Saturday, April 6, 2013



FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS


1. Does the Homosexual Marriage issue concern you? Why or why not?

2. What impact, if any, do you think would the legalization, official recognition, and  normalization of Homosexual Marriage have on traditional marriage?

3. As it stands now, how does the Homosexual Marriage issue affect you, personally?

4. If you believe Homosexual Activity of any kind is truly sinful, does that mean you believe it should be proscribed by law? If so, should it be treated as a felony or a misdemeanor? What sort of punishment would you advocate?

5. What is your understanding of Bisexuality? Do you believe it exists? If someone is a true bisexual, does that mean he or she must suppress one side of their nature completely, or might it there be a legitimate way to accommodate both needs? If so, how? 

SUGGESTED POSSIBILITIES:

A. Live a “Double Life” in secret?

B. Marry another bisexual and pretend to be normal? 

C. Live a dissolute life as a single person devoid of commitment to a significant other?

D. Live a celibate life?

E. What other lifestyle choices might the bisexual have?

115 comments:

  1. 1) Yes. If a "timocracy" is the best form for a Republic, "what" a society "honours" matters. And if it honours "packed fudge", well...

    2) Who cares? It's how it impacts "future" honours like "paedophilia" and "public masturbation" that p*ss me off.

    3) All my "fool" homo relatives will be allowed to feel smug about themselves.

    4) Yes, all sodomies should be proscribed, be they practiced by homosexuals OR heterosexuals. Not because they are sins, but because they are serious disease vectors. AIDS kills.

    5) Bi-sexuality simply indicates that one's septal nuclei are undifferentiated and the organism is immature.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you need the "Big Other's" approval for what you do in private, you should seek out professional help.

    Earth to Gaydom... "Wake up! There is NO Big Other!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. ps - Marriage was established to protect the inheritances of children. Since gays cannot produce children, what the real point?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I personally am against same sex marriage. I believe in the theory that a marriage should be between a man and a women, but the Progressives/liberals are against free speech. If you do not agree with them, you are now a bigot or racist or what ever other name they can label you with!
    I think that it’s unnatural, deviant, sick, and disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1. Denying the institution of marriage is discrimination and discrimination weakens us.

    2. Not one bit.

    3. I know married gay couples and they have wanted this recognition for some time.

    4. I do not believe human sexuality is a sin.

    5. I have never really considered the question.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1. Does the Homosexual Marriage issue concern you? Why or why not?

    Granting marriage to gays and lesbians is equal protection under the law, and I support that foundational principle of the Constitution.


    2. What impact, if any, do you think would the legalization, official recognition, and normalization of Homosexual Marriage have on traditional marriage?

    Absolutely none. And no one has ever given any rational reason that it would.

    3. As it stands now, how does the Homosexual Marriage issue affect you, personally?

    The growing acceptance gives me hope that this country is maturing in its inclusivity to minorities.

    4. If you believe Homosexual Activity of any kind is truly sinful, does that mean you believe it should be proscribed by law? If so, should it be treated as a felony or a misdemeanor? What sort of punishment would you advocate?

    Interracial marriages were, in the not too distant past, considered "sinful" by many religionists. How foolish is that idea now?


    5. What is your understanding of Bisexuality? Do you believe it exists? If someone is a true bisexual, does that mean he or she must suppress one side of their nature completely, or might it there be a legitimate way to accommodate both needs? If so, how?

    I don't think about it at all. If it exists and it is consensual between adults, and no one is harming anyone else nor breaking any law, it's none of my business. Isn't that a libertarian idea?

    SUGGESTED POSSIBILITIES:

    A. Live a “Double Life” in secret?

    B. Marry another bisexual and pretend to be normal?

    C. Live a dissolute life as a single person devoid of commitment to a significant other?

    D. Live a celibate life?

    E. What other lifestyle choices might the bisexual have?


    I think you spend too much time on this subject.

    I don't see how it concerns anyone anymore than how heteros work out their various heterosexual fantasies and behaviors.

    Homosexuality is natural. It's been part of who we are as humans beings since we fell out of the trees. It is a MINORITY sexual preference.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."


    - Hamlet (1.5.166-7)

    "Philosophy" here refers to knowledge, learning and understanding in general.

    The most important element here is "dreamt of," since Hamlet is pointing out how very little even the most educated minds can adequately explain.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I thought that you asked for ou opinions, not a lecture from the lefties!

    ReplyDelete
  9. TCN: "I personally am against same sex marriage. I believe in the theory that a marriage should be between a man and a women, but the Progressives/liberals are against free speech.

    If you do not agree with them, you are now a bigot or racist or what ever other name they can label you with!"

    Explain to us how disagreeing with you is "against free speech." Also, I get called names on a regular basis by some conservative knuckle-draggers on other blogs. That's part of their "free speech."

    Stop playing the victim card.

    TCN: "I think that it’s unnatural, deviant, sick, and disgusting."


    Good for you.

    And I think your attitude is a result of resentment for a minority seeking its unalienable rights. When people have lived a life loathing a minority, when that minority gains equal footing with the majority, that usually enrages and frightens people holding on to their prejudices.

    Eventually this fear and unease will dissipate and all will be right with the world.

    I promise.

    ReplyDelete
  10. TCN, Why don't you understand? Only pShaw and her friends can play the victim card.

    You can't be a victim. You are with Obama and "in power"... ???

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thersites said...
    "TCN, Why don't you understand? Only pShaw and her friends can play the victim card.
    You can't be a victim. You are with Obama and "in power"... ???"

    Ah,Ha, Gottcha! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Excerpt from Bearing Drift: Virginia's Conservative Voice:

    ...Consider this. A local pub’s clientele is not my government’s business. A workplace romance is not my government’s business. Why should Ralph and Bill’s relationship be the government’s business? Or Bob and Alice’s for that matter?

    Some time ago Virginia decided that a marriage license would be required to get married. I see that as a clear violation of the first amendment. Especially since it was devised solely as a means to prevent interracial marriage. It was probably a Democrat invention, since they were the racists of the day. Nowadays I suppose it’s just another county revenue vehicle.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 4. If you believe Homosexual Activity of any kind is truly sinful, does that mean you believe it should be proscribed by law?

    Here's one conundrum -- for me, at least: Where does our code of civil law come from?

    Much of what the Bible, for example, condemns as sin is also illegal according to the rule of civil law.

    Jesus taught: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." Thus, he made clear that God doesn't condemn tax laws as sins per se. If I recall correctly, Jesus made that statement when confronted with a question about paying taxes to the Romans.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1. Does the Homosexual Marriage issue concern you?

    On one particular level, very much.

    I don't believe that the government should force any religious institutions to marry gay couples.

    As I have stated elsewhere, if for no other reason than to protect the religious freedom of religious institutions, the solution is to declare that marriage ceremonies in churches are not legal marriages in the eyes of the state; to have a legal marriage in the eyes of the state, the couple files paper with the state, pays whatever free, and is then legally married.

    For what it's worth, I believe the SCOTUS will overturn DOMA and punt the gay marriage issue back to the individual states. The SCOTUS may, however, mandate civil unions of all ilks under the equal protection clause so that all the 1100+ benefits cited by the gay rights movement will be in effect.

    ReplyDelete
  15. FJ,
    You mentioned serious disease vectors. Clearly, states have the domain with regard to health matters.

    In fact, as far as I know, doctors are required to report to the state any and all who have certain venereal diseases. I'm not sure what happens now, but back when Mr. AOW and I married, we had to have blood tests to see if we had syphilis. Could the state have then disallowed our getting married? For all I know, the state could have; maybe the state could even have forced sterilization and forbidden adoption. As I already mentioned, I don't know what the law is now.

    ReplyDelete
  16. THIS may be of interest to those visiting this thread. Excerpt:

    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  17. ...The U.S. Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate marriage by prescribing who can marry and the manner in which marriage can be dissolved. States may grant an Annulment or divorce on terms that they conclude are proper, because no one has the constitutional right to remain married. There is a right to marry, however, that cannot be casually denied. States are proscribed from absolutely prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, struck down laws in southern states that prohibited racially mixed marriages. These antimiscegenation statutes were held to be unconstitutional in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, because they violated Equal Protection of the laws.

    On the other hand, the Court ruled in 1878 that polygamous marriages (i.e., having more than one spouse simultaneously) are illegal. The requirement that marriage involve one man and one woman was held to be essential to Western civilization and the United States in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244. Chief Justice morrison r. waite, writing for a unanimous court, concluded that a state (in that case, Utah) may outlaw Polygamy for everyone, regardless of whether it is a religious duty, as the Mormons claimed it was.

    All states limit people to one living husband or wife at a time and will not issue marriage licenses to anyone who has a living spouse. Once someone is married, the person must be legally released from his or her spouse by death, divorce, or annulment before he or she may legally remarry. Persons who enter into a second marriage without legally dissolving a first marriage may be charged with the crime of bigamy.

    The idea that marriage is the union of one male and one female has been thought to be so basic that it is not ordinarily specifically expressed by statute. This traditional principle has been challenged by gays and lesbians who, until recently, have unsuccessfully sought to legalize their relationships. In Baker v. Nelson,, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971), the Minnesota Supreme Court sustained the clerk's denial of a marriage license to a homosexual couple.


    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  18. The 1993 decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court in Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 74 Haw. 530, revived the possibility of homosexual marriage. In Baehr, the court held that the state law restricting legal marriage to parties of the opposite sex establishes a sex-based classification, which is subject to strict constitutional scrutiny when challenged on equal protection grounds. Although the court did not recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it indicated that the state would have a difficult time proving that the gay and lesbian couples were not being denied equal protection of the laws. On remand, the Circuit Court of Hawaii found that the state had not met its burden, and it enjoined the state from denying marriage applications solely because the applicants were of the same sex (Baehr v. Miike, 1996 WL 694235 [Hawaii Cir. Ct., Dec. 3, 1996]). However, this decision was stayed pending another appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court. In the wake of Baehr, a number of states prepared legislation to ban same-sex marriage and to prohibit recognition of such marriages performed in Hawaii. In 1996, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104–199, 110 Sat. 219, which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and permits states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

    Each state has its own individual requirements concerning the people who may marry. Before a state will issue a marriage license, a man and a woman must meet certain criteria. Some states prohibit marriage for those judged to be mentally ill or mentally retarded. In other states, however, a judge may grant permission to mentally retarded persons to marry.

    Every state proscribes marriage between close relatives. The prohibited degree of relationship is fixed by state law. Every state forbids marriage to a child or grandchild, parent or grandparent, uncle or aunt, and niece or nephew, including illegitimate relatives and relatives of half blood, such as a half brother who has the same father but a different mother. A number of states also prohibit marriage to a first cousin, and some forbid marriage to a more distant relative, in-law, stepparent, or stepchild.

    Age is an additional requirement....


    Like most information about the law, the above article is quite long.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 1. Does the Homosexual Marriage issue concern you? Why or why not?

    -Yes. This violates so many principles of the constitution that it's not even funny. Firstly, as others have noted, it violates the 14th amendment. It also violates the principle of the separation of the church and state. Since marriage is largely a religious institution, it's discriminatory to grant recognition to the religious marriages of only specific religions. A religion may officially recognize and perform gay marriages, so to limit government recognition to only religions who view marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman is religiously discriminatory.


    2. What impact, if any, do you think would the legalization, official recognition, and normalization of Homosexual Marriage have on traditional marriage?

    -Zero. The better question is why do people who purport to be defending "traditional marriage," even care? I think the underlying truth to this is that the people who do not support gay marriage are those who cannot get over their own feelings of discomfort with a lifestyle that is considered "deviant." They are also people who believe that homosexuality is morally sinful.


    3. As it stands now, how does the Homosexual Marriage issue affect you, personally?

    -Of course it does not have a direct impact on my life, because I'm not gay, but if I believe that all people deserve to exercise their rights to the fullest, then I cannot allow such discrimination to stand in a country I love so dearly.


    4. If you believe Homosexual Activity of any kind is truly sinful, does that mean you believe it should be proscribed by law? If so, should it be treated as a felony or a misdemeanor? What sort of punishment would you advocate?

    -I have yet to hear a credible argument suggesting that homosexuality is inherently immoral. People who argue that it is sinful can only say that it's sinful because "God says so." According to the Bible, God also condoned slavery and the physical punishment of wives. I have heard people argue with me that "those were just because of the times they were in," and to them I argue "the same can be said of homosexuality." There is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, and no one has provided me evidence to the contrary (at least not evidence that can't be quickly broken down as illogical).


    5. What is your understanding of Bisexuality? Do you believe it exists? If someone is a true bisexual, does that mean he or she must suppress one side of their nature completely, or might it there be a legitimate way to accommodate both needs? If so, how?

    -Yes, bisexuality exists. What people fail to realize, even in this advanced modern era, is that sexual attraction is merely a chemical response in the brain to particular stimuli. No one can really help who they find sexually attractive. Even if we're not born gay or straight, sexual attraction is still pinned to the development of the brain. Sexuality is BIOLOGICAL. So of course, there are people who can be sexually attracted to both men and women. Although I will agree that there are probably many bisexuals who find them selves leaning more towards homosexual that may simply be afraid to admit it for fear of being "outed" and/or ostracized.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Clearly, states have the domain with regard to health matters.

    A responsibility like "border control" that has largely been abrograted in deference to interest group lobbying.

    Of course, "Obamacare" now represents the "return" of these abrogated responsibilities as a new "symptom" requiring government solution. Cures for the sexual diseases now being spread.

    ReplyDelete
  22. We are free human beings, sovereign over our own lives, and government must recognize that.

    My only objection is to the redefinition of marriage. Other than that, all relationships should be treated equally under the law.

    Government should recognize legal partnerships, hetero, gay, whatever, and leave "marriage" to the churches.

    Whether to perform gay or straight marriages should be left to the decision of each church.

    Government should not be in the business of declaring the private activities of mutually-consenting adults illegal.

    Let's legalize gay marriage and get on with it. As a cohort, gay men are more educated and higher-income earners than average.

    I have also seen studies that mesh with my personal experience with gay friends that gay men are practical conservatives.

    So let's get it over with so we can free them from the identity-politics clutches of the progressive statists.

    About the only thing I agree with Ducky on is that in a generation, this will no longer be a controversial topic.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I have yet to hear a credible argument suggesting that homosexuality is inherently immoral.

    Yet you IGNORE many argumenting definitively PROVING that homosexuality (and promiscuity) is an imminent threat to public health.

    But then, an open mind is not something you seem to have any familiarity with.

    ReplyDelete
  24. “HIV/AIDS can have a devastating economic impact on countries with severe infection rates. Estimates suggest when the prevalence of HIV/AIDS reaches 8 percent - about where it is today for 13 African countries - the cost in terms of economic growth is estimated at about 1 percent a year” The World Bank13

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Anonymous said...
    Anonymous @11:47 AM: "Shaw, I know it's hard to stay on topic, but you could try unless you're a complete idiot. Are you a complete idiot or only half an idiot?"


    Anon, only a pusillanimous weasel would sit on the sidelines and snip at people under cover of anonymity.

    This is Mr. Free Thinke's blog. If he doesn't like what I have to say, let him tell me.

    Unless this is your day to be the scold in charge of telling people on blogs what to do and what to say.

    It's a job, I know, but a truly pissant job that is up to your abilities.



    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jack: If you believe God is the creator and law giver, the "Because God says so," is a damn good reason.

    Also, you draw false equivalencies between slavery, treatment of women, and the clean admonitions against homosexuality in both the OT and NT.

    We've been over this before.

    http://westernhero.blogspot.com/2012/07/homosexuality-is-sin.html

    In that post, I document all the places where homosexuality is considered a sin.

    You can say Christianity is wrong, but you cannot stand within the wall of Christianity and deny it. Anyone who tries to is a shambling, incoherent wreck.

    It is tendentious sophistry to argue against the plainly stated words printed in the New Testament.

    You are left with falling back on "Paul was out of line," or some such nonsense, but then you call the entire edifice into question, which is fine, but then you cannot then rely upon the biblical edifice to further your argument. You've poisoned the waters.

    Such is the result of trying to defend the indefensible.

    BTW, in 1 Timothy, where Paul again condemns homosexuality, he also damns to hell "Slave Traders..."

    ReplyDelete


  28. RR: "The Left,/Progressivism are ramming this and are going to far."

    No one's "ramming" anything. Conservatives are supporting equality of marriage as well. Just ask Dick Cheney and Rob Portman, to name a few, and the numbers are growing.

    RR: "Sodomy IS deviant, sick, disgusting and unnatural, and no one should back down from shouting the same right in a leftist´s face."

    Oh come now, RR. Your revulsion of sodomy didn't stop you from sending me links to two men sodomizing each other, did it.

    You had to have surfed the internet and all those kinky photos of sodomites in order to find just the perfect one to gift me.

    Your "revulsion" is duly noted.

    I truly understand your conflict.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thanks to everyone who took the exercise seriously and attempted to give honest answers. I try to delete comments obviously intended to taunt, insult, deride or simply to derail the discussion and turn it into a poo flinging contest.

    We welcome a wide variety of opinion and the disagreement bound to follow. What we will not tolerate is gratuitous abuse -- by OUR definition.

    Carry on!

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This thread is not about any one of us, nor is it about what we think of one another on a personal level. If you want to indulge in "personalities," please go somewhere else.

    Why?

    Because -- like television "news analysis" shows -- these silly games are boring and a complete waste of valuable time.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You are losing all of your creditability...

    Said the anonymouse

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  37. SilverFiddle,

    Thank you for your clearly stated observations and professed religious beliefs. I appreciate your open mindedness and advocacy of tolerance, but wonder at the obvious dichotomy in your thinking.

    Not to make any attempt to attack you, but out of sincere curiosity I feel compelled to raise the following questions:

    As a presumed "good Catholic," don't you find the chasm between Canon Law and Civil Law irreconcilable? How could you live with any degree of comfort in such a manifestly schizoid society?

    How could a "good Catholic," as I have always understood the term, accept and embrace the eighteenth-century Enlightenment thinking that fostered the American Revolution and led to The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution?

    After all, it says in the Bible, "No man can serve two masters ..."

    Red flags go up immediately whenever anyone -- even you ;-) -- defends the notion "It's true because God said it's true" -- as though the defender, himself, had been spoken to directly by God, Himself.

    How could you be sure it WAS God and not SATAN who spoke thusly? [I happen to believe a great deal of the Bible is far more likely to have been authored by Satan than by God.]

    If we take a literal interpretation of the Bible, and insist that we either accept every single word as perfectly true, or all of it is subject to question, and therefore worthless as a source of moral authority, we put ourselves in the untenable position of having to regard the Gift of Reason as unworthy -- and possibly downright evil, don't we? ;-)

    This need for this profoundly anti-intellectual stance is more than merely hinted at in the Genesis myth where succumbing to the temptation to eat the fruit of The Tree of Knowledge was portrayed as sufficient grounds for being cast out of Eden (Paradise), and given as The Primary Reason why humanity has had to live a hardscrabble existence throughout history.

    As surely you know, I identify myself as a Christian, but one who resists accepting ANYTHING merely on the strength of someone else's telling me I MUST or be DAMNED.

    Life just AIN'T that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  38. REMINDER:

    We are here to discuss a particular issue not anyone's opinion of anyone else's opinion.

    We are not here to discuss each other. PERIOD!

    ~ King FreeThinke (who really does have the capacity to discern the difference between Shit and Shinola. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ms Shaw, than you for sharing your beliefs and convictions with us.

    It may seem odd but I find myself more in agreement with much of what you, Ducky and Jack have said than I do others.

    I do not believe that Sex is Sin unless engaged in for the sole purpose of procreation. That may be it's PRIMARY purpose, but hardly it's ONLY reason for being.

    Sex is like fire, money, gunpowder, intelligence, and political power, etc. Whether or not it is good or evil depends entirely on the uses to which it is put.

    In this regard homosexuality is no different from any other kind of sexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @AOW -- FJ,
    You mentioned serious disease vectors. Clearly, states have the domain with regard to health matters.

    ----
    Next,FJ, you need to describe why allowing gays to marry and enter a monogamous relationship increases the likelihood of disease.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Silverfiddle -- My only objection is to the redefinition of marriage. Other than that, all relationships should be treated equally under the law.

    ----
    All unions are equal
    Except some are more equal than others.

    ReplyDelete
  43. AOW, I appreciate the extensive quotations you provided, but am reminded once again of Mr. Dickens' famous statement issued through the mouth of the seriously henpecked Beadle in Oliver Twist ... "the Law is a' ASS!"

    All the Law can do, as presently written, is DEPRIVE non-conforming individuals who live in DE FACTO married states of EQUAL RIGHTS of INHERITANCE and possibly of access to medical information, although carefully drafted wills and private contracts granting Power of Attorney or Guardianship to a "domestic partner" of ANY description usually provide sufficient protection.

    The irony is that legal traditional MARRIAGE -- as you, yourself, and some of your friends and associates have discovered -- can stick you with as many financial DISADVANTAGES as it can give you BENEFITS.

    Frankly, as a general rule, I heartily recommend Living in Sin. ;-) You can avoid as much trouble that way as any other.

    There is no Perfect Way to get through life to greatest advantage. No matter what decisions you make, you're going to be damned if you do and damned if you don't.

    ~ FT, the Inveterate Pragmatist

    ReplyDelete
  44. This issue of the "gay agenda" and homosexual marriage has reminded me of another prominent homosexual who was outed, denigrated, mocked and ultimately destroyed by the media, or at least the cabal that drives the issues which becomes the obsession of the media—J. Edgar Hoover.

    Whatever ones opinion of hoover ever was, he definitely knew a few things about communism and how it operated.

    I came across this quote from Hoover which in the context of what is or should be know today was insightful and prescient:

    "A handful of inspired men gave us our freedom. They cannot preserve it for us. That responsibility rests with the individual American. And we must now face the harsh truth that the objectives of communism are being steadily advanced because many of us do not readily recognize the means used to advance them. The communist, meanwhile, does not allow himself the luxury of inertia. He is intensely active. Because of him, the menace of communism in this country will remain a menace until the American people make themselves aware of the techniques of communism. No one who truly understands what it really is can he taken in by it. Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent."

    Does anybody think that this observation is the sort of thing that could have led to his demise, notwithstanding that times and attitudes have changed?

    Contrast this with the obsessive media compulsion to lead the parade for enshrining homosexuality, but during the take-down of J. Edgar Hoover it was leading a parade of midget clowns, accusing him of "cross-dressing" and living with a man. Just another instance of progressive thinking advancing the world to the edge of the abyss, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "[We] need to describe why allowing gays to marry and enter a monogamous relationship increases the likelihood of disease."]

    BINGO!

    Excellent point, Ducky. Thank you for saving me the trouble of making it, myself. Something I should have done hours ago.

    Of course, it all depends on what might be meant by the term "monogamous."

    From what I have observed the term may not mean the same thing to members of the homosexual community as it does to those of a more traditional mindset.

    ReplyDelete
  46. You make an excellent point too, Waylon.

    The left USES any and all issues from any and all points of view to carry their point and further their agenda. In this regard they are unprincipled and devoid of a moral compass, although I attribute that to their leaders much more than heir followers many of whom are sincere, good hearted people unaware they are serving the cause as "useful idiots."

    I have never bought the leftist-generated spite-filled, fantasies about J. Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson any more than I buy the leftist propaganda generated by The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the LA Times or CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN that masquerades as legitimate News and Information. but then I feel the same way about Right Wing Radio and other avowedly Right Wing organizations.

    The problem today is that we get NOTHING BUT lies, half-truths, distortions and outright fabrications crafted to serve an "AGENDA" of one kind or another. We have lost touch with even the basic CONCEPT of Truth.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "This issue of the "gay agenda" and homosexual marriage has reminded me of another prominent homosexual who was outed, denigrated, mocked and ultimately destroyed by the media, or at least the cabal that drives the issues which becomes the obsession of the media." --Waylon

    Waylon, I think this was the case because Hoover used the power of his office to intimidate politicians, straight and gay. And he threatened to use whatever information he had on those pols.

    I don't know if his relationship with Clyde Tolson was conjugal, or a deeply affectionate one, such as the one between Cardinal John Henry Newman and Ambrose St. John.

    I don't think we need to know what the extent of a loving relationship is between two men or two women. It's their business not ours.

    I also don't see the changing attitudes toward homosexuals as "enshrining" homosexuality. I see it as "live and let live."

    ReplyDelete
  48. FT, I sometimes think that the progressive left believes it is talking to an audience that it owns, just simply because it has captured the citadels of academia and the media. It's almost like they believe one should just dial into MSNBC, and "lean forward" on command and look up any story that is media driven to get the stance of the "journal of record" and it's like a baby being tossed a security blanket to hang onto and suck the corners and then all will be right with the world. It becomes a sad day for the free thinkers of the world when media progressivism demands all to genuflect on their command. Imagine genuflecting to the likes of Paul Krugman or Chris Matthews or Kenny O'Donnell. Assholes all.

    ReplyDelete
  49. FT: "Sex is like fire, money, gunpowder, intelligence, and political power, etc. Whether or not it is good or evil depends entirely on the uses to which it is put.

    In this regard homosexuality is no different from any other kind of sexuality."

    We agree on this.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Shaw, I'm not pretending that Hoover could be upheld beyond criticism and I think you are right . He had extensive files on many people which he thought could even be considered "job Security".

    But Hoover knew a thing or two about the issues facing the country and the evils of state tyranny especially communism. From the quote above he may have intimated at something else going on being a "monstrous evil" beyond the belief or comprehension of most people.

    Both President Eisenhower and JFK alluded to something similar. Eisenhower referred to the evils of the military-industrial complex, but in a speech as he was making his exit from office. JFK alluded to this evil as well, he paid a different price.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Silver,

    It's not a false equivelancy. It merely hilights the fact that there are plenty of things in the Bible that even the most ardent believer understands were conventions of the times.

    By your logic, every single Christian who believes slavery is evil and wrong is going against God's law. According to the bible, slavery is regulated. Although there is no passage that specifically condones slavery, one would imagine that God--being omniscient and perfect--would have outright condemned slavery if God deemed it wrong.

    The Bible also EXPLICITLY condones wife beating--or less charged, the physical punishment of wives.

    Part of God's law in the Bible is also the prohibition of eating certain animals. Jesus never abrogated any of that--in fact, by all accounts, he was a good Jewish man--so you and just about every other Christian are in violation of God's law.

    That is, unless, you realize that the Pentateuch is mostly legend and myth and probably not the word of God. Then you come to the realization that much of "God's Law" is mere social convention of a society that existed over 2,000 years ago.

    The Bible got slavery wrong. It got wife beating wrong, and Christians long rejected the prohibitions against pork and shellfish.

    Here's the thing: not all religions view homosexuality as sinful. Basing the law off of the rather antiquated interpretation of the Judeo-Christian tradition seems a bit preferential, does it not?

    When it comes to the law, it doesn't matter what you believe. The only thing that matters is what you can prove.

    So until someone can give a clear explanation as to why homosexuality is immoral WITHOUT THE USE OF A RELIGIOUS TEXT--because our law is not based on the Bible--then no one has a damn leg to stand on when arguing for the immorality of homosexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  52. ---
    Next,FJ, you need to describe why allowing gays to marry and enter a monogamous relationship increases the likelihood of disease.

    Simple. Anal sex is 100x more likely to transmit STDs than vaginal sex. Normalizing anal sex for HETERO's is a big, BIB mistake. A risk that only affected 2% of the population is now experienced by 100% of the population...

    consequence... AIDS rates experienced in South Africa.

    Caphiche?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Normalizing anal sodomy is a BIG BIG mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  54. We need to make it clear that anal sex is dangerous... and we don't accomplish that goal by sanctioning and privileging the practice.

    Hell lies in the unintended consequence

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Everyone seems to have skirted the very real phenomenon of BISEXUALITY which greatly complicates the picture, IF we insist that it's the legitimate business of government to make sexuality and sexual mores the subject of restrictive or proactive legislation of ANY kind.

    Both Jack and SilverFiddle seem to be proceeding on the assumption that human beings are primarily RATIONAL creatures and that the laws we make are either based on flawed, outmoded traditional models or made up out of whole cloth are ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTS one set of individuals who happen to be in power designs to try to CONTROL the behavior of the masses.

    Jack is correct in his realization that the Bible is no more "infallible" than any other set of myths and legends that grew out of humanity's collective need and desire to make some kind of sense out of Existence, find some Reason for Living, improve and enhance the prospects for productivity, and some guidelines to keep people from preying on one another like so many wild beasts in the jungle.

    Those attracted to Fundamentalism and Absolutism of any kind are very similar to those who find COMMUNISM a worthy aim. These are innately dependent types and highly reminiscent of low level army personnel who constantly reenlist in the military or those hardcore recidivists who seem willfully determined to get themselves sent back to jail time and time again, BECAUSE freedom frankly terrifies them and the have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what to do with themselves given unlimited choices.

    ReplyDelete
  57. FT, I don't think I would be comment to comment on bisexuality. But as the wit and wisdom of the internet has explained quite succinctly regarding the conundrum of being bisexual...

    Suppose you are in bed lying between a beautiful blonde on one side of you and a flaming homosexual lying on the other side of you, how do you decide who you turn your back to? That's about as much insight as I can offer on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @ FreeThinke: "As a presumed "good Catholic," don't you find the chasm between Canon Law and Civil Law irreconcilable? How could you live with any degree of comfort in such a manifestly schizoid society?"

    There's no dichotomy. Jesus himself lived in a society under a government that was often at odds with his Judaism.

    Render unto Caesar...

    I am very happy to live under a government that does not promote and codify my religious beliefs. It goes me one better: It protects them.

    ReplyDelete
  59. This seems appropriate at this juncture. Dorothy parker was no only witty, she was wise. Don't let the brittle veneer of flippancy fool you. This woman had a great heart.



    ____________ Coda ____________

    There’s little in taking or giving,
    __ There’s little in water or wine;
    This living, this living, this living
    __ Was never a project of mine.
    Oh, hard is the struggle, and sparse is
    __ The gain of the one at the top,
    For art is a form of catharsis,
    __ And love is a permanent flop,
    And work is the province of cattle,
    __ And rest’s for a clam in a shell,
    So I’m thinking of throwing the battle—
    __ Would you kindly direct me to hell?


    ~ Dorothy Parker (1893-1967)

    ReplyDelete
  60. The 2007 UNAIDS report estimated that 5,700,000 South Africans had HIV/AIDS, or just under 12% of South Africa's population of 48 million.[1] In the adult population, excluding children, the rate is 18.10%.[2] The number of infected is larger than in any other single country in the world. The other top five countries with the highest HIV/AIDS prevalence are all neighbours of South Africa.

    America's future...

    ReplyDelete
  61. ...the price of adopting "progressive" sexual "fashions".

    ReplyDelete
  62. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  63. None of us possesses an ontological certainty of God. We are left with testimony of others, much of it written down, and some of it within the covers of the Holy Book we call the Bible.

    There is no guarantee that the The Bible is the inerrant word of God, but one commences down a slippery path once one begins picking and choosing. I think it also safe to conjecture that none of us are holy men or biblical scholars. Nonetheless, each of us is free to form his own theories, but how grounded such a theory would be in a new spiritual insight or a breakthrough in scholarship is the question.

    The questioning of this or that in the Bible slips easily into sophistry and self-serving picking and choosing. Did God really mean not to screw your neighbor's wife? What if she's really, really hot and her husband is a douchebag wanker who doesn't keep her satisfied? What if your wife give you the OK?

    You are on slippery rocks, FreeThinke. Christianity is a revealed religion, as is the Judaism upon which it was founded. Was it Satan? Were the great men and women lying? Deluded? Was it satan?

    If your soul contains such suspicions, better to run away and not even argue over such a rubbish pile.

    Jack: you're going to have to provide some quotes and context, because context is everything.

    You're committing the same malpractice as the people who attack Islam.

    The fact that "not all religions view homosexuality as sinful" is irrelevant to the subject of what Christianity thinks of it.

    And your demand that someone "give a clear explanation as to why homosexuality is immoral WITHOUT THE USE OF A RELIGIOUS TEXT," is also irrelevant to the Christianity discussion. Indeed it is absurd. It's like asking me to prove to you why not putting money in the parking meter is illegal without the aid of the city code.

    You are free to not believe in the city code which says you must pay to park, but that doesn't make it disappear.

    Christianity is a deontological philosophy based upon divine command theory. You are free to not subscribe to it, but you are not free to twist the plain words of those who Christians believe were the conduits of God's word.

    I've already destroyed your Levitical argument by showing that, unlike wife beating, slave owning and eating incrustations, homosexuality was specifically addressed in the NT as well.

    FreeThinke: If you believe that "the Bible is no more "infallible" than any other set of myths and legends that grew out of humanity's collective need and desire to make some kind of sense out of Existence" then you are compelled to throw it away. Run. Run! From those who would presume to teach from such twaddle. How could your conscience permit any other alternative?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ducky's comment is piffle and not worthy of a reply, but here goes anyway...

    I have plainly stated that a government sanction should be called a civil union, be it hetero or gay, and that Churches can bestow marriage based upon their doctrine.

    Some people are just purposefully dense, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  65. And you feel religion should control the word "marriage", why?

    By maintaining the dichotomy you are not accepting equality.
    Simple.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Answers to questions posed:

    1) NoneNot mat all. Other than the homophobes among us working hard to deny equality to those who unlike themselves find happiness and love in a way that seems to threaten the socons and devoutly religious.

    2) None. Look to Massachusetts for an example of the lack of impact on the straight community.

    3) Zip, Nada, Zero... Except I find it necessary to voice my Libertarian views and marriage equality and liberty with respect to the issue.

    4) Asinine question IMNHO. It is not "sinful". Unless of course one has blinders on and only reads the scriptures and then interprets them to prop up their fearful proclivities.

    5) Bisexuality is something even I have a difficult time understanding. Is it a situation of ultimate and maximal sexual pleasure without commitment to anyone one? My view is it is hedonism and nothing more. And yes, I do believe the concept of anything goes sexually, without commitment to a monogamous relationship does threaten society because of the lack of any moral context. Other than anything goes, which of course for most this is amoral...

    Hut then again there certainly are legions of cheating men and women in our society. Right?

    I simply cannot understand from any angle the concern over gay relationships. Other than the fear of the "faithful" that the world as we know it will come to an end if we grant gay individuals marriage equality.

    The tide Free Thinke is not with the socons and the Evangelicals. Which is precisely as it should be.

    ReplyDelete
  67. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Ducky:

    Because in western civilization, religion has been the gatekeeper.

    The way I advocate puts everyone on equal footing.

    I've stated from the beginning that my argument is one of tradition and definition, but you stubbornly insist in continuing to waste time over it.

    I've also said that the train has left the station, so I'm not all adamant about it.

    I've also said I agree with you that in a generation this will no longer be a controversy.

    So given all of that, I must conclude that either you are dense, or that you pursue argument for its own sake.

    Either way, according to Twain, I risk being perceived as the fool here.

    ReplyDelete
  69. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anon,
    You had two typos in that comment.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Because in western civilization, religion has been the gatekeeper.
    --------
    Gatekeeper of what?

    Morality?
    Please stop. The RC church has abrogated any such claim specially in America where it allowed itself to be controlled by the corrupt Calvinist Irish wing of the church.

    Your argument is in support of the poltroons who destroyed the church.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I notice ducky is ducking.

    Gatekeeper against disease. Gatekeeper of "health" without daily AIDS cocktails costing hundreds of thousands to keep you alive.

    ReplyDelete
  73. With all due respect, Thersites-FJ, your understanding of homosexuality seems limited to a fervent belief that it invariably involves anal intercourse, is inveterately promiscuous, and that deadly disease is the normal-if-not-the-inevitable by-product of acting on homosexual impulses. None of that is strictly true.

    You cite African statistics which involve predominantly heterosexual intercourse to support your contention that the homosexual community is responsible for AIDS. I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense, if you'll pardon me for saying so.

    You surprise me, because you are so well read, so full of intellectual curiosity, and have such a great fund of knowledge, but -- as Ronald Reagan famously said of liberals -- you know so much that just isn't true.

    And you should admit there is an incredible degree of irony in your inveighing against irresponsible hedonism and using THAT as a defense of your, apparently instinctive, distaste and disdain for individuals who seek the stability, security and domestic tranquility that one would expect to come with an embrace of legal marriage.
    __________________________

    ReplyDelete
  74. SilverFiddle the dichotomy indicated by your rather severe religious dogmatism laced with an apparent embrace of the secular humanist values implicit in the U.S. Constitution still strikes me as paradoxical. I don't doubt your sincerity for a moment, but despite your glibly articulate explanation I still can't imagine how you can reconcile that high a degree of conflict within.

    I have a belief that is as near to certainty as possible that ALL knowledge spiritual and otherwise is the product of INSIGHT.

    God it Truth. Truth exists. Most of us cannot begin to see it, but a FEW remarkable individuals have gained GLIMPSES of the Truth and those glimpses have provided the foundation for all human knowledge and endeavor.

    It has never been my intention to dismiss the entire Bible as nothing but myth, but most of the Old Testament certainly qualifies. I have been close to the Church all my life, and have studied the Bible since childhood. The most positive aspects of my faith -- the thing that keeps me believing -- have not come directly from Scripture so much as from an intimate lifelong acquaintance with a large selection of the very best liturgical music spawned in the Christian Tradition over a 1,200-year period.

    Where did that music come from? How did it get here? Why is it still alive hundreds of years after it was composed? The only answer that makes any sense to me is that it comes from God, Himself, as He was perceived through the insights of the important composers.

    I take a more Jeffersonian view of the Scriptures, but I retain greater faith in the Holy Spirit as the ANIMATING FORCE that makes all life and all the positive developments we've enjoyed possible.

    What is godly and what is ungodly? The answer is incredibly simple. Anything cruel, dishonest, deceitful, arrogant, overbearing, depriving, discouraging, divisive, abusive, compulsive, addictive, acquisitive, greedy, and destructive is ungodly. Anything loving, generous, kind, decent, helpful, courageous, encouraging, instructive, inspiring, unselfish and serene is godly.

    Most of the stories in the Old Testament in my never humble opinion bear witness to some of the most wantonly cruel, destructive, innately vicious, vain, conceited, arrogantly self-serving sophistry and shamelessly ethnocentric propaganda ever perpetrated on the human race. To call it ungodly would be an understatement.

    Life, Truth, Love, Principle, Intelligence, Spirit, Beauty and Character -- all attributes of almighty God and all synonymous and interchangeable with one another -- are real, have been real, and will continue to be real forever.

    The claim that what-we call The Bible is the Last Word and we ever need to know of God is bogus and stems from an inherently corrupt self-serving mentality that has cast a long shadow over Civilization lo these many years.

    It's a mentality that has produced millions of characters like Cecilia Hervas, a warped, hideously bigoted personality who has no clue that it is she -- and sick, tragically misguided, withered souls like her poor self -- who are truly an affront to God, to human dignity and to all Creation.

    If you don't believe in Satan, just look at Cecilia who surely must be one of his most ardent disciples though she's undoubtedly too stupid to realize it.

    ReplyDelete
  75. As is so often the case there is more truth in one short piece of good poetry than may be found in reams of Holy Writ.


    He preached upon "Breadth" till it argued him narrow --
    The Broad are too broad to define
    And of "Truth" until it proclaimed him a Liar --
    The Truth never flaunted a Sign --

    Simplicity fled from his counterfeit presence
    As Gold the Pyrites would shun --
    What confusion would cover the innocent Jesus
    To meet so enabled a Man!


    ~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)

    ReplyDelete
  76. Sorry, Cecilia, if you're still out there, but you really asked for it, honey.

    Maybe you'll think twice next time before blundering in like a bull in a china shop spouting vicious, irresponsible unfounded accusations at decent people like an out-of-control maniac.

    ReplyDelete
  77. FT,
    I spent some time reading the Old Testament last night: Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

    I find the language and the laws therein very typical of desert cultures in that region of the world at the time in history. In fact, a lot of what I read reminded me of portions of The Epic of Gilgamesh.

    The Israelites were called to be different from the surrounding tribes, who were apparently quite a barbarian lot -- savages who apparently lived by "I am a law unto myself, and I'll do as I please."

    The worship of Baal involved various practices that, by any definition, most would find abhorrent.

    As we progress reading through the Old Testament and as the chronology moves closer to the time of the New Testament, the harshness of the laws of the Old Testament started to move closer to what is taught in the New Testament.

    By the time that Jesus came along, the Greek civilization had made its mark on the known world. In my view, the Greeks brought the opposite of barbarism to the world. Jesus would not have been heard or heeded if He had walked the earth during the time of the Old Testament Israelites.

    ReplyDelete
  78. FT,
    I forgot to say earlier that I included all the information about previous court rulings because the SCOTUS will be considering those rulings before rendering the ruling about the case(s) before the SCOTUS right now.

    I don't dispute that the law is an ass, but, IMO, the law is better than anarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Good morning, AOW! That's a very interesting point you raised about the influence of ancient Greek civilization. I'd never thought of it from that perspective.

    I do realize that the horrible events described and apparently sanctioned by the ancient "Israelites" were typical of the Semitic peoples of that time -- and probably of most human tribes.

    Every one of us had ancestors who were barbarians somewhere along the line no doubt.

    The Islamists seem to be mired in that same ancient barbaric mentality. They appear to have advanced very little, but to be fair we should admit that not ALL Muslims are Islamists by a long shot.

    I hope I've made it clear that I am interested in where artistic creativity and knowledge comes from?

    I believe every bit of it emanates from God. We cannot and do not CREATE anything in my opinion. We can only DISCOVER what has been there all along.

    The reason I dare speak against the Bible as I sometimes do is because I am morally CERTAIN that the Bible could not POSSIBLY be The Last Word -- and certainly could not be ALL we need. I see it much more as a BEGINNING of true progress in societal evolution.

    We still have a long long way to go to be sure, but when you look at the stupendous accomplishments of Western Christian Civilization and the conceptual advances it has made in human interrelationship -- particularly since the eighteenth century -- we are MUCH better off now than anyone was in biblical times or for many centuries thereafter.

    I believe most passionately that God is STILL revealing Himself to us every day to those receptive to advanced understanding.

    We will never get any farther if we let ourselves imagine we already have ALL the answers.

    I hope no one thinks I believe we ought to throw the "baby" -- and by that I mean the bible -- out with the "bath water" meaning Modern Thought including Marxism, "Psychology" and the vapid, limp-wristed, values-neutral abomination we call Secular Humanism.

    I am just certain that MUCH contained in the Bible is tendentious, innately cruel, poorly-motivated nonsense, but I don't think that of ALL of it by any means.

    ReplyDelete
  80. As far as court rulings and legislation go I do not believe that any branch of government should have jurisdiction over human sexuality, unless it involves FORCIBLE rape or any other form of coercion.

    Whatever people want to do together is not -- nor should it be -- anyone else's business. PERIOD!

    ReplyDelete
  81. I just stumbled across THIS:

    ...The state which legalizes gay marriage is a state that has assumed the god-like power to declare which collections of individuals constitute a ‘family.’ But by this assumption government declares that both marriage and family are little more than legal constructs at best, and gifts from the state at worst. In the former case, marriage and family lose their objective fixity; in the latter case, we become the wards of the state....

    More at the above link.

    I found that blog post of interest because the particular arguments presented therein were new to me.

    ReplyDelete
  82. FreeThinke said...
    With all due respect, Thersites-FJ, your understanding of homosexuality seems limited to a fervent belief that it invariably involves anal intercourse, is inveterately promiscuous, and that deadly disease is the normal-if-not-the-inevitable by-product of acting on homosexual impulses. None of that is strictly true.


    I agree, lesbians are harmless. For male homosexuals, ALL of the above is STRICTLY true. Very few gay men are "monogamous". Thats why theiraverage life expectancy is late fifties.

    ReplyDelete
  83. FT,
    Even atheist Oriana Fallaci stated that Western Civilization is Christian Civilization. Of course, she did not believe in the existence of a supreme being; still, she acknowledged the positive power of Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  84. ...and THAT is in the USA, with one of the best health care systems in the world. In Africa and the third world, its much, MUCH more deadly.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Even the Muslims aren't stupid enough to sanction gay sex.

    ReplyDelete
  86. ...it takes a much MUCH greater stupidity...

    the belief in equal rights without equal consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  87. FT,
    I do not believe that any branch of government should have jurisdiction over human sexuality, unless it involves FORCIBLE rape or any other form of coercion.

    Were not financial matters involved, would the issue of marriage (gay or hetero) have nearly the traction that it now does? To my knowledge, persecution of same-sex couples has largely disappeared -- in comparison to the persecution that used to be overt and pervasive. Also, to my knowledge, gay couples can adopt children and have done so for some time.

    BTW, I do know two very wealthy couples who married so as to avoid the government's grabbing a larger portion of the wealth of one of the parties. These people actually had other sexual partners.

    Anyway, my point is that often money is the driving force behind so much activism -- even though activists deny to others and to themselves that such is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Thersites,
    lesbians are harmless

    Unless I am mistaken, lesbians have been less persecuted than homosexual males in modern society.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Concern over this non-issue is 99.44% horse manure. Discussion is futile. For the most part all we get all we get is incessant repetition of entrenched prejudice on each side.

    Why do you CARE, unless you yourself are homosexual or have a son or daughter inclined that way?

    I've practically BEGGED everyone to discuss bisexuality, but the subject has been flipped off as though it were not a factor.

    What would you do, ladies, if you discovered your husband, who always treated you well in and out of bed, and with whom you've had four children, was having a passionate affair with another male?

    What would you do, men, if it turned out your wife was getting it on with your best buddy's wife -- or your children's Sunday School teacher?


    Don't laugh. It happens ALL THE TIME, and guess what? The sun still rises in the east and sets in the west, the tides come in the tides go out, The sky does NOT fall.

    We make too damned much FUSS about this stupid non problem. Reminds me of a bunch of old women gossiping over tea and crumpets about the all the latest scandals. They LOVE it, while they PRETEND to be outraged.

    Society would be a hell of a lot better off if we QUIT MINDING OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS.

    ReplyDelete
  90. With all due respect FT, lets not stay focused on this Same Sex Marriage thing. This is exactly what this administration wants us to do.
    We can´t let Benghazi be swept under the rug. Keep it alive and in the news!
    The families of the slain Hero's deserve more than the circus we witnessed in those hearings.
    And we must NOT allow this wagging the Dog with Gay Marriages change our focus!
    Hillary Clinton should be BOOED at every appearance she makes. And anyone who buys her books is an Idiot!

    ReplyDelete
  91. OK Ducky, You do love arguing for arguing's sake.

    Take the anthropological view. Marriage is a building block of society that produces new people for that society, so religions of every society are normally the gatekeepers of the institution.

    I don't know what else to tell you. You obviously have anger problems or some psychological issues that fuel your bitterness and cloud your understanding when interacting with others.

    A good discussion needs intelligence, candor and goodwill. You obviously have an arrogant, obstinate intelligence, but candor and goodwill is lacking, which is why discussions with you end up nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  92. FreeThinke:

    My explanation seems glib because it is not a 25-jointed intellectual acrobatic act.

    It seems glib because it coheres in its simplicity.

    You repeatedly assert that there is a dichotomy between our secular republic and Biblical Christianity. Indeed they are different, but the reason this poses no problem is because the state does not force me to violate my beliefs by making me blaspheme, throw virgins into volcanoes, or cheat on my wife, etc...

    The state also refuses to do the opposite, to codify my Christian beliefs into law so that blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, lying, and not observing the sabbath would all be punishable.

    That also presents no conflict, because individuals are still free to hold themselves to these strictures. It's a matter of conscience, and that is how it should be. I don't want to live in a theocracy.

    I can be a good citizen and a good Christian, and that is the brilliance of the founders, so there is nothing to reconcile.

    ReplyDelete
  93. FT,
    What would you do, ladies, if you discovered your husband, who always treated you well in and out of bed, and with whom you've had four children, was having a passionate affair with another male?

    I'd be emotionally wounded in the extreme.

    When Mr. AOW and I married, we vowed before God to be faithful to each other. In my view, vows, once undertaken, should be kept.

    I have known many faithful wives who have discovered that their husbands were cheating on them. Every one of these wives was hurt emotionally, and some never really recovered any joy in living.

    I've seen the same thing happen with husbands who were cheated on.

    And, of course, some slayings have ensued as a result of infidelities. I personally know of only one such case but have read of many.

    Now, I have known some married couples who have arranged open marriages. All of them seemed to do okay -- until children came along, at which point the dynamic changed; divorce was always the end result in those cases.

    PS: Two faithful wives whom I personally know contracted venereal diseases from their unfaithful husbands; one of these wives miscarried the third child as a result of the STD. Divorce followed in both of these cases -- upon the advice of physicians.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Silverfiddle,
    I don't want to live in a theocracy.

    Hear, hear!

    But have you seen the results of this survey? Excerpt:

    ...Although a large percentage of Americans said they would favor establishing a state religion, only 11 percent said they thought the U.S. Constitution allowed states to do so. Fifty-eight percent said they didn't think it was constitutional, and 31 percent said they were not sure....

    ReplyDelete
  95. FT,
    I've practically BEGGED everyone to discuss bisexuality, but the subject has been flipped off as though it were not a factor.

    Well, I've never personally known a bisexual -- at least, one who so declared.

    We might say that Rock Hudson was bisexual, but apparently he married only for career reasons. These have been many who have married for appearance's sake. But, ultimately, they settled on same sex as their sexual orientation.

    ReplyDelete
  96. The discussion of a state religion popped up over at Shaw's.

    The constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion, but it does not forbid the states to do so.

    Some hold that the establishment clause is what prohibits the states from doing so.

    Regardless, I think it is a horrible idea. Government has wrecked everything in it's path, I don't want it's grimy mitts on my religion.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Silverfiddle,
    Some hold that the establishment clause is what prohibits the states from doing so.

    I myself hold that view. I know Jefferson's warnings about a state-established, state-supported church.

    Letting state or local governments establish a state church might well result in Islam as the established religion of Dearborn, Michigan and Mormonism as the established religion in Utah.

    ReplyDelete
  98. FT,
    I've been meaning to say this....This post and thread are excellent. Although you and I (and others) certainly don't agree on all matters, the discussion here has been worthwhile, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  99. You have not destroyed my argument. In fact, by admitting that slavery and the other things I've mentioned are NOT in the New Testatement, you've actually proven my point.

    The New Testament does not abrogate ANY of those ideas, so if one follows the bible to the letter, they MUST follow and accept those precepts since Jesus never came out and said "slavery is wrong, you can't beat your wife, and you don't have to abstain from pork and shellfish."

    But that's not how it has happened over history. At some point, Christendom realized that although the Bible CONDONES slavery, slavery is categorically, unversally wrong.

    Slavery was wrong 2,000 years ago, it's wrong today, and it will always be wrong. And we came to that conclusion WITHOUT the Bible saying so.

    And sure, my challenge to prove the immorality of homosexuality MIGHt be irrelevant when talking strictly about Christianity, but that's not the purpose of the question. We're talking about which moral precepts that we make into LAW.

    Gay marriage being illegal, as I have said before, is providing preferential treatment to a moral code that exists only in some religions.

    So when we are making law, the questions that I ask--challenging everyone to explain to me how homosexuality is wrong, WITHOUT THE USE OF A RELIGIOUS TEXT--is an extremely pertinent question.

    And mind you, Jesus never explicitly condemns homosexuality. Sure, he says that "Moses' law is true," but then that would mean that you are still in violation of God's law every time you make your pork ribs (which, by your accounts, sound freaking delicious btw).

    So no, you haven't even come CLOSE to trashing my Leviticus argument.

    ReplyDelete
  100. slavery was wrong 2,000 years ago...

    You are an idiot.

    There are no "universal" moralities. Even cannibalism has its place.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Did you see "Life of Pi"?

    You probably thought it was about a Tiger on a lifeboat.

    ReplyDelete
  102. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Jack: Surely you must see that your Leviticus argument does indeed collapse when looking at other specific, plain-language proscription of homosexuality.

    God did not command anyone to own slaves. He did command us not to commit homosexual acts. That is plain linguistics, leaving religion out of it.

    Apart from Leviticus, homosexuality is clearly condemned. You cannot get around that.

    Jesus didn't say so? If you only confine your Christianity by what the Bible directly quotes Jesus as saying, yours is a very narrow belief indeed.

    Again, on the slavery issue, you are lacking historical and hermeneutic context.

    Does God consider slavery an evil? If so, why did he condone it?

    Finally, I am not one of those arguing to outlaw homosexuality or to ban gay marriage. I am for equality under the law.

    We are all free to believe as we wish, but we are not free to twist the plain words of the Bible, as they have been taught for over 2000 years.

    Christianity and Judaism declare homosexuality a sin.

    You can say the teachings and writings are in error, but you cannot say they mean other than what they have always have meant.

    I argue all of this from a Christian perspective.

    If you believe there is one true God, creator of all, and that he is without error, then all that emanates from him must be coherent and never self-contradictory.

    Your error is in trying to fit God around your argument, instead of fitting your argument around God.

    ReplyDelete
  104. As an Atheist I have to say, remember in the "good old days" when stomping on and burning the American flag on American soil was the norm? I'm being sarcastic of course and I don't condone such a thing like I don't condone any desecration of any religious symbol of any sort.

    Liberal have not met an American Flag they haven't wanted to spit on, burn or stomp on. If someone did disrespect a symbol of something progressives hold dear, then they would be talk about intolerance.
    But I must admit that as an Atheist
    1) I do admire real believers.
    2) I understand the Protestant Revolution and it's contribution to Scientific knowledge - i.e. the biggest step change to our understanding of the universe, typified by Sir Isaac Newton.
    3) I'm long since bored with the "Oh so trendy lets insult Christianity without understanding its the root of our nations and legal system" brigade.
    4) Frankly, I wish I believed in God just to annoy the tedious morons.
    5) I'll be going to Church this Christmas to shore up our civilization and be counted.

    All atheists aren't created the same. I have two friends who are atheists. What I like about them is that they are comfortable in their skin and don't feel the need to be feel like oversensitive crybabies whenever someone mentions the words Jesus Christ.
    And another thing that I have observed which is the height of hypocrisy is that the Democratic Party and the ultra Progressives (such as Shaw) are anti god and anti religion except when it comes to Islam. They'll never mock or speak ill of Islam just Christianity. Strange? Or is it the height of hypocrisy as I have noted?

    ReplyDelete
  105. Late to this party... excellent discussion.
    I'll just say I am with Silvefiddle 100%.

    ReplyDelete
  106. For Anonymous @1:57 PM,

    Another person obsessed with what I write about and what I believe.

    FYI, you will not find one post on my blog that is disrespectful of any religion.

    Since you seem to need someone to disparage, go find someone else. Your statement about me is thoroughly untrue.

    ReplyDelete
  107. @ Shaw: "FYI, you will not find one post on my blog that is disrespectful of any religion."

    As a frequent visitor to Shaw's blog, I can verify that this is true.

    Unlike many of her non-believing confreres, she is not nasty about it.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I guess its like going to a Freak Show!

    ReplyDelete
  109. And I also want to say to all here that I hold no ill-will towards anyone. This is a debate, not a death match.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Not nasty about religion... just EVERYTHING else. :)

    ReplyDelete
  111. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  112. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  113. SilverFiddle and other friends,

    We strive to ignore -- and if possible OBLITERATE -- statements containing malice and sheer idiocy.

    Unfortunately, I can't be here to patrol the comments section all the time so some nonsense does slip through.

    I would appreciate it, however, if you'd ignore it when you see it. A certain class of commentary does not deserve response.

    Thanks!

    And thanks to everyone who made honest efforts to answer some of these questions thoughtfully. I'm frankly amazed at the amount of attention this issue has drawn.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Love and marriage. Love and marriage

    Go together like a horse and carriage
    

Dad was told by mother
    
You can't have one without the other

    

Love and marriage. Love and marriage
    
For the faggots we should all disparage
    

'Tis abomination

    And so, by Gosh is masturbation!



    Try, try, try to aggravate them
    
It's an illusion
    

Even when the Church berates them
    
There's no confusion



    Love and marriage. Love and marriage
    
Even for those ranking below average
    

Should be celebrated
,
    But need not be consecrated

    

Love and marriage. Love and marriage

    Go together like corned beef and cabbage
    

Even for the glad folks

    To whom their lives are never bad jokes.

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.