix because there are so many reasons that people want to get married, and those reasons are pretty universal.

ProfElwood- re your question on polygamy... Sure, why not? I don't believe in it myself since I am only interested in one person(call me old fashioned) but if others are happy with it, then they should go for it!

No, Dorian.... I respectfully disagree. It's not apples and oranges.

What turns people on is individual to each person, correct?
Some are in-line with procreation and biological "correctness". Some are not.

The ones within that framework get married and raise families.
Those outside of it now want to get married. On the surface, you are correct - that act in itself does not effect ME at all. And on the surface, I would normally live and let live. That's my huge libertarian side. Let me give you another situation to demonstrate my resistance:
When a casino opens up in town, why would I care if people gamble with their own money?
Normally, I would not.
When the social elements change because of it, it sucks the "soul" out of my community. Families get torn apart, and many other social negatives come about.

(yes that was apples and oranges, but bear with me here...)

This is the same reason I stand against open acceptance of homosexuality. In the 60's free love brought sex out of the bedroom and openly into society. The family structure soon began to break down. Divorce rates soared. Because of divorce, double-income families left children to be raised by themselves or a daycare. Violent crime increased in schools. This is just another step in that regression. It appears to be the last domino, and I just don't want it to fall. Our nation's culture is nearly gone.

Besides equality, which (believe it or not) I agree with; the social decay that comes with the elimination of "family values" (yes that is trite) is just not something I can get behind.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with loving anyone. There is nothing wrong with living with someone. Just don't expect me to boost cultural destruction into a honorable institution. I just can't.

"I wonder how many of those pure, "God-fearing," heterosexual, American males who detest homosexuals and homsexuality will ever admit to watching---and enjoying---lesbian porn?"

That's identical to two men having sex. There "should" be no double standard. Gay sex is gay sex.

Guess I'll be the first (and possibly only) person in line.

EDIT: And by the way.... I do not detest homosexuals. I just do not condone their behavior.

"Um, no -- pedophiles do not "make the same defense." Neither do prostitutes. Quote me where a pedophile or prostitute has said that molesting children or charging money for sex is an innate orientation or asked why they would choose to be a pedophile or prostitute if they had a choice."

You are right about the "prostitutes", so that was a bad example. As for pedophiles: Here's your quote:
How's one third grab ya?



In the article, "'The Main Thing is Being Wanted': Some Case Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children," the author says that one-third of the pedophiles he has studied claimed that "their sexual desire for children is a natural part of their constitution. This desire is variously described as 'inbred,' 'innate,' 'a fact of nature,' 'inherent in them,' etc. The leitmotif of their accounts is 'this is me' or 'just the way I am.'"

The author concludes that the feeling of being "born a pedophile" makes them feel they cannot change, and therefore they are convinced they have the same right as other people to pursue the "natural" expression of their sexuality. (p. 133). The same author quotes a respondent's belief that "if adult-child sex was commonplace, the majority of it would surely be good for both participants." (p. 137).

Well, Elwood.... It is condemned in Christianity, but not Mormonism, Islam, or Judaism to the best of my knowledge.

But allowing polygamy would be the same thing. Why deny those people who mutually agree to polygamy basic human rights?

The line could be drawn just about anywhere for liberals.
I chose to draw the line with one man - one woman.

"No, but it also doesn't mean you oppose equal treatment in law for drunks. Do drunks have the legal right to get married? Do they have the legal right to have children? "

Drunks are thrown in jail for being "drunks" even when they are hurting no one.

"You had the epitome of arrogance in the White House for the past eight years".
So did YOU, Kathy. He was your President as well. And I've stated MANY times that I'm no fan of GW Bush. And no, I did NOT consider him disgusting and vile, and I consider Obama MUCH more arrogant than Bush.

"Where is that in the Constitution?"
You have demonstrated many times that you don't really want to adhere to the Constitution, unless it suits your needs - just like every other liberal.

You basically are right that it shouldn't matter whether it is inate or chosen as to whether to grant equal rights. Homsexuals have equal rights now. Well almost. They now have their own special law now with the hate-crime legislation (but that's a different argument). Homosexuals want to live together and have sex. Who's stopping them? But now, they want to get "married" and adopt children.

As I said above in a previous post. The breakdown of the family is probably the biggest problem we have in this nation. It has brought about so many negative social issues. Marriage in this nation has always been between a man and a woman. Now we wish to change that. Why? IMHO, it's so a group that has a certain kind of sex can look at the rest and say, "see, we are just like you - you must accept us regardless of what your "god" says."

My God has commanded that this behavior is not to be embraced. I'm sorry, but he holds the trump cards.

""The fight to keep matters religious and matters of state apart, to institute toleration and equal rights for those of all beliefs or none, was not, for Jefferson, nor for his friend James Madison, a revolutionary afterthought. It was the revolution, just as much as the institution of democracy itself. .."

Nice quote, Kathy. Did Jefferson or Adams say that?
Oh, that's right.... You quoted someones OPINION of what Jefferson and Adams "meant".
I quoted you ACTUAL quotes from Jefferson and Adams (and Hamilton, JQAdams, Franklin, Webster, Washington....>)

Nice try. You get an F.

"Hey, so do I, JD. I have a huge problem with the Christian religious right in this country attempting to legitimize their fanatical narrow religious beliefs and ask all the rest of us to embrace and celebrate their hateful values. And yet, I'm not trying to deny you the right to marry."

Why can't you understand that this nation was ALREADY THAT WAY FOR THE PAST 233 YEARS!!!!!

It is YOU and your liberals nutjob friends that are trying to change what our nation was designed to be. You are perpertrating your unnatural beliefs upon a nation that became the beacon of freedom under God. Did our nation make mistakes while under God? Heck yes we did. Slavery: WRONG. Racism:WRONG. - Your homosexual cause (as well as your other destructive social beliefs) is a social cancer. You are doing more damage to this nation from the inside, than 100,000 757's flown by extremists.

" Love, kids, throwing a big party while publically declairing a loving committment, taxes, health insurance, property rights, social acceptance, stability, power of attorney, end-of-life considerations, showing off wealth, long thought-out consideration, spur-of-the-moment whoopsy Vegas moments"

If that's all that gays truly wanted they could have it. They don't want those things individually. Most, if not all of them, could be arranged through an attorney now. A loving commitment or public celebration is now legal - as is power of attorney, end of life considerations, showing off wealth, social acceptance; stability, and vegas moments. It can all be done now. The only thing that cannot be done is call yourself husband and wife (intentionally put that way).

If that was really what they wanted, they could have it.
But that is NOT what they want. This is how ALL liberal agendas get implemented. It's always a small step toward a bigger, much more liberal, goal.

You said you agree with "not being forced to be performed in a Church". But you know as well as I do that a court in the future will consider that descrimination and attempt to change it.

"many churches recognize same-sex marriages".
Well, SBSF, there are also "churches" that carry signs saying "God hates fags" and "God hates soldiers". That does not make them right. God does NOT hate anyone. He only hates the sin, not the individual. That's "Bible 101". I could also start a "church" and worship Jello if I wanted to - that doesn't necessarily give me the right to perform a marriage.

Whoa, there, Cochise!

I agree with you. I did not forget to include interracial marriages. There's nothing unBiblical about that. The "unequally yoked" portion had to do with faith - not races (as the KKK seemed to believe).

And yes, Christ outlined Biblical divorce. The only time divorce is authorized is for adultery. The only time remarriage is authorized is after a Biblical divorce or death of a spouse. That USED to be the case in the United States as well, if you recall. Adultery could be grounds for divorce. Oh, but not any more - since the liberals had that removed through litigation (step one in their "grand plan"?).


And "Marriage" is a religious term. Their is nothing stopping gays from binding themselves legally through an attorney right now. But as I stated, that isn't REALLY what they're after, is it?

And I do not propose a Theocracy. I merely state that God is being slowly erased from our cultural fabric. The founding fathers, as I've exhaustively stated, did not have an elimination of God in mind. They had an elimination of State Sponsored Religion - RELIGION - not faith.

Your homosexual cause... is a social cancer.

Jefferson, you're arguing a non-position, in the sense that you have no alternative to offer. You have no cure to offer homosexuals, and you're not arguing for stern enough policies to force them back into the closet.

The oppose-and-resent strategy simply can't accomplish anything, except maybe to make you an embarrassment to your grandchildren.

First off, whether we're agreeing or disagreeing, I think that it's safe to say that we're all glad to read that you're alive! We were getting a bit worried that you might have been around the shooting.

Back to the thread.
"Well, Elwood.... It is condemned in Christianity,"
The only verse that I can recall on polygamy was talking about qualifications for a church leader. I don't think that it's condemned anywhere.

I share your concern for the deterioration of the traditional family, and think that people of all beliefs should be likewise concerned, not just for the religious principles, but also the scientifically proven problems that it causes our nation. That said, shouldn't we be encouraging more people to marry? For that matter, shouldn't we be trying to keep those marriages together? If gay people are seriously wanting a publicly declared lifetime partnership, what's wrong with that? I say let them, and then strengthen the legal bonds to encourage all marriages to be serious, conscientious affairs.

On the other hand, if someone just wants to pop into and out of relationships while keeping an official marriage for the sake of getting benefits, then, gay or not, that can't be allowed. Serious takers only, please.

"What about those marriage shows where people meet on TV and then get married... or those "quickie" marriages in Las Vegas. Those actions just denigrate marriage and straights should stop it, they're spitting on God and marriage in their pursuit of celebrity mentality. BTW: I don't see ANY gays engaging in such behavior."


I SO agree with you on this SBSF. I am not directing comments ONLY at gays. The family structure, the sanctity of marriage, open sexuality, and general respect for God (whether or not you choose to believe in Him or not) has all gone by the wayside. The negative effects of our social choices are evident in the social negatives that plague now. Just about every single problem we have in this nation stem from the breakdown of the family and "traditional" American Values. The more we do away with those, the worse it will get.

"Jefferson, you're arguing a non-position, in the sense that you have no alternative to offer. You have no cure to offer homosexuals, and you're not arguing for stern enough policies to force them back into the closet. The oppose-and-resent strategy simply can't accomplish anything, except maybe to make you an embarrassment to your grandchildren."

You may be right, Dr. J. I hope not, but you may be right. There is not an ounce of hatred in my body for homosexuals or anyone else who does things "not within my view of God".
However, there ARE "cures" and therapy for homosexuality that have worked in the past. Oddly enough, it works very similarly to alchohol addiction therapy.No one wants to take that seriously, of course, because they are too busy convincing everyone that they were born that way and "can't help it". Denial works in all form of behavior.

http://www.narth.com/docs/journalsummary.html

Yes and no, Profelwood....

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." This would keep adulters from marrying "more" wives.

Also in 1 Timothy, it is specifically mentioned that bishops/elders and deacons/workers be the husband of ONE wife.

Even in the Old Testatment, most "great" men had only one wife - Abraham, Isaac, etc. Even David repented of marrying Uriah (another wife). The concubines and several wives were sinful.

This thread has taken a very low class turn.

JD -- Allow me to also express my relief at your presence here in this thread (and thank you, Elwood, for giving the heads up that he was here). There was some concern about you yesterday after the Fort Hood shootings.

Having said that, onward!

Oh, but not any more - since the liberals had that removed through litigation (step one in their "grand plan"?).

What are you talking about with this "grand plan"? That sounds a tad paranoid to me. Is there something you seriously envision / contemplate / worry about? To what end?

I see you have not answered my earlier questions to you.

To be fair to myself and for your information, there is no god.

Cats? What an absolute absurd analogy. Cats cannot save your argument silly one.

JD - it is important to remember that God is NOT mentioned, not once, in the Constitution, THE document written to describe the role of Government and governing of the United States.

And don't believe Alexander Hamilton's excuse. It was tongue-in-cheek.

--"Also, sex is NOT solely for procreation. That idea is just as abhorrent as the idea that sex is just for casual fun"--

I think "abhorrent" is the incorrect word, unless you are letting your hate show.

The universe would disagree with you anyway.

F_T, the statement that "sex is for procreation" is an absurdity. If that were correct, then human males would only respond sexually to the female when she was "ready" to mate productively. Human males would have absolutely no trouble whatsoever controlling their 'urges' at all other times. In fact, if not in the presence of a female 'in heat', male equipment should be dormant, yes?

**snort**

Furthermore, as StockboySF correctly points out, marriage is not simply about "sex" (if yours is, my sympathy to both you and your partner).

JD -

And "Marriage" is a religious term

The term 'marriage' pre-dates Christianity by thousands of years. Its basis is in fact in the civil world, not religious, as marriage was not deemed to be a religious rite until the late Middle Ages.

Marriage was barely a concept outside the ruling classes of almost all societies, and was used as a means of sealing allegiances and ruling dynasties by the ruling classes, and was almost unheard of by the masses.

Wikipedia provides a pretty good quick tutorial on the history of marriage.

JD - I disagree overall on your position on the gay marriage issue, even if I am not a strong supporter of that issue, but I DEFINITELY agree with Polimom - I am glad you are OK, and I hope no one you know was directly affected by the Ft. Hood shooting.

You should be banned for your pornographic comments. Some people get special privilege here with regard to blog rules.

“gay rights” is a national political issue and I have every right to my political opinion. There is no proof, not even evidence, that homosexuality and associated psychoses is anything other than a mental illness. Only opinion. Otherwise it would have long since been presented and convincing.

"This would keep adulters from marrying "more" wives."
Which is not exactly polygamy, more like serial marriage. Unfortunately, largely in part to a poorly thought out welfare program (AFDC), we've got the same thing without the marriage part. My town is full of women who don't marry the guy that's shacking with them, in order to keep his income from messing up their benefits (I threw that in for you, FT).

I notice that you didn't mention Israel, although that story does a good job of pointing out the jealousy the arraignment can have. I'm by no means encouraging the insanity -- my original point was that gay marriage really is more of a cultural, rather than a religious, issue.

Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine---

Read the thread title again please. I win. You lose.

Please grow up and smell the coffee.

Read the thread title again please. I win. You lose.

F_T -- the comment to which you've responded was the one in which I challenged your absurdity about sex being only for procreation. Did I totally misunderstand the ballot issue in Maine? Were they voting to determine whether people should only be permitted to have sex if a child was a likely result from their coupling? Otherwise, your response makes no sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, I don't live in Maine. I'm not an activist. I'm not gay. I, personally, didn't lose. And unless you live in Maine, you didn't win anything either.

This is, in case you missed it, a discussion thread that has wandered far afield of the specific election result. If you're going to drop ridiculous comments like "sex only for procreation", and then defend them with "I win. You lose", you probably need a hobby other than online debate.

JD:

Having read your many, many comments on homosexuality, I come to the conclusion that your objections are sincerely and strictly based on your religion. I respect that and---although I believe you are wrong about your condemnation of homosexulas and homosexuality---I will no longer debate this with you.

To your credit, you are one of the very few "homophobes" (and I even hesitate to use that term in your case) whose demonizing of homosexuals (again, not you!) is not based on plain hate and bigotry.

Thank you!

--"Also, sex is NOT solely for procreation. That idea is just as abhorrent as the idea that sex is just for casual fun"--

I think "abhorrent" is the incorrect word, unless you are letting your hate show.

The universe would disagree with you anyway.

Actually, the 'universe' is HAS examples of non-human animals that engage in non-procreational, recreational sex, dolphins and bonobo monkeys in particular.

There ARE "cures" and therapy for homosexuality that have worked in the past.

Maybe so, JD, but even the article you linked concedes it's hard and success rates are low. That's not much of an answer for the millions of people affected, many of whom have built lives and identities around being gay. Many people--indeed, most people--will consider the disease not worth the effort of the cure. As a matter of policy, "cure everyone" is a non-starter.

Not only do I agree with you about JD's position, I'd like to point out that he has managed to present his views without hostility, and with great respect toward others.

Kudos from me to JD.

You should be banned for your pornographic comments.

Nice try. I was very careful on exactly how I expressed my comments, and others here even commented on that. The fact that discussing sexuality in medical terms is still 'pornographic' to you is in and of itself enlightening to your repressed state.

I think the reality is I called out your hypocrisy and homophobia for what it was, and you simply have no good reply that doesn't prove my point.

"Kudos from me to JD."

I second that!

Dorian

Dorian,

Do you at least see my point about the social breakdown aspect?
That, not my religion, is my biggest concern.

Like I said.... I do not wish theocracy upon anyone. I merely wish for our founding father's vision of a Godly nation of many faiths to be observed. I also do not wish to add further to denegration of our culture. I'm merely a traditionalist, not a homophobe. Even my homosexual friends know of my beliefs and they respect it (yes, I actually have homosexual friends!). MInd you, we're not as close as we could be, if I gave up my beliefs, but we are friends nonetheless.

I'm one of those folks that resents the term homophobe used in general....Their really are bigots out there who qualify, but there are a silent minority out there that feel just as I do, with no malice. Thanks for hesitating to use it.

And me sincerest apologies for all of the posts. Going back, I look obsessed! I just wanted to reply to everone.

May God bless all of you.

Dr. J....

I really do not wish to deny basic human rights to ANYONE.
The question is: Is marriage a basic human right or a religious ceremony?

Basic human rights (to me) are life, liberty, and the opportunity to pursue happiness (no one is guaranteed any of those - they have to choose each one - but cannot be denied those by anyone else).

To me, as you may have guessed, marriage is not a "human right" as much as it is an insitution ordained by God that makes up the basic family structure that is the cornerstone of our culture from the beginning. Remove the cornerstone, and the building falls.

I, in no way agree with Father_Time on anything that I know of.

But as far as the "anal sex" thing goes, it is an unhealthy act.
Anal bacteria enter the urethra and cause extremely bad UTIs. Yes that can happen with vaginal sex, but typically only when an infection already exists (yeast, etc).

Natural monogamial sex should not "require" a condom. I guess there is a little medical info behind my beliefs as well.

I'm multi-faceted? Who knew?

Thanks, darlin'.
(no condescention intended - just my "hillbilly" coming out)

JD -

Natural monogamial sex should not "require" a condom.

Nothing I mentioned does. :-)

But, I think a position of 'that specific sex act has no appeal to me' (yours) is WAY different from 'that specific sex act is horrific, and no one should do it, and anyone who does is a pervert' (FT's).

As to what is healthy and natural vs. unnatural, I firmly believe that decision is for consenting adults to decide amongst themselves (even if it makes me go 'EWW!', and a lot do)

JD -

Did marriage exist before the Bible, or before any form of monotheism had taken root?

JD, I wouldn't frame it as an issue of rights as much as what policies lead to better outcomes. Giving gays a hard time and discouraging their committed relationships simply doesn't accomplish anything.

"Giving gays a hard time and discouraging their committed relationships simply doesn't accomplish anything."

Actually, Dr J -- though I share your general views, I would say that discouraging their committed relationships does, in fact, accomplish something. It perpetuates the marginalization -- the forced subculture, if you will -- of otherwise traditional people who wish to contribute to society, and be part of it.

With all due respect to JeffersonDavis, this is where I feel the social traditionalists are missing the boat.

Hi JD -- Glad to see you're back on the thread. I'd also agree with the numerous other commenters/mods who do respect you while strongly disagreeing with you. I do want to address this:

"Most, if not all of them, could be arranged through an attorney now."

This is nearly true. However, what cost me and my husband $99 for a marriage license would cost a gay couple ten thousand in lawyer bills (this is an estimate based one what some of my friends have done). If it costs one group less than 100 dollars and a few minutes at the county clerk for a particular service while costing another group 10 grand and hours and hours of quibbling for a similar but not-quite-as-good service that may not even have the intended effects (in the example of dying moments at a hospital), that is NOT equal protection.

"But as far as the "anal sex" thing goes, it is an unhealthy act."

All sex can be pretty unhealthy if those involved don't bathe regularly, or even if they do and have particularly sensitive systems. Yet, we don't deny straight couples marriage licenses for having "unhealthy" sex together, whether they are a little smellier than most or whether they just have predisposition for UTIs. Pregnancy is extremely unhealthy and damaging to women, and that comes directly from non-condom straight sex. Yet we don't protect women's health from straight, unprotected sex by denying them marriage licences. Straight couples can go up to the licence window wearing matching shirts indicating they love anal sex, and it's known that roughly 25% of straight couples do have anal sex on a regular basis, yet they wouldn't be denied marriage licenses for having anal sex. They estimate that over 15% of single straight sexually active adults have one or more currently communicable STDs (if you count dormant HPV, you're looking at more like 2/3 of the population), meaning that having sex with them would be unhealthy. Yet no straight couples are being denied marriage licenses for having unhealthy sex, because nobody asks them what kind of sex they're having.

I hope you understand: I'm neither condoning nor judging "unhealthy" sex. I'm saying that because straight people have sex that will very often be detrimental to their health and still can get married, gay people shouldn't be denied marriage licenses because of "unhealthy" sex. Again, that's NOT equal protection under the law.

You are right that pedophilia may be caused at least partly by innate factors. I realized that in reflecting afterwards, and especially after roro posted her response to the same post of yours that I did. So that was an incorrect, or poor, argument for me to use in arguing for the right of gays and lesbians to marry, and to expect equal treatment under the law in general.

Sexuality in general -- whether it's heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or whatever -- has no one single simple origin. Sexuality is a complex mix of nature and nurture, genetics and environment, and no one knows (or very likely will ever know) exactly what the balance is there or what weight to give to any one factor. The larger point is, it doesn't matter. Homosexuality is no more comparable to pedophilia than heterosexuality is. It's the consent factor that matters. It's not genetics or inheritance that makes pedophilia right or wrong -- it's the fact that pedophiles exploit children, who by definition cannot consent. It makes no sense to compare pedophilia to homosexuality, because pedophiles are both heterosexual and homosexual. Would you say that, because there are male pedophiles out there who enjoy sexually molesting little girls, that heterosexuality in general is wrong?

Drunks are thrown in jail for being "drunks" even when they are hurting no one.

So are straight couples having sex in the park. If you or I ran naked through downtown, we would be arrested, too. What's your point here?

And no, I did NOT consider him disgusting and vile, and I consider Obama MUCH more arrogant than Bush.

In other words, it's a matter of opinion.

Me: "Where is that in the Constitution?"

You: You have demonstrated many times that you don't really want to adhere to the Constitution, unless it suits your needs - just like every other liberal.

In other words, it's nowhere in the Constitution. And just like many other conservatives (I won't say all), you project your own views, motives, methods, onto your political and ideological opponents.

You quoted someones OPINION of what Jefferson and Adams "meant".

Actually, no. I quoted someone who researched and studied the Founding Fathers' (as well as other, earlier religious thinkers in this country) opinions and writings on religious matters as they relate to government, and who actually lists all of his references, sources, and cites in the back of the book for every claim of fact he makes.

I quoted you ACTUAL quotes from Jefferson and Adams (and Hamilton, JQAdams, Franklin, Webster, Washington.

No, you listed quotes that you CLAIM are from those individuals. You have not now, or in the past, provided a single source for any of them -- even though you've been questioned on that in the past.
As far as i am concerned, therefore, you made up those quotes -- OR, got them from some religious right cheat sheet for use in arguments with people who know what they're talking about.

I wrote: "I have a huge problem with the Christian religious right in this country attempting to legitimize their fanatical narrow religious beliefs and ask all the rest of us to embrace and celebrate their hateful values. And yet, I'm not trying to deny you the right to marry."

Your reply: Why can't you understand that this nation was ALREADY THAT WAY FOR THE PAST 233 YEARS!!!!!?

Um, already what way, JD?

It is YOU and your liberals nutjob friends that are trying to change what our nation was designed to be.

What was our nation designed to be?

You are perpertrating your unnatural beliefs upon a nation that became the beacon of freedom under God.

Well, no, actually, I am standing up for that freedom -- against people like you who consider individual freedom and the equality of every man and woman under law to be an "unnatural belief."

Did our nation make mistakes while under God? Heck yes we did. Slavery: WRONG. Racism:WRONG.

Slavery in law took up the first 75 or so years of our nation's life. After that, apart from a 10-year period immediately following the Civil War, slavery in practice took up the next 100 years of our nation's life. Racism is still here with us today, despite the enormous strides forward we have made -- strides forward that were opposed and bitterly fought against by people who, just like you, wanted nothing to change.

If it weren't for those folks you call "liberal nutjobs," there would have been no abolitionist movement. There would have been no opposition to slavery. Slavery would probably have died anyway, for other reasons, but it would have taken much longer, and it took the devil's length of time to end as it was.

If it weren't for "liberal nutjobs," there would have been no civil rights movement. Liberal nutjobs, black and white, Christian and Jewish, ended Jim Crow segregation at the lunch counter, at water fountains, at amusement parks, in movie theaters, in public schools, in the workplace, and more. And the last two of those battles are still being fought, with no help from people like you.

If it weren't for "liberal nutjobs," that judge in Louisiana who recently resigned after a storm of outrage following his refusal to marry an interracial couple would not have been a total anomaly and throwback to our country's very own Dark Ages. Miscegenation laws were on the books until the early 1970s. Liberal nutjobs are the reason they no longer are.

Liberal nutjobs gave us child labor laws, the 40-hour work week -- the very concept of "weekends." If it were not for liberal nutjobs, women would not have the right to vote, and neither would African Americans because after 1876, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were effectively abrogated, and black Americans did not begin to get them back until 100 years had passed.

I could certainly, and easily, continue with this list, because the truth is every leap toward liberty, every tentative step forward on the road to making freedom and equality here in the United States true and real for everyone, and toward realizing the dream of justice for all, was started by liberals, and in many cases, fought for and finished by liberals.

If it were not for liberal nutjobs, and all the Americans over the years who have held those "destructive social beliefs" to which you refer, this nation really would remain exactly as our Founding Fathers designed it to be: for the empowerment and enrichment of wealthy white males, to the exclusion and detriment of everyone else.

If that's all that gays truly wanted they could have it. They don't want those things individually. Most, if not all of them, could be arranged through an attorney now.

Why didn't you arrange for those things through an attorney, then? Why did you have to get married to get any of those things?

You said you agree with "not being forced to be performed in a Church". But you know as well as I do that a court in the future will consider that descrimination and attempt to change it.

My rabbi does not perform marriages in which one party is not Jewish. Interfaith couples are welcome in the synagogue as members, and my rabbi gladly refers interfaith couples to a rabbi who does perform such marriages, but he himself has made the choice not to perform such marriages.

It is my rabbi's First Amendment right to make this choice. Just as it would be any church or synagogue's or mosque's First Amendment right not to perform a same-sex marriage. You have no rational basis on which to argue that that would change. All gay and lesbian Americans are asking for is what every other human being living in this country has -- the right to marry the adult consenting partner of their choice.

Um, since when has adultery been eliminated as grounds for divorce?

Traditional American values like lynching, and inventing casus belli for invading another country and annexing it to the United States?

I looked at that article, JD. It's replete with Mack truck size loopholes, hedges, qualifiers, and caveats. There is nothing scientific there..

JD, did I understand correctly from one of your previous posts (not in this thread) that you were married once before?

You should remove yourself from it, then. No need to risk self-pollution.

I will add my relief to that. Polimom can back me up that I was worried about you, JD. :-)

What was AH's excuse?

No, "abhorrent" is the correct word for the idea that the only purpose or reason for having sex is to procreate.

Awesome, AR.

"We forgot."

What pornographic comments?

Thanks for the concern, Polimom.....

A thousand miles from Fort Hood, but I wish I were there when it went down. Like to have had a crack at Mr. Hassan during his rampage. This particular Major must have had his fingers crossed when he took his oath. He's a scumbag, and no amount of punishment is justice enough.

As for the "grand plan", I was referring to how any item on a liberal agenda gets implemented - not necessarily a specific item. First innoculous demands under a guise of liberty or equality. Then comes the courts when they can't bend the will of the people. Not too uncommon, really.

In some contrast to my earlier statements, one of the most important aspects of marriage is to make a stable environment to which to raise children. The uncommon "traditional" family has been proven unbeatable at this task. If couples aren't establishing a home for child raising, it takes away a lot of the need for the stability of that commitment. I would far rather have laws that emphasize and reward that commitment, make adoption easier for those committed, and make it harder to walk away from that commitment.

If gay couples want that kind of legal commitment, yeah for them. But we need to put more effort into restoring the strength of marriage, and less into expanding it.

"it is important to remember that God is NOT mentioned, not once, in the Constitution, THE document written to describe the role of Government and governing of the United States."

I understand, AR. I didn't say God "should" be in the Constitution. What I said was that you must at least know what the founding fathers' INTENT was in reguards to God and our government. It is difficult to read intent into the Constitution - as all of us have our own ideals. Therefore, you must go back to what the Founding Fathers wrote on the matter. And, yes, Hamilton's "We forgot" statement was tongue-in-cheek; but all of them made statements referring to our Constitution being for a "Godly" people. A nation without God in it was far beyond the limits of their belief.

"what cost me and my husband $99 for a marriage license would cost a gay couple ten thousand in lawyer bills"

Sorry, but when a legal agreement becomes common enough, the costs go down dramatically. People enter into agreements when they make purchases, sign up for activities, or get a job. Most of these agreements don't involve lawyers anymore, and have minimal or no expense. If boilerplate agreements were already available, the only costs would be for a notary.

This is the thread that never ends, it goes on and on and on my friends ....

"Did marriage exist before the Bible, or before any form of monotheism had taken root?"

Since I believe that all human life started with Adam and Eve, it makes that answer pretty simple. Adam and Eve were of "one flesh" as modern married people are supposed to be. Their son, Cain also "took a wife".

"al sex can be pretty unhealthy".

That's not an honest statement, Roro.

ALL anal sex can be unhealthy due to fecal bacteria.
MOST vaginal sex is healthy - as most people do have some sort of hygene.

People have the right to engage in any kind of sex, Roro. I'm not saying otherwise.
It is NOT natural, however, to insert a penis into the anus of another human being. It was not biologically intended for that purpose. (Notice, I said "biology" - not God). The uterus, however, was created for that purpose biologically.

"Actually, no. I quoted someone who researched and studied the Founding Fathers' (as well as other, earlier religious thinkers in this country) opinions and writings on religious matters as they relate to government"

Well then, Kathy.... I guess I'll go throw my Masters in Political Science in the trash. What would I know about the founding fathers. It's only been my passion since 1995.

"there's nothing scientific there"

It is repleat in examples of reformation of "gayness". I didn't create the site.... If homosexuality is "cureable" even with only a one third success rate; then your argument of "I'm born that way" is flawed.

"Um, since when has adultery been eliminated as grounds for divorce?"
Go look at your local divorce laws, Kathy. Most states have eliminated adultery as grounds for divorce. Mine has, and since your a urban liberal - yours most likely have as well.


"you were married once before."
Yes. I was the victim of adultery while at away at war (Desert Storm). Thus, Biblical divorce and remarriage is authorized per the Bible.


"Traditional American values like lynching, and inventing casus belli for invading another country and annexing it to the United States?"
No, Kathy. Not like those. Stop being stupid, please. If you don't wish to engage in intellectual debate, then don't. Moronic statements like that are not productive.


"My rabbi does not perform marriages in which one party is not Jewish."
Based upon HIS interpretation of God's word. Remember, all interpretations of God's Word are correct - according to your posts. Doesn't make it right. How does your Rabbi feel about Friedman assertion that God condones homosexual behvavior?

Since I believe that all human life started with Adam and Eve, it makes that answer pretty simple. Adam and Eve were of "one flesh" as modern married people are supposed to be. Their son, Cain also "took a wife".

Ah, I didn't know you were a Biblical literalist. Some of your postings (looking at them from your point of view, not mine) make more sense now.

Not trying to get into any long theological discussion, but you mentioned Cain. Who, exactly, did Cain take as his wife? I have to assume his sister, in your canon.

"Why didn't you arrange for those things through an attorney, then? Why did you have to get married to get any of those things?"

Because the institution of marriage is an instution recognized by the law (for our entire existence as Americans and, more importantly,as Christians) as a union between a man and woman. YOU are the one trying to change our cultural fabric to blatant humanism. If you want to join yourself to another woman, go for it. My joining myself to my wife is a natural act within the laws of biology and procreation. I married my mate. You would be marrying your ROOM mate.

"If it weren't for those folks you call "liberal nutjobs," there would have been no abolitionist movement"

You are absolutely right, Kathy!!!!!!
What you FAIL to understand is that those "liberal nutjobs" were Godly liberals. Back in those days, both Republicans and Democrats believed in God, but disagreed on how to run the nation. Now, with your brand of Liberalism.....You wish to remove God from everything you touch. Modern liberal nut-jobs have no God. Notice I didn't say all liberals - just liberal nut-jobs. They are no better than the modern rightwing nutjobs that used God to promote their prostitution of capitalism to oppress entire classes (and no, I'm not a communist...Merely against right-wing nutjobs).


And I, too, will fight for libertyj I've put my blood on the line defending it. Destructive social beliefs of homosexuality, promiscuity, drug culture, and many many others; are NOT the same as slavery, Kathy. And regardless of your contempt for our founding fathers intent ("enrichment of wealthy white males); I truly believe that their document, the Constitution, is a beautiful document and have sworn to defend it. I took an oath to the Constitution, not the government.

"You have not now, or in the past, provided a single source for any of them -- even though you've been questioned on that in the past."

You are either being dishonest on purpose, or you are non observant. I HAVE provided the source of those comments. The only "iffy" one was from Adams - which has been cited in several dependable sources, but not "in stone" as far as timing and context. Which is it Kathy? Are you lying or just experiencening a senior moment - as we all are prone to from time to time.

Most states have eliminated adultery as grounds for divorce.

Do you mean, adultery cannot be stated officially as grounds for divorce? Obviously, when two people get divorced because of adultery, that can be the reason even if they don't say so. I wouldn't know from experience because my divorce was not caused by adultery. My ex-husband and I had a no-fault divorce, and frankly I don't remember exactly what the papers said, if they said "irreconcilable differences" or what. I just know we had to be separated for 18 months before the divorce could be final (under no fault). If we had stated a specific reason, we could have been divorced sooner, but we chose not to go that route for our daughter's sake.

No, Kathy. Not like those. Stop being stupid, please. If you don't wish to engage in intellectual debate, then don't. Moronic statements like that are not productive.

lol, JD. Really. They may strike you as "moronic" statements, but you do not define "traditional American values" (of course not, "traditionalists" never do when they use that catchphrase), and the truth is that lynching, stealing land, racism, discrimination, white supremacy, anti-immigrant nativism, and massacres might as well be considered traditional American values as well as any others, because our history is saturated with them. I suppose I get annoyed (to say the least) at your constant invocation of "traditional American values" to refer to a Golden America Past where people lived in Peace and Harmony, everyone went to church and followed the Golden Rule, nobody cheated or lied, hatred was unknown, materialism and greed were unknown, and society worked To the Benefit of All. That America is a myth. That's a fact. As much as injustice and inequality still exist today, life in late 20th century and early 21st century America is a gazillion times safer, freer, and more just than it was in the 18th, 19th, and first half of the 20th centuries. Pick up a history book sometime that isn't issued from the Nativist White Religious Right Publishing House. Life was generally not so good for any American who was not white, male, and wealthy. And that history has largely been forgotten. Totally forgotten. It's amazing to me.

"My rabbi does not perform marriages in which one party is not Jewish."
Based upon HIS interpretation of God's word. Uh, no. Based upon his First Amendment rights. If you are referring to his specific individual reasons for not performing interfaith marriages, I could tell you what I'm pretty sure is the reason, but you would not believe it, and you would not really understand it, so it's pointless.

Remember, all interpretations of God's Word are correct - according to your posts. Doesn't make it right. Well, in this country, my friend, we have the right to interpret God's word as our conscience and religious traditions dictate -- or not interpret God's word at all if we don't believe in God. You, too, in this country, are free to believe that your interpretation of God's will is the only correct one, but you are not free to impose those beliefs on others via the secular law.

How does your Rabbi feel about Friedman assertion that God condones homosexual behvavior? Well, first of all, Friedman does not assert that God condones homosexual behavior. That's not what he asserts at all. You are clearly not willing or able to accurately state what Friedman asserts, even above and beyond whether or not you agree with it. So that's a non-starter.

Second, leaving Friedman out of it, my rabbi and my synagogue fully and completely welcome gay and lesbian couples and families. There are -- I'm guessing, because I'm not up on current membership numbers -- probably in the neighborhood of a dozen gay and lesbian couples and families (the distinction being whether they have children or are just a couple) in my synagogue. It's possible that this is a significant undercount. The point is, gay and lesbian Jews are just as much Jews and just as much a part of synagogue life as anyone else. So are interfaith couples.

I don't think Cain even had a sister. Wasn't it just Cain and Abel?

JD,

I am a heterosexual woman who does not feel the need to deny any loving (adult and consensual) couples, same-sex or opposite-sex, the same right to solemnize their life commitment to each other that I have. In fact, although my life is full and meaningful and satisfying and (as Carole King put it), I am "content with myself," I still believe it to be true that two who find each other, fall in love, and share a life commitment they know can never be torn asunder are lucky, fortunate, and blessed in a way no one who has not found that, can ever be. It's the meaning of life. It's what life is meant to be about -- "to love and be loved in return." Why on earth would I want to deny two men or two women the same miraculous joy and fulfillment that my heart would be filled with gratitude to find for myself? When I see two people in love, no matter what gender they are, I'm happy for them. I think, Wow, maybe a little bit of that magic they've found will rub off on me. The last thing I'd want to do is deny them the same thing I want for my own life and have the legal right to assert.

Back in those days, both Republicans and Democrats believed in God, but disagreed on how to run the nation.

Is that all it was? A procedural disagreement? Slavery-supporting Democrats, and white slaveowners were just as godly as Northern abolitionists -- they just sincerely believed slavery was the right way to run the country?

And regardless of your contempt for our founding fathers intent ("enrichment of wealthy white males); I truly believe that their document, the Constitution, is a beautiful document and have sworn to defend it.

I believe it's a beautiful document, too, but it was intended for wealthy white males, originally. My attitude toward the Founding Fathers is not "contempt" but simply understanding that they were men of their time who stretched beyond their time in many ways but in others, did not. The rights men like Jefferson and Madison asserted were unheard-of in their day, for anyone, really. That vision of freedom, equality, and justice before the law for all men was revolutionary (literally). That does not change the fact that the way men like Jefferson and Madison defined "all men" was very different from the way we do today.

I'm not an ostrich, JD. I don't bury my head in the sand and deify the Founding Fathers.

I have my fair share of senior moments, JD, but I don't think this is one of them. I am not the only person here who has called you on the source of those quotes. Provide cites and sources for those quotes, and stop trying to mess with my head. It won't work.

That is kind of the question. Who (or what) did Cain take as his wife? If there is not an 'unlisted' sister, so to speak, the only other answers are either that God created more than Adam and Eve, or he took a non-human for a wife. I can see no other options for a Biblical literalist.

... or he took a non-human for a wife.

Well, you know, there were giants in the earth in those days. [Gen.6:4]

I have to come to JD's defense here.

Every quote he provided is a well-known, fully sourced and completely documented quote, as he stated. But, if you really want some proof, here you go:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." TO THE OFFICERS OF THE FIRST BRIGADE OF THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE MILITIA OF MASSACHUSETTS, OCTOBER 11, 1798, John Adams

Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"? An oration delivered before the inhabitants of the town of Newburyport, By John Quincy Adams

“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” Benjamin Franklin, Speech to the Constitutional Convention (28 June 1787) (Original manuscript with quote, Library of Congress)

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem the Constitution a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests" (actually not 100% verifiable to AH so credited to 'Caesar', although very likely was AH. Also slightly misquoted) Essays on the Constitution of the United States, Caesar” The Letters: II

That is enough, I would hope, to show his quotes are indeed factual and sourceable. Even the slight misquote in no way altered its meaning.

AR, you really shouldn't be doing JD's homework for him.

The John Adams quote does not surprise me. As I've mentioned to JD, John Adams was not a believer in separation of church and state.

John Quincy Adams was John Adams' son, of course. Was he actually a Founding Father?

Benjamin Franklin, okay.

Alexander Hamilton, maybe okay.

Where are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison here? They were the big champions of religious freedom and keeping religion separate from government.

As I also mentioned in one of my comments to JD, the Founding Fathers were just as divided on issues of religious freedom and religion's place in public life as we are today. The point, I think, is that the view that ultimately won out was the one proffered by Jefferson and Madison.

I wasn't agreeing with his position; I was simply saying his quotes are factual and accurate (pretty much) is all.

And divided on religion? You bet. There is strong evidence that GW, Franklin and Jefferson were not Christians, although they believed in some form of God or Higher Power. Well, except maybe Jefferson. He very well may have been an atheist. Certainly Adams was a devout Christian, though, as were other Founding Fathers (his son is considered an 'early important figure', but does not normally get Founding Father status).

However, these were educated, cultured and ambitious men. Even if they did not believe, or had doubts, or had what for the times would have been unacceptable beliefs, they knew what to say to present a veneer of Christianity to the masses, while using just the correct key-words to signal their true thoughts to like-minded men.

"In the Kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is King." Desiderius Erasmus "in regione caecorum rex est luscus"

"The point is, gay and lesbian Jews are just as much Jews and just as much a part of synagogue life as anyone else"

Correct. As are gays and lesbians who are Christians. All Christians are guilty of sin. The trick is to recognize it and try to depart from it, then move on to fix the next sinful condition. We all suffer from that weakness. You, however, condone remaining in a sinful state. As a Jew, that may be acceptable - I do not know. As a Christian, it is not.


Yes, Kathy, "MORONIC" statements. No one here is defending slavery or lynchings. I do not care what happened in the past with those issues, because it is ALWAYS wrong. It does not apply to this subject. You are spinning. Do not sit there and attempt to spin a web of words implying that lynching and slavery is supported by "tradionalists". Of course, that's what you do every time - if you can't make a point, you spin something else. Perhaps there is a job in DC for you after all. You'd fit the current typical political scheme perfectly.

Homosexuals now have the right to love whom they choose. They now have the right to live with one another. They now have the right to survivorship through wills. They have every right to "love".

But as I said countless times to you....
THIS IS NOT ABOUT LETTING GAYS LOVE to you.
This is about a larger agenda, and same-sex marriage is merely a piece of it.

You continue to not address it. You, yourself may not intend to remove faith from our culture, but you are helping in that cause. It is the end-all goal for humanists like yourself - the removal of God from our culture.

Your cause will not cease until Christians, once again, are thrown into furnaces and animal cages. Your humanistic kind was in charge of things when those things were done - much like the Nazis were in charge during the mindless annihalation of 6 million Jews during WWII.

Humanism will cause nothing but harm to our society - and you are one of it's warriors.
I'm one of the warriors on the other side - and I will not yield.

Now look closely, Kathy. At the end of every quote is the source. Most (if not all of these sources) can be found at the Library of Congress. Feel free to check them out.

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |
.......click here to see this quote in its context and to see John Adams' quotes taken OUT of context!


Samuel Adams: | Portrait of Sam Adams | Powerpoint presentation on John, John Quincy, and Sam Adams
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]

“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]

John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61

Elias Boudinot: | Portrait of Elias Boudinot
“ Be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.”

Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"

Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”

John Jay:
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.” [The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

Samuel Johnston:
• “It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

James Madison
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)
• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”

• A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772]

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”
[Baron Charles Montesquieu, wrote in 1748; “Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers." Madison claimed Isaiah 33:22 as the source of division of power in government
See also: pp.241-242 in Teaching and Learning America’s Christian History: The Principle approach by Rosalie Slater]

James McHenry – Signer of the Constitution
Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

Jedediah Morse:
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg
In a sermon delivered to his Virginia congregation on Jan. 21, 1776, he preached from Ecclesiastes 3.
Arriving at verse 8, which declares that there is a time of war and a time of peace, Muhlenberg noted that this surely was not the time of peace; this was the time of war. Concluding with a prayer, and while standing in full view of the congregation, he removed his clerical robes to reveal that beneath them he was wearing the uniform of an officer in the Continental army! He marched to the back of the church; ordered the drum to beat for recruits and over three hundred men joined him, becoming the Eighth Virginia Brigade. John Peter Muhlenberg finished the Revolution as a Major-General, having been at Valley Forge and having participated in the battles of Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, Stonypoint, and Yorktown.

Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”

Benjamin Rush:
• “I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.” “By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.” [Letter written (1790’s) in Defense of the Bible in all schools in America]
• “Christianity is the only true and perfect religion.”
• “If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into our world would have been unnecessary.”

"Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education”
Letters of Benjamin Rush, "To the citizens of Philadelphia: A Plan for Free Schools", March 28, 1787

Justice Joseph Story:
“ I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.”
[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593]
“ Infidels and pagans were banished from the halls of justice as unworthy of credit.” [Life and letters of Joseph Story, Vol. II 1851, pp. 8-9.]
“ At the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration [i.e., the First Amendment], the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.”
[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593]

Noah Webster:
“ The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.”

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
[Source: 1828, in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language]

Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If our government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. [Noah Webster, The History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, 49]

“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” [Noah Webster. History. p. 339]

“The Bible was America’s basic textbook
in all fields.” [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5]

“Education is useless without the Bible” [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5 ]

George Washington:

The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” - Farewell Address 1778

Literalism.... Geesh, you guys are driving me crazy with that.

When God created man in His own image, did that imply that god had fingers, arms, lips, and hair?
No. I'm pretty sure God is a spirit. He created man in His own image, which is a spirit - our souls.

Would you consider that a fair statement?

Ok. I'm not sure what was on earth at the time of Adam. Got created man. But he created Adam with a soul - the beginning of His people on earth. The Jewish lineage begins with Adam. Whomever Cain took as a wife was either a sister or one of the other created beings on earth. Who knows.

Watch out, Austin...
Thanks for "doing my homework for me".

How dare you help me prove her to be the biased partisan liberal she is!!!!!
You should feel ashamed (sarcasm).

She says "Benjamin Frankin, Okay.... Alexander Hamilton, maybe okay."

But she still REFUSES to acknowlege that the Founding Fathers thought this way. It doesn't gel with her liberal world-view.

Once again.... I do not propose a theocracy. I wouldn't want to live in America if it were one.
I merely want the liberal whackjobs like Kathy to acknowlege the fact that God was not intended to be removed from our culture or government - He is the core behind the Constitution. They only inteneded religious tolerance with no prescribed religion by Government.

JD -

Do not take my characterization of being a literalist as any kind of a criticism. There are many ways different types of Christians interpret the Bible. Nothing negative was meant by me at all.

As to what I consider a fair statement on what God did, well, being an atheist, I have a different view on that than you, obviously.

I didn't take it negatively, AR. That statement was aimed more toward KK.
And I remember (and respect) your atheism. You're a "Godly Atheist" if I remember correctly.

The "literalism" that KK refers to, stems from my statement that people make religion. They take the initial prescept and distort it and interpret it to fit THEIR ideals - not the ideals of the God they claim to worship. That, to me, isn't literalism. It's perversion of faiths.

"Godly Atheist"
Interesting term.

Not 100% what you meant by that, but for myself, I agree with you if you are saying I believe in many of the morality lessons that Christianity teaches, while not believing in divinity.

I also respect the right of those who do believe to believe, feel that religion does have a place in public life, and have no agenda to eliminate God from every corner of the government.

Also, I NEVER capitalize "atheist" (except as the first word of a sentence) when referring to myself or my beliefs. That is because I believe there are two fundamentally different types of atheists - "atheists" like myself that simply do not believe, and "Atheists" who HAVE a religion of anti-God.

In the last few months, I've become aware of the progress of Atheism in science and universities. There's great yelling and gnashing of teeth when a wordless cross is displayed in the desert, yet there are professors at state universities who openly harass students in many classes, which is a clear violation of both the purpose and text of the first amendment. Also, in Seeger v United States, religion and atheism are considered equivalent, at least for the purpose of conscientious objectors, and therefore by implication, cannot be preached in classrooms and schools.

I thought you'd get a kick out of "Godly atheist". I meant that as a compliment and exactly as you interpretted it. I too, respect you and others like you. There are many others (especially in academia as ProfElwood pointed out) that do have that religion of anti-God. There are also many religious people out there with a religion of anti-atheist. Hate belongs no where within Christianity. If you see a Christian saying ANYTHING with a hateful heart towards any group that does not prescribe - then they are doing God a disservice.

Regardless, you are my American brother - and I love all my American brothers and sisters.