Editorial: Chipping away at discrimination
A victory against discrimination
The Defense of Marriage Act denies benefits to Americans based on their sexual orientation. A judge says that is unconstitutional.
The misnamed Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996. The law, sponsored by a representative who had been married three times himself, legitimized bigotry by denying any federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples and allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted elsewhere.
From the moment it was signed, this unconstitutional and discriminatory piece of legislation was doomed to fall, eventually.
It’s taken far too long, but the first blow was struck last week when a federal judge in Boston declared portions of the act unconstitutional.
July 12, 2010 - 7:16 AM
The answer to this issue is simple. The government does not belong in the marriage business. Marriage should be a private contract between the people involved. If the government didn’t offer incentives towards marriage this issue would vanish.
“The misnamed Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996″
Its not “misnamed” at all.Its perfectly named. Anyone who is not swimming in a sea of PC,knows that marriage should be between a man and a woman.Im ok with civil unions but gays arent.They want their perverted behavior to be vindicated by the word “marriage”.In addition they arent interested in equality,like all so called minorities,they want power.
Marriage is, by definition, between one man and one woman. Massachusetts may think that it can redefine it, but it cannot overturn thousands of years of human history.
Moreover, marriage is a gift from God. Last time I checked, a Mass. Sup. Ct. 3-2 decision did not trump The Almighty.
Finally, to argue that the federal government cannot define the eligibility requirements for the receipt of federal benefits because a state disagrees is to turn the entire concept of federalism and states rights on its head. BUT . . .
if the Left is consistent, then this decision by Judge Tauro means that obamacare is D E A D. It really makes it a hard choice for me. Hmmmm.
Frankly,
I think we need to understand that there are two sides to “marriage”, a civil side and a religious side. When you decide to get married, you go to the court house and get a license and once it is paid for and signed, you automatically have access to over 1,300 rights and responsibilities. This is the civil side of marriage and has nothing to do with religious beliefs. It is then your personal decision to have a religious ceremony….or not. The religious side of marriage has nothing to do with the civil side.
All gays and lesbians want is to have access to those same rights and responsibilities that heterosexual Americans have access too. This has nothing to do with how you feel about marriage according to some holy book. Churches will not be forced to perform gay marriages. Catholic churches generally do not perform marriages between people who have been divorced and Jewish synagogues do not perform marriages between Jewish and non-Jewish people. None of that will change.
This is not a religious debate. This is about allowing homosexual Americans to have the same rights and responsibilities that heterosexual Americans have….that’s all. If you think that there are people in the United States of America that do not deserve the same and equal rights that you have, then you are making a mockery out of our founding documents and disrespecting the thousands of men and women who have given their lives to secure our equality and freedoms.
What, Mr. McGuire, is ‘perverted’ about two people loving each other and wanting to spend their lives together? As far as homosexuals being more interested in power, than equality, is it a power trip to want family visitation rights for a loved one in the hospital? Is it a power grab to want to be able to provide for a loved one after you die, or to receive income tax benefits, or to provide insurance benefits to your family, or to get family leave from your employer to care for a sick loved one?
@4–First, things will change with respect to religion. In Washington, D.C., because the Catholic Church would not change its doctrinal practices to accommodate homosexuals, it lost its contract to provide servicees to the District government.
Second, marriage is marriage, and marriage is between one man and one woman. Nothing man does can change that. You may call a contrived homosexual union a “marriage”, but that does not make it so.
Third, homosexuals already have the same rights as straight Americans. A male homosexual can marry a woman, and a female homosexual can marry a man. What homosexuals want are DIFFERENT RIGHTS; they wish to be able to do something that no straight person can do, which is to marry another person of the same sex. They wish to redefine marriage for their own selfish reasons.
Fourth, homosexuality is conduct. Most believe it to be perverse and immoral. But as a practical matter, homosexuals are permitted to engage in their conduct. They want, however, more; that is, homosexuals demand that the rest of society recognize and approve their perverse and unnatural conduct. That is tyrannical, contrary to religious freedom, and just plain wrong. Ain’t gonna happen!
#2 The only perverted behavior is the way you are thinking. My guess is you do not like PC because you maybe cannot respect others that are not “normal” like you. You might want the freedom to call other people names and have the right to treat others as not your equal but we have moved on to a better world, at least I hope so.
#3 Your one sided version of married seemed to be set for you please do not set it for the rest of us. My God told me to treat everyone with love and respect and as equals.
6 You can say that your distorted idea of what marriage is, is right and that everybody else is wrong, but that does not make it so.
This wisecrack about straights and gays having “the same rights” got stale a long time ago. Heterosexuals are not inconvenienced in the least by being “prohibited” from doing something they would not want to do anyway. The only reason there is such a prohibition, is because there are homosexuals who want to marry and bigots who want to interfere with them.
#5 The stated does not care if a couple “loves” each other or not.
oops…that was supposed to be: The state does not care..I knew there was a reason I never try to post anything here
At any remark that GFK has made relative to this thread…
I am a homosexual and I have absolutely no desire to have anything more than what my straight neighbors enjoy in terms of tax benefits and the ability to care for my partner or my partner’s ability to care for me given any kind of catastrophic situation.
There is nothing selfish about equal.
And for what it’s worth, I was born a homosexual. I didn’t decide one day to say “gee, I think I’ll be gay.” No one would wear that mantra to be faced with the kind of bigoted hatred that those of your ilk dole out on a regular day to day basis. Frankly, life must be pretty dull for people like you who seem to take a perverted so called “Christian” delight in your words and actions.
I would welcome the opportunity to debate you face to face in any forum you select and I will show you without any doubt shape form or fashion how wrong you are with any and all of your remarks relative to what a gay/lesbian person can/can’t do relative to the rights and privileges of a straight person.
Thankfully, your mentality is becoming less and less embraced and as I said in another thread…perhaps not in my lifetime…but in the next generation, this will be exactly as it should be…a NON-ISSUE to anyone.
Will, I’ve generally noticed that people over the age of 40 seem to hold onto anti-gay stances, while most of the people I know younger than that are much more open-minded on the subject. I’ve also found that many older people are softening their once harsh anti-gay views as they’ve come to know or realize they know someone who is gay or lesbian, and had their stereotypes shattered by putting a human face to something they didn’t have exposure to. The number of young people who voice anti-gay views is substantially smaller than it has been based on what I’ve been seeing, and I fully anticipate a major paradigm shift in regards to legal recognition of homosexual relationships in my lifetime…and possibly yours too. Even many of the Christians I know have realized that their gay neighbors pose no threat to their way of life, their relationships, their beliefs, or who they are. The time is coming, and I think thats why the opposition is getting as vocal as they are…they know change is coming and they are trying like hell to fight it.
#6….So would you be willing to marry someone you didn’t love, if it would give you access to certain rights? Excuse me, but I think your ignorance is showing!
@11–Homosexuality is conduct. There is no scientific evidence to the contrary.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that homosexuality were innate, you are still a human being born with the capacity to reason and to choose. You could choose to refrain from homosexual conduct, but you do not; hence, it is a choice.
Homosexuality is an issue only because the radical homosexual lobby makes it one. You are not being persecuted for being homosexual. But you are demanding that others accept your conduct. You do not have that “right” or power.
Do what you wish, but do not demand that others say it is okay.
“As far as homosexuals being more interested in power, than equality, is it a power trip to want family visitation rights for a loved one in the hospital?”
I have no problem with Gay Civil Unions that would give them all the things you mentioned.Just dont call it marriage,because it isnt.
And the old thing about visitation “rights” is outmoded.You dont to be married to visit in the hospital.
“The number of young people who voice anti-gay views is substantially smaller than it has been based on what I’ve been seeing”
Thats been because they have been incrementally brainwashed to except it,just like you have been.Couple that with overall moral decline and that brings us where we are now.
All sexuality is conduct. There is plenty of scientific, historic, and anecdotal evidence to prove the “drive” exists, but precious little scientific evidence to prove why one person is attracted to another. That most people do something and some people do not is not proof of anything. There is no activity that homosexuals “conduct” that heterosexuals do not also “conduct”. The only difference is that one prefers a partner of the opposite sex and one prefers a partner of the same sex. That YOU consider that __________(insert term here), is of no importance, none. The tide of ignorance, incivility, inequality and discrimination is turning. Whether you or anyone else is left behind is of no real consequence either.
Interesting that all the arguments and attitudes mirror the ones used back in the 1950s here in Virginia to demonize inter-racial marriages -even the religious and church oriented arguments.
Bigotry, and hatred never go away -they merely shift targets and like the energizer bunny, keep going, and going, and going. It allows small monded individuals to feel superior to at least someone, and allows them to express hatred and contempt with like minded individuals.
Did you know that inter-racial marriage is still opposed by a (slim) majority of Americans?
Science, and nature long ago proved that homosexuality springs from ones genetic heritage.
@16–Traditional morality does not equal “ignorance, incivility, inequality and discrimination”. Similarly, moral relativism does not equal intelligence, civility, equality and egalitarianism.
The sexual conduct in question is immoral, and has been since time immemorial. That some wish it were not so does not carry the day.
@ Jack: Love is. Love does. Love happens.
It is we — me and you — who color it, limit it, fence it in to little parcels of acceptance and rejection.
It is a shame and a pity that some people try to tell others what their perception of Love should be. You might as well tell them what chocolate tastes like.
@17–No it did not. Science has proved no such thing, and if it had, you would have cited such evidence.
And homosexual conduct is not the same as being black. One does not choose his race, but one does choose what conduct he engages in. The two are not comparable.
This is all about the legitimization of same sex sodomy and the denigration of traditional Christian moral values. Civilization itself is at stake.
You’re a tad mistaken there. I got a lot of first-hand knowledge I never got in public K-12 schools nor my time in college, when I became friends with several gay co-workers who completely turned my previous (wrong) notions on their head. Also having several gay & lesbian family members has helped provide insight I never would have thought possible many years ago. I consciously went from the same closed-minded conservative talking points eschewed by many on here to where I’m at now, all thanks to free-thinking and reasoning…and seeing that almost everything I learned in my first 20 years regarding gays & lesbians was flat wrong, thanks to a conservative upbringing.
The brainwashing happened alright, but not in the fashion you think it did…and I’m thankful that I did not allow my learning in life to end at an early age like has happened with so many past generations. Otherwise I would have not only missed out on some amazing friendships with some great people because I would have held onto the stereotypes, but I’d still be a closed-minded, flat-wrong conservative buying the idiotic taglines that make the folks who continue to tout such bull look like the closed-minded folks they are. And I’m thankful to have opened my eyes and mind when I did, and my learning continues every day.
“This is all about the legitimization of same sex sodomy and the denigration of traditional Christian moral values. Civilization itself is at stake”
Absolutely right!
#20 We do get your point but your narrow version of what is or what is not moral is fading fast into the past. No Civilization is not at stake but maybe a more open minded kind of thinking like the love one another thing that Christians profess. It is well worth the try.
‘Civilization itself is at stake.’
I have to laugh at this because it’s such a purely idiotic notion.
Yes, my gay neighbors are going to be repsonsible for destroying civilization. That’s absurd.
@23–Love the sinner, hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin. That is a Christian tenet.
“Love is. Love does. Love happens”
Oh please,lol.Fred and Leroy arent Romeo and Juliet.
21 Other John,
Classic testimonial.
@24–I fail to see how concern over the abandonment of morality and civilized behavior standards is an “idiotic notion”.
But then again, I fail to see the virtue in the “anything goes” mentality that is central to moral relativism and today’s radical secular society.
There is a right and a wrong. That you choose not to recognize or see it, does not make it any less so.
#25 Homosexuality is not a sin and I would have to agree with #24 it is absurd that somehow gay’s are contributing to the downfall of civilization. The sin if you want to look at it that way is being s very narrow minde3d and excluding certain people from the human race.
@18–Traditional morality once condoned and supported slavery, women as chattel, child labor and public stoning; has and does equal “ignorance, incivility, inequality and discrimination” when it came to those issues as well as continuing to do so on the issue of gay rights. Your attempt at a straw man, “moral relativism” is sophistry for your own purposes and does not have any bearing on the issue.
What YOU, your religion or your friends consider “immoral”, also has no bearing. Divorce used to be “immoral”, certainly a baby “out-of-wedlock” was “immoral”, birth control is. The earth used to be flat to some folks, so what?
I doubt that any of the posters that are so staunchly against gays and lesbians have ever sat down and had an honest conversation with any.
As with ALL segments of society, there are extremes even in the gay and lesbian segment. I don’t necessarily condone the behavior of some of my own. By the same token, I would hope that the straight community doesn’t condone the extreme behavior of some of their own and God knows…there’s plenty of it as well.
I find the implied threat that homosexuals pose on society to be actually pretty funny. What it really tells me is that those who protest the loudest are probably those who have the least amount of faith in their ability to love their spouse in the way that most strive to love. Blaming homosexuality on their inability to maintain a strong and loving relationship seems to be a rather convenient cop out for their own shortcomings.
How easy it is to shoot someone else for your own faults rather than looking inside to correct them.
At the end of the day, I’m a 54 year old man with white hair, a thickening middle and unfortunately a bit of cancer that I hope to effectively deal with in the next several weeks. I sweat like a pig when I’m mowing my yard and weeding my flower beds; I enjoy a good martini with my straight Republican Conservative neighbors (I am in Montgomery AL after all); I pay my bills on time; I loved the most important people in my life (my parents and my departed sister); and I love the single most important person in my life now (celebrating 8 years together in September).
We have our arguments just like any couple over spending too much, the color of the living/dining room and a host of other things that most couples quibble over. That being the reality, you can’t legislate, preach, order, mandate or coherse who I love and how I love them. Never have nor ever will.
What all the naysayers are doing is simply being obstructionists to something that they have absolutely no clue of that which they attempt to speak. It’s sad that they do it, but they have and will continue. So is the nature of ignorance. Thankfully, the younger generation is getting it and the older generations (even older than mine) are understanding and accepting.
@ Mr. Koontz: Most people who are secure in their sexual identity and orientation understand that there was no “choice” involved in being who they were born to be.
It is only deeply closeted individuals who make a “choice” by choosing to try to bury or hide their true nature. They have chosen to try to not act on natural instincts they possess themselves – what other explanation could there be for them to perceive there being any “choice” involved?
The choosers argue that other gays do not have the “moral fortitude” that they must have had themselves in order to deny their own homosexual urges. We have seen this happen over and over in headlines recently (Senator Larry “Wide Stance” Craig, for one).
They see a “choice” because they have made it themselves. Most people do not choose, they understand their innate orientation and eventually accept who they are, gay, straight, or bisexual.
It is a tragedy of our society that these “choosers” are forced to live deeply troubled and conflicted lives by religious fundamentalists harping on six misinterpreted, carefully selected, out-of-context verses from the Bible.
What a better world it could be if Christian extremists would focus as much of their attention on other verses in the Bible, such as “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34-35) and “Judgment is mine sayeth the lord” (Book of Mormon, 8:20).
@29–No one is being excluded from the human race. But there are standards of morality and civilized behavior, and same sex sodomy falls below those standards.
And it is a sin. Read the Bible.
@30–Women having children out of wedlock is immoral. Nevertheless, the Left worked hard to legitimize such behavior. And what has that gotten us? Higher poverty rates, broken families, higher crime rates committed by boys from fatherless families, abortions, teens having sex, teens having babies, and women who behave as if their bodies were public utilities.
So now we should legitimize same sex sodomy and hope that nothing bad happens? I do not think so.
26 Jack Mcguire
“Fred and Leroy arent Romeo and Juliet.”
Yes they are. The only question is, which are you? Montagu or Capulet?
@31–I suggest to you that those who protest same sex sodomy have plenty of faith, and plenty of life experience that allows them to understand what happens when you abandon all standards of morality and civilize behavior.
No one really cares what homosexuals do; why then, must homosexuals publicize their behavior, unless, of course, it is to demand acceptance?
In the Leftist politically correct world, there can be no dissent!
#28, Ok, I have to ask what you may think radical secular society is anyway? I take it then you might want a far right wing white christian society with no gays what so ever?
My brother is gay and as long as he is happy and safe I am happy for him. He is hard working and I would say he is as moral as anyone.
So tell us Glen Franklin Koontz…..when did you choose to be straight?
So I guess the “Christian moral values” of marriage would include multiple wives, marriage to a brother-in-law in the case of a husbands death, marriage to female slaves, multiple wives plus concubines, female prisoners of war, male rapist and his victim, multiple wives and a female slave, viewing wives as property…and let’s not forget stoning non-virgins.
@38–If homosexuality is okay, why not polygamy? Why not bestiality? And there can be no logical bar to the goals of NAMBLA; after all, if a 14 year old girl can marry an adult man with her parents’ permission, then why not a 14 year old boy with an adult man, with his parents’ permission?
Is that really the society you wish to live in?
And please do not confuse Jewish law (from the Bible) with God’s law. They are distinct and separate. Indeed, there are many instances where the Jewish people angered God through their immoral behavior–almost always sexual in nature–and were punished accordingly.
Again, Mr. Koontz, this is not a debate about what your religious beliefs are. This is about every American being treated equally. As an attorney, your should have a better grasp on that whole “equal protection of the laws” thingy in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Obviously polygamy was already okay, and in some places, still is. That YOU compare gay rights to sexual perversion only shows your colors not convinces anyone of your credibility. Pedophiles and other sexual deviants have nothing to do with being homosexual. Nothing. Sadly 14 year old girls are “married” to old lechers on any given day in many places on this planet and some are simply bought and sold, again the straw man argument and the “equivalencies” you want to make are simple sophistry tied to your ideas of morality. You are as entitled to think as you do as we are, you are not entitled to impose your version of morality on any society that does not accept it. The only thing collapsing is the ignorance, incivility, inequality and discrimination that has been visited upon homosexuals for too long for no good reason.
@40–There is no federal constitutional right to same sex sodomy. Moreover, there is no federal constitutional right to same sex “marriage”.
As an attorney, I know that; so should every American.
@41–But same sex sodomy–homosexuality is a perversion, hence the comparison is apt.
But if you deem it not to be apt, where is the logical argument? Because if because you love someone, you are entitled to marry that person, make society accept that arrangement, etc., then why does love not make other arrangements similarly acceptable, and those persons entitled to societal acceptance?
Because if you say that only heterosexuals and homosexuals can marry, then your definition of marriage is as arbitrary as you claim the current definition of marriage is.
Well GFK…
The major flaw in your argument is taking the Bible to be the end all be all when it comes to trying to dictate how others live their lives.
First and foremost, the Bible is a book written by men…men who were just as subject to the foibles and prejudices of their time as many are today. Using the Bible as your weapon opens you up to a vast array of examples of injustice to the men and women. If you’re going to interpret the Bible in strict terms, you better be prepared for the consequences and frankly I don’t think you are (if you choose to believe in the document).
In my humble opinion, I think people take the Bible far too literally and take pieces of it out of context to suit their own selfish desires. That being said, I think if you take the document as a whole and if you’re capable of gleening any meaningful message from it, the message would be that you should treat others like you would like to be treated yourself…with love, dignity and respect for both the likenesses and the differences between and among us.
That discussion aside, your arguments are prime examples that you can cast great and wide generalizations about a group of people based on hearsay and mis-information. But if you want to get into the nuts and bolts of the matter, I guess it all boils down to sex and how straight people do it versus gay people.
Frankly, I don’t care how your spouse satisfies you and I really don’t think it’s any of your business as to how my partner satisfies me. That’s something that is between two consenting adults. I’m certainly not going to tell you how to get it on with your spouse.
If a gay couple somehow threatens your ability to have consensual sex with your spouse, then the problem doesn’t rest with the gay couple, it rests squarely on your and your spouse’s shoulders.
Straight people will continue to have sex and create children. A gay couple will have no impact on that process whatsoever. As for the children who grow up in a gay family, I don’t think there is enough evidence to support the notion that those kids somehow grow up any more mal-adjusted than kids that grow up in straight families. I know one thing…if I had a child you can bet your bottom dollar that they would be respectful of all people, well groomed, mannerly, courteous and caring. Those were the basic principles my parents instilled in me and they are still good today.
I actually feel sorry for people who put so much time and effort into the attempts to make gays and lesbians second class. It’s not working and for all the energy wasted, there could be so many other greater things for the common good accomplished with the same energy or perhaps with even less.
@41–And I am not trying to impose my view of morality on society. Society already agrees with me. It is YOU and your brethren who are attempting to impose your views on society. And you are angry at the pushback you are getting, and your resort is to call traditional society bigots and haters.
Let us be clear; it is the backers of same sex sodomy acceptance who are trying to impose their views and change society, and not the other way around. Society is just trying to protect itself from the harm that shall result from such an extension of immorality; just like with out of wedlock births.
You seem to be really hooked on this “same sex sodomy” issue. Seems like you are spending a lot of time and energy thinking about gay sex. Homosexual relationships are no more just about sex than heterosexual relationships are.
If your goal is to protect marriage,Mr. Koonts, then why not make divorce illegal? There are several statements in the Bible against divorce…or was that just one of those “Jewish laws” no one pays attention to?
@44–I fail to see how citing the Bible is a flaw in my argument given that we live in a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Now if I cited the Koran, Shintoism, atheism, or Buddhist teachings, that would be a flaw, to be sure; but the Bible, I do not think so.
And as I stated in response to Sandi Saunders, it is not I, nor the majority (vast majority) of society who are expending efforts to make anyone second class; rather, it is a vocal and unhappy minority who is demanding that the majority set aside their beliefs and value system in exchange for that of the minority. And the refutation and defeat of the minority’s effort is a fight worth fighting, and winning. And society is winning.
@46–Actually, homosexual relationships are, by definition, about same sex sodomy.
GFK…
You and your diminishing ranks are the ones who seem to believe that harm will be the result of recognizing gays/lesbians as a part of society.
Thankfully, the number within those ranks are shrinking and I for one believe its a good thing
I would say this just as quickly and respectfully to your face as I will type it here and now…
On this topic, Mr. Koontz, you are wrong to the depths of your soul and I will argue this to my very last breath. You may indeed be the “immovable object” but you have in fact met the “irresistable force”.
49 You don’t get to make up your own definitions for words. You are not engaging in reasonable discourse when you do that; you just turn all your posts into gibberish.
@49 “Actually, homosexual relationships are, by definition, about same sex sodomy.” So therefor heterosexual relationships are, by definition, about opposite sex sodomy?
@44 “we live in a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles”. I beg to differ. Just because we live in a nation of Christians, does not make this a Christians nation. And I think our founding fathers would agree:.
Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797. Article 11 states: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
The tenth president, John Tyler, in an 1843 letter: “No religious establishment by law exists among us.”
Madison wrote: “Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.”
@52–No. Heterosexuals may have normal sexual intercourse. Homosexuals may not.
Furthermore, you may differ. But this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and remains guided by them to this day. For which you should be glad, because it is those principles which permit the kind of disagreement and discussion that is present on this blog, and in society generally. You do not have these discussions in Islamic countries.
@50–As I say to you–Hate the sin, love the sinner. No one wishes you or anyone else ill; rather, it is just the opposite. I wish you nothing but good, consistent with the moral values of our Christians society.
Marriage laws already are and by their definition must be “arbitrary” to some extent. We decide the age, mental capacity, and sex of those who want to make this legal contract. We used to decide that different races could not marry, we used to allow very young people to marry, we used to require a blood test before a marriage license was issued. The only thing, we never require in this country is that religion or clergy be involved. This is a civil contract and license from the state and that is where the Constitutional guarantees will one day be used to set this right. I do not care who likes it, supports it, or considers it some especial sodomy act that heterosexual couples cannot perform, it will happen and it will happen sooner rather than later because it is only being held back because of ignorance, incivility, inequality and discrimination that has been visited upon homosexuals for too long for no good reason.
Anyone’s views on morality, Judeo-Christian founding, or simple Biblical adherence is just not our problem. Our Constitution does not give the government the right to discriminate against us in contracts and licenses for discriminatory purposes only and guarantees us all equal protection and application of laws. This is nothing but discrimination and religious bigotry.
“it will happen and it will happen sooner rather than later because it is only being held back because of ignorance, incivility, inequality and discrimination that has been visited upon homosexuals for too long for no good reason”
I wonder, is there any limit to what marriage should be?Is it descrimination to prevent polygamy for example,or marrying animals or inanimate objects.I mean uh,where would you draw the line?
@55–So you don’t care if marriage laws are arbitrary so long as they include homosexuals? Isn’t that admitting that your support is based–not on principles found in law and fairness–but in politics? No doubt if homosexuals were identified as a conservative Republican group, you would not support their quest.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
There is no legal basis upon which to force homosexual “marriage” down the throats of the American people. And the American people, every time they have been given the opportunity to vote on the matter, have rejected homosexual “marriage”.
Society wins, the Left’s radical fringe loses.
I cannot wait until after the November elections! Woo hoo!
@Jack McGuire: “I wonder, is there any limit to what marriage should be?Is it descrimination to prevent polygamy for example,or marrying animals or inanimate objects.I mean uh,where would you draw the line?”
Jack, this is a common – tired,even – refrain from people who oppose gay marriage. But it is a false argument. The fact is that, when it comes to same-sex marriage, the only difference with traditional marriage is the gender of one of the participants. This isn’t about marrying more than one person or about marrying an animal or an inanimate object. It is about making a lifelong commitment to the person you love. You get to do this. I get to do this. The only reason Will cannot do the same thing is because of the gender of the person he loves.
That’s discrimination, pure and simple. And it has no place in America.
One day, the nation will see that.
56 Jack Mcguire:
“I wonder, is there any limit to what marriage should be?Is it descrimination to prevent polygamy for example,or marrying animals or inanimate objects.I mean uh,where would you draw the line?”
It depends on what purpose marriage serves as a societal institution. At present, it seems to be generally regarded as a living arrangement between consenting adults, to enable them to support one another’s efforts at housekeeping, childrearing, having someone to represent their interests when they are disabled, etc.
The question of whether to include animals or inanimate objects in that kind of arrangement is a no-brainer.
Whatever purpose the law provides for that institution, whatever benefits it bestows on the participants, are fine as long as those benefits are available equally to all who want to participate. The discussion in this thread is not about marriage per se, but about equal treatment under the law.
I already said marriage laws are somewhat arbitrary and this is about discrimination not politics, there are gay Republicans as well as gay Democrats. Or did you not know that? After November, you will still be wrong and the laws will still discriminate against people for “being” not what you consider “the norm”. If that make your happy enough to cheer, enjoy it while you can.
@57: Minority rights should never be a majority vote.
@52: Why is a sex act performed between two people of the same sex different than the exact same act performed between two people of opposite sex?
@59 – WELL SAID!
“The only reason Will cannot do the same thing is because of the gender of the person he loves.”
If gender doesnt matter then why should species matter.Here again I ask,should there be any rules at all?
“The discussion in this thread is not about marriage per se, but about equal treatment under the law.”
Absoluely wrong,it is about “marriage per se”.No matter how you try to frame it.
Thank you Mr. Koontz for defending the Christian worldview on which our founding fathers (all but 4 of which were professing Christians and 20 had actually attended seminary) used to form our nation.
Well since Judge Tauro’s decision is about law, and not results, some of you shall be disappointed when his flawed ruling is overturned.
How did I know that GFK would twist his supposed beliefs around when it came to homosexuals? I know that basic W&L prejudice all too well, I guess.
@Jack McGruire: “If gender doesnt matter then why should species matter.”
Seriously? Ok, because only homo sapiens is capable of granting consent for such things. It’s the same reason age matters, only more so.
The lengths you guys go to in order to justify your bigotry is impressive.
Jack, you are a homophobe of the worst kind. That’s what this all comes down to and you make the case ever stronger with each keystroke.
GFK, is sodomy OK between opposite sex partners? I seriously don’t see how someone like you holds a law degree.
63, 67 There have been times when species didn’t matter. Genetic analyses show that Homo sapiens interbred with Homo erectus in East Asia about 30 000 years ago; there are persistent rumors that we are carrying some neandertal DNA; and there is evidence that early hominids interbred with ancestors of the chimpanzee, a million years after the two lines suppozedly separated.
Unfortunately, the fossil record did not preserve the marriage certificates — whatever a “marriage” would have looked like in those days….
@66–I twisted nothing. I am, if anything, remarkably consistent.
@67 – I agree! It seems that these “christian” people who oppose gay rights just sit around and think about what other people do in their bedroom, or having sex with animals and children. Who are the real perverts here?
All gays and lesbians want are the same and equal rights as every other American. It’s as simple as that! Again, this is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue. If you want to live in a country ruled by religion, move to the Middle East! Here in America, we have something called the 14th Amendment which guarantees “ALL PERSONS…the equal protection of the laws”. Maybe that needs to be amended to read: “All persons, except those icky gays”
Silent Bob, refer to comment 64 and move to some place in Europe where you can impose your beliefs on someone else.
One man’s “remarkably consistent” is another man’s unbelievably dogmatic. Using religion, supposed education of the founders “at seminary”, supposed Judeo-Christian underpinnings, or historical knowledge of the innate prejudice that is as embedded as liberty, is the supreme dogma that the Constitution and the American Revolution fought against. The people running from religious persecution and pressure did not then envision a nation that was codified such. The people fighting for liberty and justice for all (while mayhap believing it only meant those they approved of) has been the standard of this nation and the final nail in the coffin of such thinking was the Civil Rights Movement in this nation. The civil rights of gays to be included equally and completely into our society is the final legislative nudge that neanderthals among us will require. And it will come to pass. Not because only Liberals believe in this equity but because in the final analysis, it is what America is and many of us are tired of the sham of justice and equality only for some.
BWS, please refer to comment 52 for just a minute sample of comments from our founding fathers that show you are wrong.
@72….you have a lot of room to be talking about imposing your beliefs on others.
In this case, Christians want homosexual non-Christians to live by and abide by the Christian dogma…thereby forcing them to live by rules they don’t adhere to. From what I keep seeing, gays and lesbians are not forcing anything upon Christians, they’re simply asking to be granted the same legal rights. Christians would be in no way forced to alter, adapt, or change how they live, who they marry, how they practice, or anything of the sort. But Christians seem to always want everyone else to live exactly as they want…be they homosexuals, non-Christians, or anyone else. It’s plain as day.
I left out a word in my previous post…that should say ‘homosexuals and non-Christians’ in the first sentence. Oops.
If the Constitution guarantees a right to homosexual marriage, cite the section. If the Founders were enamored with so-called “gay rights” cite chapter and verse. Identify the Founder(s).
The fact is, that to call a refusal to REDEFINE marriage “discrimination” or “bigotry”, in order to accommodate persons whom the Founders would have executed for their behavior, is without historical or legal foundation or basis. Equal protection of the laws does not cover behavior; especially behavior historically and currently believed to be perverted and unnatural.
If you want to engage in same sex sodomy, or if women wish to become men, or men wish to become women, fine; do it. But don’t demand that society say, “Hey, that is okay and natural and right!”, because it is not. It is sick. Do not ask society to reassure you that your guilty pleasures and desires are blessed. Just be thankful that in modern America, you are not going to be imprisoned or executed for such behavior. There are a whole lot of places in this world where you cannot say that.
Let me get this straight. Our Judeo-Christian founders wrote the Constitution to fight against their own beliefs.
GFK seems to have forgotten that this is a secular, constitutional republic, not a Christian nation. Faith in God (and Christian theology) is just a personal opinion, not a basis for statutory law.
BWS, can you cite any examples of Christian principles in the U.S. Constitution? Just one will do.
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote “The sexual conduct in question is immoral, and has been since time immemorial. That some wish it were not so does not carry the day.”
——————————
Again you show history is not a topic you are familiar with:
Societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships have varied over time and place, from expecting all males to engage in same-sex relationships, to casual integration, through acceptance, to seeing the practice as a minor sin, repressing it through law enforcement and judicial mechanisms, and to proscribing it under penalty of death.
In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of Preindustrial Cultures, “strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon.” [132]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
Male love was encouraged in China, especially in the southern province of Fujian. Men would even marry youths in elaborate ceremonies. The marriages were long lasting. At the end of this marriage the elder partner would help the younger find a wife (of course female!) so that he can settle down to raise a family.
Now let’s have a look at West. Ancient Greece gives us the earliest western documents concerning same sex relationships. In ancient Greece, same-sex relationships were a societal norm. Certainly, these relationships did not replace marriage between man and woman, but occurred before and beside it.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-17-2004-56743.asp
Some historians have claimed that same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christian influence. In North American, among the Native American societies, it has taken the form of two-spirit-type relationships, in which some members of the tribe elect to take on female gender with all its responsibilities.
They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these two-spirit men.
In Africa, among the Azande of the Congo, men would marry youths for whom they had to pay a bride-price to the father. These marriages likewise were understood to be of a temporary nature.
The Hebrew Old Testament clearly indicates that King David had a sexual relationship with Jonathan, the son of King Saul. Much to the embarrassment of the Vatican, the Catholic theologian Boswell has uncovered proof that, up until the fourteenth century, the church was routinely performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. King James, who ordered the English translation of the Bible which bears his name, was a homosexual, a fact of which the translators were well aware. This fact displeased them, but since he was the king, they could not express their displeasure openly. Although on the surface, they were careful to be certain that their translation flattered and pleased the king, they also used it to attack him in a way he could not fight. (Source: National Gay Pentecostal Alliance, Lighthouse Apostolic Church, P.O. Box 1391, Schenectady, NY 12301-1391)
———————————————–
So, Time Immemorial? Only for those who choose to forget.
Bigotry, intolerance and hatred have always fueled this debate, and always will. People can disguise it as a “moral” stand, but in the end, just like with racism, the actual truth is simply the individual’s need to feel smug and superior while in reality it is simply being a bigot.
The good news is that GFK or others like him can’t tell me who to love nor how to love who I love.
I really do feel sorry for those of that ilk. They waste a lot of time and energy being bigoted and narrow minded in the worst kind of way.
I’m comfortable with where and what I am. I’d like to see equal treatment but the class system whether it be monitarily or lifestyle based is still alive in the minds of many.
Just glad to see those numbers are indeed shrinking.
GFK: Have you ever committed sodomy?
Seriously, do your “straw men arguments” win in a court of law or even a court of jesters? The same guarantees and protections for my marriage in the Constitution are the same ones that are discriminated against for gay people. There are not different laws and different protections, they are the same laws and the same protections with the only exception being the ignorance, incivility, inequality and discrimination that has been visited upon homosexuals by the zealots who believe that their religious objections should be codified and the beliefs of others should be ignored. That is not what America’s doctrine says, that is not what America’s doctrine means and that is not what America’s doctrine will be. America has never been what some of you pretend and it will never, ever be the land of discrimination again. The die is cast.
@ #79 BWS: Let me help you get this straight. Our Judeo-Christian founders, to the extent that they were so, wrote the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence to fight against their own beliefs or anyone else’s beliefs becoming the doctrine of the nation. Don’t take my word for it, read some history that has not been agenda driven. What exactly do YOU think this nation was founded on?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Now, if I wanted to be like the gun advocates, I would ignore the entire sentence and concentrate only on the part that says the government can establish no religion (meaning hold one above another), but I do not read documents that way. It also includes our right to worship as we please without government interference and all that other neat stuff we like to call “freedom of religion, speech, press, meeting and petitions for wrongs to be righted”. 5 precious rights in one Amendment with the guarantee that the government will NOT BE the tool of any religion. NONE.
In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court held that there was no constitutional right to polygamy. By logical extension, there is no right to a homosexual “marriage”.
A majority of Congress–Democrat and Republican–passed DOMA. Bill Clinton–a Democrat President–signed the legislation.
In our most liberal state, California, a majority of voters twice voted that marriage was between “one man and one woman”. The second vote–Prop. 8–was upheld by our nation’s most liberal state Supreme Court.
In the Commonwealth of Virginia, it is a Class 6 felony to commit an act of sodomy, which is a defining act of a homosexual union. Sorry folks, Lawrence v. Texas did not invalidate this statute, and it remains on the books to this date.
Every time the voters are asked, they reject the redefining of “marriage” to permit homosexual unions.
So . . . some folks can rant and rave and protest and hold their breath until their faces turn blue, but the vast—VAST–majority of this country at all levels reject the redefinition of marriage. We are not all bigots and haters, and frankly, it is not at all persuasive to your cause to use such language, even as you demand agreement with your position.
It is the homosexual minority who wishes to impose their belief system on a country whose morality rejects its very tenets. It is the homosexual minority which is intolerant and mean spirited, casting aspersions and castigating those with whom they disagree. The majority, while rejecting the homosexual agenda and lifestyle do not seek to oppress homosexuals; rather, they simply choose not to accept and approve of their behavior. That is hardly oppression; or is freedom of conscience, speech, religion and belief in order to accommodate the sexual mores of a distinct minority?
You are free to believe what you wish, and, in the privacy of your home, behave as you wish. But you have no right to demand that others approve and accept your beliefs and behavior.
Freedom is for everyone.
In my last post, that should have read, or is freedom of conscience, speech, religion and belief to be abolished in order to accommodate the sexual mores of a distinct minority?
Sorry; it is early.
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote: “In my last post, that should have read, or is freedom of conscience, speech, religion and belief to be abolished in order to accommodate the sexual mores of a distinct minority?”
——————————————-
Your freedom for anything ends when it impacts my rights or thye rights of anyone. You cannot pass a law dictating that I must live my life as you see fit. I don’t wanna go to your church, you cannot pass a law saying I have to. I don’t want to live with someone not compatible with me, nor do I wish to be alone, You cannot pass a law saying I have to.
You don’t have to accomodate anything – all you have to do is leave other folks alone to live their lives and enjoy the freedom of conscience, speech, religion without imposing your standards upon them. Who I live with, marry or sleep with is none of your concern. Whyere I go to church, or if I choose not to go to church is none of your concern.
When you state that the rights and privileges of being an American are only for those like yourself, then you are denying me the freedom of conscience, speech, religion you tout above,
The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, everything they stand for, if you believe in them, must apply equally to everyone or they are meaningless words, the height of hipocrisy.
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote: ” Every time the voters are asked, they reject the redefining of “marriage” to permit homosexual unions.”
——————————————
They are also opposed to inter-racial marriage, and the Civil rights act.
Just because a majority of voters want to deny others the same freedoms they enjoy does not make it right, nor does it make it moral – It just makes it, as Madison feared when it came to the rights of minorities, “rule by mob”
#89 Joe Mostowey
“You cannot pass a law dictating that I must live my life as you see fit.”
Ah, excuse me, but didn’t Obama and the liberal Dems just pass a law that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance whether it is wanted or not?
Suppose someone does not believe in medical science and does not want health insurance?
If this law is allowed to stand, Congress can require Americans to live their lives as it sees fit. There would be no limit to how the Commerce Clause of the Constitution could not be used to control our lives.
Perhaps you deliberately misunderstand. This is not an issue where we need to “make anyone understand” or “agree with” our position. Just as slavery was wrenched from the hands of the oppressors, just as women’s suffrage was wrenched from the hands of the oppressors, just as black American’s civil rights were wrenched from the hands of the oppressors, just as inter-racial couples wrenched the power of that decision from the oppressors, so shall the rights of homosexuals be wrenched from the hands of the oppressors. Not because it is what a “vast majority” believes, supports or desires, but because in the end, for people of good conscience, it is the only choice available to anyone not a complete hypocrite on the civil rights, obligations and privileges of this nation.
We are not asking for any special dispensation to marry multiple people, underage people or mentally incapacitated people. We are demanding the right to marry the person to whom we want to pledge our love, loyalty, property and future just as heterosexual couples do. That many of the people in this nation get that and do not confuse the issue with sexual perversion or morality of sexual acts (which are no different either), should not be lost on you.
How dare you compare this civil rights admission to bestiality, pedophilia or sexual perversion and then castigate us for calling out your bigotry, prejudice, ignorance and incivility while practicing complete and unlawful discrimination! That you have unmitigated gall is well documented, that you think it will pass unnoticed is not going to happen! You and those who think and speak like you ARE bigots, haters, and oppressors from whom power must and will be wrenched. YOU are the ones who have no right!
@85, 86, 89 and 90–THERE IS NO “RIGHT” TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE TO INCLUDE HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS–Cf. Reynolds v. United States.
@92–First, the majority are with me. Second, the Commonwealth of Virginia couples same sex sodomy with bestiality. I did not just make this up; it has been deemed (for a very long time) to be unnatural. And indeed, it is unnatural. Which is why the majority neither engage in it, or wish to bless it by redefining “marriage”.
The Constitution speaks to nothing about any form of marriage, heterosexual, homosexual, or polygamous. Judges have made rulings on the matter, but there’s nothing in the Constitution for or against any form of marriage, nor defining what role the government has in permitting or disallowing the sanctioning of a religious/spiritual union of a couple.
For me, I look at it this way: would my life change in any fashion if gay marriage is permitted or recognized? Let’s see…I would still wake up and go to work every morning. I would still be married to my wife, and I would still love her just as much as I do today. Our marriage would still be recognized just as it is today. We would still have the freedom to continue being married and express our devotion to each other. We would still have all the legal benefits and privileges of having a legally-recognized marriage. We would still be free to believe what we currently do today with no restriction on what we practice or how we practice. I simply don’t see how it changes anything, and no one has been able to present any evidence to the contrary.
Instead, I get told ‘society will be destroyed’ or ‘so when can someone marry their dog or horse?’ Get real, the arguments are weak and hold as much water as a sieve. And it shows the shaky sand-based footing of the opposition that they must resort to such absurd statements to try and make a point when they simply have nothing truly legitimate to say other than to try and demean or belittle the efforts. It speaks volumes.
THERE IS NO MOVEMENT TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE! There is only a move to guarantee the rights of homosexuals as citizens of this nation. The age requirement, the mental capacity requirement, nor any other “requirement” needs to be changed or even modified. Citizens who meet the requirements for a marriage license should be granted one and it is discrimination to not do so. All of the barriers to same gender marriage are an added deterrent not a requirement that has merit. Like it or not, you AND your majority are going down. Not nearly as soon as the enlightened people of this nation would like, but sooner rather than later.
Many things in the history of the world and this nation WERE defined as natural or unnatural and many many of those definitions have been obliterated, revised or remedied by the natural progression of mankind. Flat earth, unconsecrated burials for stillborn babies, slavery, women as chattel, child labor, company stores, Jim Crow, interracial marriage, inter-religious marriage. Signifying only that we can and do change as needed to accommodate, honesty, truth and knowledge. And we will yet again for gay rights.
@95–Forgive me, but it seems as if you maintain a very uninvolved and selfish view of the subject. That is, if it doesn’t impact you directly, you don’t care. Well no one can make you care, but I submit that you should care about things greater than your own comfort and personal happiness. I further submit that societal and cultural standards are among those things on which you should care. For example, I very much doubt that you are affected directly by abortion, but does that mean you should not care about the senseless murder of millions of babies each year? I thought liberals were supposed to care about others!?!
@96–If you permit a marriage other than between a man and a woman, then you are redefining marriage. Yes you are!
And this whole “discrimination” charge is awfully thin. “Discrimination” means simply to choose, and people discriminate everyday, including you. “Discrimination” is not inherently evil, though liberals do love to use it as a club to silence dissent.
As I pointed out yesterday, the Left already destroyed a huge hunk of society by removing societal stigmas against divorce and out of wedlock birth. The majority have now woken up and refuse to allow any further destruction of our society. You may practice your depravities in the privacy of your home as you wish, but you have no right or power to force the rest of us to bless your behavior.
Thanks for being a voice of reason, Other John.
To borrow from a bumper sticker for another cause: “Against Same-Sex Marriages? Don’t have one.”
Same sex marriage will not cause our society to crumble, but it may have a very positive impact on the economy. Anyone connected to the wedding and tourism industries – print shops, clothiers, caterers, hotels, gas stations, honeymoon destinations, etc. – would reap benefits and, by extension, so would the government from increased tax revenues from all those booming businesses!
Fighting this fight is like using your hands to tear down the great wall of China.
Bigots will be bigots and will hide their hatred behind distorted statistics, religion, politics, and every other reason before they will ever admit that it’s hatred that opposes the idea.
The only thing interesting are the “small government” proponents just begging the government to get big and interrupt people’s personal lives. They want small government for business needs that bring in money, and big government for personal needs that limit the rights of Americans.
Proving it’s all about greed.
@98–No doubt the legalization of prostitution would aid the economy also; should society promote that as well? After all, think of the tax dollars!
@97, thanks for showing how completely not-in-tune you are about the issue. You completely missed everything I just mentioned, and I see no real need to continue explaining things to you which your eyes and mind are closed to. But I appreciate you generally maintaining a civil tone unlike other folks who have come and gone from these pages before. I’m not at all uninvolved in the issue, I was simply expressing the absurdity of the argument against gay marriage by showing how it will not impact my life in any fashion, because it doesn’t…other than when I celebrate the joining of friends of mine in ceremonies not currently legally recognized. Further, I’m not a liberal. On this particular I absolutely lean liberal, but in an overall sense I’m more Libertarian than anything else.
JC, I try. There’s only a few issues that can really get me riled up and this is one of them, since I have close relationships with many people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered and many of them have been in long-standing committed relationships rivaling the longevity of many heterosexual marriages. Yet under the eyes of the law they are seen simply as 2 single people without the same legal recognition of their commitment to each other that my wife and I enjoy. And that’s something I feel is very much wrong and I will speak my mind about that until things change…and I will help to effect that change in every fashion that I am capable of undertaking.
Scott, you’re absolutely right. The pure left and pure right (Democrat v Republican) of the political spectrum both very much love big government when it suits their purposes. I would prefer smaller government in all senses. Let’s remove some government entanglement in business happenings and the economy to not restrict the potential for growth…but lets leave in place common-sense regulations to ensure that our environmental quality and way of life are not adversely impacted by shoddy business practices, for example. On the social front, let’s remove government entanglement in private matters like marriage and abortion, and leave the decision-making process up to the individuals involved who are most knowledgeable of their situation and best suited to decide the best course for themselves, not the government.
Isn’t it amazing how GFK can’t refute anything presented here?
He and his ilk like to call homosexuals “perverted” and “unnatural” but I propose to the masses that their very attitudes and bigotry are the most perverted and unnatural in the world.
I think we’re seeing the beginnings of the end of their opposition. They will clamour to every unreasonable argument they can to incite and infuriate…but it’s not working.
They’re like small children having a temper tantrum. I contend let them beat their heads on the floor. Sooner or later, they will learn the floor is harder than their heads.
I’m patient and the one thing that is stronger than their ignorance is our collective persistance.
Its sad that they believe that if a gay or lesbian couple is able to attain a civil union (I’m not particularly fond of the word marriage) that it will in some way diminish what they have with their respective spouses. If their marriage is that fragile, they have deeper problems that need to be addressed that are way outside the boundries of gay/lesbian marriage. They’re just to ashamed to admit it and will hang their excuses on anything they can to avoid their own problems.
But at the end of the day, they will have to answer whether or not they’ve treated everyone with the same degree of love, respect and dignity they themselves want to be treated with…and that my friends is where the shinola will probably hit the fan.
By all means, legalize prostitution! It IS the world’s oldest profession, so it’s not going to go away. The government might as well reap the benefit in tax dollars and the regulation of it could make it safer for all parties – prostitutes and customers alike! Everyone wins! (Except, of course, holier-than-thou, close-minded bigots passing judgment on things that do not impact them in any way.)
I will give you points for gall. Calling the discrimination claim “thin” is laughable. We are discussing discrimination in the context of civil and equal rights for ALL citizens. There is NOTHING thin in such an argument. The minority homosexual population of our society deserves to be allowed to participate fully and equally in this nation and they simply are not. That YOU may not consider it inherently evil is your opinion to have but only that.
Again, we are NOT REDEFINING MARRIAGE, we are not in fact doing anything to marriage at all except agreeing that the homosexuals in our society have been unreasonably discriminated against in not being allowed the same protections, rights and responsibilities as other couples in this nation. Nothing more and nothing less. You can use all the moral, historical, Biblical and personal animosity, denigration and disdain you personally have at your disposal till you are exhausted from the effort and the fact remains that you and others are using your own prejudice and bigotry to deprive citizens of their societal rights, protections and responsibilities because their sexual activity offends you and you consider them lesser. CLASSICAL civil rights violation behavior any way you slice it. Customs, laws and mores change as people become educated, enlightened and fair. That day is soon to be here.
And one more thing….
Living well is indeed the best revenge.
Yes #100 they should indeed. It is a business and it is one of the fairer and better among businesses when not abused by the “pimps”. Making Prostitution legal would go a long way to cleaning up the back alley pseudo-slavery rings that ply the trade with no protections for either the client or the “call-girl”. That is another of societies “public piety – private indulgences” that makes the effort a complete scam and a mockery of human activity.
Well, Scott, Sandi Saunders, Other John and Will all demonstrate that the Left believes in no standards; that is, there is no objective right and wrong, only morally relative views which change with time. Prostitution is okay, please ignore questions of infidelity, disease, and immorality. Same sex sodomy is okay, even though for thousands of years it has been condemned; forget that two men or two women cannot procreate, it is still natural because the Left say it is so! And as for the definition of “marriage”, apparently the Left views it as a “living word” just like it views the Constitution as a “living document”; that is, ignore the plain meaning of the word, and just make it mean whatever you wish it to mean. And if we [the Left]
change the meaning, it is not a redefinition, no, it is just bringing the word to mean what it already should have meant but for those bigoted, hateful right wing Christians!
Abortion, “free love”, single motherhood, homosexuality, divorce–the Left has had a free rein in wrecking society and aren’t the results grand? The only bigger failure on the Left is the so-called War on Poverty, which has led only to more poverty.
The majority has drawn a line. Not only will there never be a societal sanctioning of homosexuality, there will be a rollback against all the progressive societal “gains” that have ruined countless lies.
But the Left should not worry; those on the Right truly do believe in free speech, so Lefties will always be able to argue for their “rights”. But the days of unopposed success are over. Let’s get it on!
@107–errata–”countless lives”. Again, sorry.
How dare you profess to know what I believe in, much less have the temerity to interpret my comments as believing in “no standards; that is, there is no objective right and wrong“. You have no right and no call to assume any such insane notion. There most certainly are standards and they must be adhered to as they stand for what this nation espouses to be, and they must be applied EQUALLY, and they currently are not. There also is an absolute right and wrong of any action or activity, thought or word. That the right or wrong can change as a society grows and becomes enlightened is a compliment not a fear of falling off the earth. This is a change that betters mankind because it stops penalizing people simply for being. You have insulted, bullied and decried what you choose to call vile names and you have chosen to make this a personal debate instead of a group discussion. Your education and capabilities still boil down to the petty antics of a tyrant when things do not go your way. Because I do not believe as you deem appropriate I am open to your condescending insults and suppositions? Is that really the best defense you can mount?
Your actions and words here more than prove your own beliefs and belie your grasp for the high ground now. That the majority has been wrong many many times throughout history may be of no import to you. But it is tantamount to what this nation means to others. That minority rights, protections, and inclusion mean nothing to you is of no import to the tenants of our Democracy that ensure such for ourselves and our posterity. You are entitled to your own prejudice, bigotry and judgment on personal morality. You are not and neither is the “majority” for long, going to impose those strictures on the people of this nation. America moved forward in spite of opposition in the 1700′s and it will do so into perpetuity.
#109 – “How dare you profess to know what I believe in, much less have the temerity to interpret my comments…”
Why is it that you have done the exact same thing here many times?
The truth is that morality is relative and always has been. It’s relative to the time, the governing sets of beliefs (be they religious or law-based in nature), and the people who define it. Morals to a Hindu are a bit different than the morals that govern a Buddhist, and they’re different than the morals that govern a Christian. Heck, even within Christianity there are morality differences between the denominations such as between Lutherans and Baptists. There is no universal moral code. There are some similarities among the world’s religions, but none are identical, nor all-encompassing.
In our relatively recent past, it was perfectly acceptable for kids in their teens to be married, or at least betrothed, either to other kids their own age or to an adult far older than themselves. It was simply the accepted norm of the time. Today, such arrangements are not only unacceptable, they have been deemed to be against the law. Can anyone argue that such societal progression has brought harm to society or marriage?
Such is the same progression of recognizing unions of committed adult homosexual couples in the same light as committed adult heterosexual couples. Doing so will not sully marriage nor bring society to a crash. If nothing, it might even help reduce the incidence of divorce and infidelity when one spouse marries simply to satisfy familial or social expectations, but later accepts their sexual differences and winds up divorcing. There are thousands (probably more) such instances that occur constantly, just because one group’s set of morals over-reach onto the rest of society.
If we’re all completely honest about it, celebrities and athletes probably do far more harm to how society views marriages and committed relationships than the sum total of gay marriages could ever do. Look at any tabloid and the complete and utter mockery that is made of being married by many folks in Hollywood and that is probably a hundred times more destructive to the concept of getting married and actually carrying through with the vows of staying committed through all the good and bad, richer or poorer, etc. Just saying. I’ve got to move on though to other things for the day. But I will say thanks for the compliment of being grouped with Will, Scott, and Sandi. I would much rather be lumped with them than folks such as yourself, even though politically I have about as much in common with them as I do with you when you look at the broad spectrum of the issues. Have a wonderful day.
Patrick, that is also YOUR false interpretation, not what I have “announced”, although I might as well make all sorts of pronouncements as far as it gets me.
JC Wrote “By all means, legalize prostitution! It IS the world’s oldest profession, so it’s not going to go away. The government might as well reap the benefit in tax dollars and the regulation of it could make it safer for all parties – prostitutes and customers alike! Everyone wins! (Except, of course, holier-than-thou, close-minded bigots passing judgment on things that do not impact them in any way.)”
————————————-
They already have legalized the worst forms of prostitution – We refer to the practioners of such as Politicians and Lawyers – Of course, being one does not preclude you from being the other.
@109 and 111–There are moral absolutes, and they have stood the test of time. For example, the Ten Commandments.
@112–Patrick is right.
#112 – Oh, lord, I wish I had a search function…
@114, there you go again…citing an example that applies to a particular subsect of society, and not all of society.
And BTW, are you referring to the Ten COmmandments of the Jewish? Or of the Anglicans? Or of the Catholics? Or perhaps of Orthodox Christians? There’s even some level of disagreement there too as each set varies.
Oh Lord, I wish you did too. I am past sick and tired of your baseless and non-evidenced based accusations as well.
Patrick and Sandy: Enough of this squabbling. Any further comments from either of you not on the substance of this discussion will be deleted.
Other John:
Which of the Commandments are you against? Which of the Commandments could anyone be against?
How does not allowing the full and equal protection of (“your neighbor”) homosexual rights and privileges mesh with the Ten Commandments (of any stripe)? Loving thy neighbor, means supporting them as your equal under the law, society and under the aegis of Christianity.
Going with the Anglican version, I’m not in favor of 1-4 since I’m not Christian. 5-10, I’m ok with (honoring the parents, no murder, no adultery, no stealing, no false witness, and no coveting of the neighbors wife). I try to not violate 3 though, I think it’s disrespectful to swear using any reference to God…regardless of religious beliefs. In my review of other religions, Commandments 5-10 are about as close to universally accepted among them as you can get to finding some commonalities shared among all…particularly murder, stealing, and bearing false witness. In some religions (non-Abrahamic), homosexual relations are not prohibited or looked upon negatively and are celebrated to the same degree as a heterosexual relationship. Updating the law to such a degree would not prohibit Christians from continuing to exercise their stance against sanctioning or approving of homosexual relationships…you’d still be free to practice in your fashion as you are now. That’s undeniable.
If the world was a moral absolute, we never would have stopped burning witches at the stake, or stoning people to death and living eye for an eye.
Moral Evolution occurs whether or not you want to believe it does, Glen. There is no such thing as a black and white, right and wrong scenario.
I believe our government discriminates against same sex marriage simply because of money. If say, 10% of the population is gay and would marry, then there’s another 10% strain on the system in terms of medical benefits, Tax breaks, etc.
I also believe Marriage is given tax breaks and limited to between a man and a woman because of the children such produce. Thus, prepetuating a American nation built on native sons and daughters so to speak.
The same happened to the Roman Empire. As the citizens became rich and enjoyed more lesiure time, the birth rate dropped. So, Caesar decreed tax breaks and benefits to couples having babies. History repeats itself.
Thus IMHO, the religious arguement about marriage being a sacred bond between a man and a woman is hogwash. It’s just about the money. I say it’s time to move forward and grant gays the right’s straight folks enjoy. But, at the same time I would cut the tax breaks on being married. There’s far to many unhappy folks married because of the tax breaks and the money, so grant gays the right to be married, but take the tax breaks away from everybody.
Everybody happy? I thought not…
But in terms of the no murder Commandment, I need to clarify. I’m in favor of the death penalty and I’m supportive of military actions in most circumstances that our troops have been used in our history. To many people, those situations exemplify a violation of that Commandment. I do not see it that way.
I still want GFK to answer my question. He is soooo concerned with “homosexual sodomy” and I want to know if he has ever engaged in sodomy of any kind.
If the answer is no, then I won’t believe him. If the answer is yes, then I wonder what the difference is between hetero and homosexual.
My guess is he is not going to go there.
@122–Read Leviticus 18:22. Moreover, do you really love your neighbor if you turn a blind eye to his evil ways? Or is it a greater demonstration of love to help your neighbor return to the straight and narrow?
@123–The District of Columbia’s treatment of the Catholic Church has readily demonstrated that religions shall not be free to practice their beliefs if those beliefs conflict with liberal, homosexual dogma.
@125–While your advocacy of redefining marriage is misguided, I am pleased to endorse your other suggestion to eliminate all federal benefits for married couples. Let us eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and preferential tax treatment. And to be fair, we must also eliminate federal benefits for single people, including not just those listed above, but WIC, food stamps, student loans, job training, etc.
I wonder when all the freebies are gone just how loud the homosexual lobby will cry for the “right” to marry. My guess is that it shall be akin to the “Sound of Silence”.
Excellent suggestion!
GFK-Let’s not forgt to add corporate welfare to the tax incentives we are going to cut.
@128, can you explain the DC issue and provide a link to it? I’m unaware of what it is you’re referring to.
128 Are you talking about this:
——————
Monday, February 22, 2010
By Laura Wright, Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) — Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington closed its 80-year-old foster care and public adoption program in the District of Columbia so the agency would not have to violate church teaching by licensing same-sex couples as foster or adoptive parents.
—————–
If they wanted to provide that service, all they needed to do was comply with the law. Apparently, they’d rather continue their bigoted practices. That is their choice. Their religious freedom has not been affected in any way.
Since I do not consider homosexuality to be “an evil”, I would have no need or desire to “help” a gay person “return to the straight and narrow”. Yes it takes a great deal to love a neighbor you do not agree with and more to love a neighbor you consider wrong, but that was the charge not “fix your neighbor you judge to be in need of it”. What other parts of Leviticus do you insist society adhere to, or are you “selective”?
@129–Without question.
@131–The Catholic Church and its related charities’ arms do not practice bigotry. And I warrant that the true losers in D.C. (and Mass., I forgot to include that state of “liberty”) are the recipients of the charities’ services. But hey! So long as political correctness is preserved, who cares?
@132–Ah, but it is a common Christian tenet to aid and “fix” the wayward. It is hardly a kindness to watch someone walk off a cliff without so much as a warning.
If we’re going to quote and live by Leviticus,
I’m sure you’re ok with owning slaves then, as it states in Lev 25:44
Also, no more shrimp crab or lobster, for it is forbidden in Lev 11:10
One of my favorites is where it says that blind people, or anyone with a blemish ought not approach an altar of god. Lev 21:17 – 20 I guess I’m lucky I don’t wear glasses anymore as God Invented Lasik.
Glen, also, I’ve seen your picture… Lev 19:27 You haven’t been letting your hair and beard grow as it states in Leviticus.
The point:
Let’s drop Leviticus as a reason to do anything unless we live 100% literal versions of the bible… and if we’re doing that, there’s going to be a whole lot of people whom work on Sundays getting killed in the name of Exodus 35:2.
Persistence people…persistence.
GFK’s number are dwindling…albeit slowly. He’ll have to face his maker and decide if he’s lived according to his Bible.
At the end of the day…I don’t care about what happens regarding the global issue. People like GFK can’t dictate to me who to love and how to love them.
My guess is that is ilk would be the type that I encountered a good number of years ago when I openly and enthusiastically admitted that I hugged and kissed my father when greeting him after an extended absence or when getting ready to leave him for an extended period of time. That action was as natural to me as breathing but you’d have thought that I had taken a shot at the Pope to listen to some people exclaim their squeemishness (sp) as to that activity.
Those are the people that have the hardest time with the issue of homosexuality. They don’t know how to love and consequently they will continue to deride and denegrate those of us who do.
I pity them.
@134–As I’ve stated before, there is a great difference between God’s law and Jewish law. Your citations are to Jewish law.
And my picture is lousy; it was taken when I was quite ill, and I’ve never had it redone. But it would look much worse with shaggy hair and a beard.
@135–I do not dictate to you; never have tried. Indeed, it seems that you are the one who wishes to dictate. You wish to dictate the redefinition of marriage. You wish to dictate that no one disagree with your behavior. You wish to dictate a remake of morals that have existed throughout time.
No one is bothering you. Why do you wish to bother others?
Hummm….
So now the Jews have it wrong too????
A picture is worth a thousand words.
So, where in Leviticus does Jewish Law end and God’s law begin? Is there some sort of delineation? I must have missed that part.
@139–Read carefully, and you will achieve understanding!
I think it’s pretty obvious that GFK has run out of any meaningful dialogue where this subject is concerned.
I am honored to be among such distinguished posters as Sandi, Other John, Scott, Ed H, Saintbridge. You provide encouragement to many who may not necessarily have as loud a voice as do I…and I’m a quiet and understated poster as many of you know…NOT!
We will overcome the obsticles one day…sooner rather than later.
I would still welcome the chance to debate Mr. Koontz face to face on this issue. I think the outcome would surprise even him.
Mr. Koontz, please explain to us the difference between Jewish law and God’s law. I thought the entire Bible was Gods law? If Leviticus is Jewish law then why use it to condemn homosexuals? Why even include it in the Bible at all? If you are referring to the old-covenant/new-covenant, then I would suggest you take a look at Matthew 5:17-18 where Jesus says: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law…I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
Jesus never said a word about homosexuality…but He had plenty to say about people whose righteousness drives them to hypocrisy and condemnation of others.
@141–It might be you who is surprised.
I have plenty to write still, but frankly I have wearied of being called a bigot and a hater and close minded, etc. I would welcome any substantive legal arguments–after all, the subject is a legal case–but none has been forthcoming. I would even welcome some moral reasoning from the other side, but again, all I have read is that I am a bigot, a hater, and close minded, etc.
If anyone has anything new to say, I am pleased to respond.
#143 – “…all I have read is that I am a bigot, a hater, and close minded, etc.”
Welcome to the club, Glen. Your membership card is in the mail
Ok Mr. Koontz, explain to us, without any reference to religion (since this is a civil/legal matter)why gay and lesbian Americans do not deserve the same and equal rights as straight Americans.
#145 – Until the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is changed, OSB, gays and lesbians have the same exact rights as straight Americans.
In a nutshell GFK…this is where I stand.
You and people of your ilk who continue to promote the degredation of me and people like me are bigots, narrow minded and ultimately a hater of their fellow man/woman.
The law was written by man (just like the Bible, by the way) and some laws are just plain wrong. Is every law wrong? No…but some are and ones the promote the degredation of gays and lesbians are among those that are wrong.
Just because you may have law on your side doesn’t make it right either morally, ethically or spiritually.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or in your case a prudent jurist to figure that out. You challenge laws all day long on behalf of your clients.
@145–See my posts 3, 6, 79, 87 and 88.
#147 – What laws promote the degredation of gays and lesbians?
Seriously, I’d like to know.
@147–I do not promote the degradation of anyone. I have tried to make a point that I love sinners, but hate the sin. I have never called you a name. I have actually wished you well.
And in turn, you have [again] degraded me. There cannot possibly be any merit to my claims or beliefs. Clearly Christianity is but a hate cult. And a promotion of the law as it is signifies a closed mind. My historical knowledge is wrong, though no one has pointed out where it is incorrect.
I am not sorry that I believe in God and his laws. And I am not sorry that I do not believe that the Constitution is a living document. Indeed, I am thankful that I maintain the knowledge and beliefs that I have.
It is okay to disagree. There is nothing wrong with disagreement. But if you think you can win a debate with me, or with anyone, you have to have more on your side than just disagreement.
“all I have read is that I am a bigot, a hater, and close minded, etc.“. Well Mr. Koontz if you, for even a moment think that the insults and name calling has only been one-sided, I suggest you use those “Christian” eyes of yours to read the posts here again! The following is just through the first 50 posts, so how about you lay down that “woe is me” facade and admit that your own argument here has been less than stellar, empirical or above reproach:
“homosexuals demand that the rest of society recognize and approve their perverse and unnatural conduct.
moral relativism does not equal intelligence, civility, equality and egalitarianism. The sexual conduct in question is immoral
This is all about the legitimization of same sex sodomy and the denigration of traditional Christian moral values. Civilization itself is at stake.
Homosexuality is a sin
there are standards of morality and civilized behavior, and same sex sodomy falls below those standards
Women having children out of wedlock is immoral. Nevertheless, the Left worked hard to legitimize such behavior. And what has that gotten us? Higher poverty rates, broken families, higher crime rates committed by boys from fatherless families, abortions, teens having sex, teens having babies, and women who behave as if their bodies were public utilities.
So now we should legitimize same sex sodomy
I suggest to you that those who protest same sex sodomy have plenty of faith, and plenty of life experience that allows them to understand what happens when you abandon all standards of morality and civilize behavior.
If homosexuality is okay, why not polygamy? Why not bestiality? And there can be no logical bar to the goals of NAMBLA
same sex sodomy–homosexuality is a perversion
Society is just trying to protect itself from the harm that shall result from such an extension of immorality; just like with out of wedlock births“
Patrick…
I’m not even going to entertain such a redundant question. Get yourself a good search engine and have at it.
GFK…
What you have is a belief in something man created. I’m delighted for you that it gives you some strength when you need it. I don’t believe that the same God would condone the discrimination that the laws written by man condone. Jesus, as another poster wrote, never once condemned a homosexual (at least in what has been published as his words in the Bible). But modern day man seems to thrive on such.
At the end of this thread (and I’m finished here), whether I am in a committed relationship with my same sex partner or whether you are married presumably to opposite sex partner, one should have no bearing on the other (either legally or otherwise). Allowing gays/lesbians to have the same marital rights as straight couples diminishes nothing but in my opinion strengthens the meaning of the term.
You say I need more on my side than disagreement. I have a lot on my side…but one thing that is irreversable by you or anyone else is the love that I feel for my partner and the fact that I would like to be able to have the same rights and privileges afforded to him as my spouse as you presumably are afforded in your “marriage” to your spouse without having to jump through multiple hoops to get there (not to mention the added expense). And to be certain, until the laws change, there are certain advantages that we will never be able to attain regardless of the hoops we jump through today.
I’m not for one moment worried about the end of the world because I love my partner. It’s a shame that not more straight couples worry about loving their partners for more than just the notion of appearance and convenience.
So to one middle aged, opinionated, stubborn, pig-headed man to another…good luck. You’ll need it.
Sorry you think it’s a redundant question, Will..I asked it in all seriousness.
@151–Everything I wrote concerned behavior. And interestingly enough, some of it that you cite was written in response to you writing that I, and others, were bigots, haters, etc. The difference is that I differentiate between unacceptable behavior and the person. On this blog, I do not know the person; but I do know the behavior. And my views are the mainstream and majority.
@152–I have never questioned your love or devotion to another human being. I am sure that your commitment is sincere.
But please note, if you had not informed me that you were a homosexual, I would not know it. It is not I who is trying to mandate or impose on you; you are the one demanding change. And I am sure that you believe that your change is a positive one. I, and the majority of others, disagree.
As for the Bible, Jesus and the subject of marriage, try reading Matthew 19:4. There were no same sex “marriages” in the Bible. And for good reason; the very notion contradicts God’s law and plan.
Good luck to you. I hope that you do not need it.
Seriously, you think you can insult the behavior and not insult the person? You think you can demean the actions and not demean the person. Is that some legalese used on the simple minded? That is akin to saying, you can’t help being a sodomite because you are not capable of controlling yourself, but I have nothing against you personally. Do you seriously not see the offense or is it OK when your “beliefs” are challenged to insult and demean but you think yourself capable of doing so without giving offense?
Well, I asked a question that went unanswered. Instead I was directed to “read more.”
I’m beginning to believe that ultimately, what we’re experiencing here, is what we experience in this argument all over the country. We’re experiencing a selective interpretation of the bible. That it’s ok to take one verse and go extreme literal but then completely ignore other parts, or interpret it so that it fits our political beliefs.
When asked why this hypocrisy occurs, no clear answer is ever given. With blinders on, the response is always just “READ THE BIBLE, IT SAYS IT RIGHT THERE” but nobody can ever explain it.
The simple fact is, the same book of the bible says the things I said above, it says man ought not lay with man and it also says that anyone works on Sunday shall be put to death. One is one that the American Public tends to agree with, and one we would almost universally find reprehensible. Even those that observe the strict sabbath and do no work.
It’s hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Now Glen, if you’d like to use your theological background to explain why you can be so strict over one verse of Leviticus and completely ignore the others… I’m happy to hear it, but I certainly don’t expect it.
154 “It is not I who is trying to mandate or impose on you”
Who do you think you’re kidding?
All your crocodile tears of sympathy for a gay’s love and devotion to his partner are not going to wash away your blatant defense of this vile and immoral law that prevents him from fulfilling it.
@155–Well let us not then condemn any behavior. If people wish to murder, rape and pillage, let us not pass judgment. Want to sit on your posterior all day, throwing dice, drinking beer, and drawing a government unemployment check? No problem, who are we to judge?
And who are you to judge my comments–a form of behavior? That’s not consistent with your own admonition!
No, the truth is that there is a difference between condemning behavior and condemning people. I correct my employees daily; I do not fire them. I correct my 5 year old daughter [constantly]; I still love her. My wife and I disagree on things, and we still love each other.
There is a difference. And there is a right and there is a wrong. Everything is not equal, fine and hunky dory. It just ain’t so!
@157–The concept of marriage is immoral? Gee, what do you say to that?
And I do not cry crocodile tears, thank you very much.
#151 – Reading the quotes you provided, I see no instance of GFK calling anyone names.
@154 – Matthew 19:4 only stated that God created man and woman. It says nothing about marriage….same-sex or opposite-sex.
As far as your statement that there are no same-sex marriages in the Bible:
Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describes the relationship of Ruth and Naomi, and ironical, is often read at religious marriage ceremonies today. Also note that in Ruth 1:14, it states that Ruth “clave” unto her. The original Hebrew word translated as “clave” is identical to the word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe heterosexual marriage.
Passages in I and II Samuel describe the bond between David and Jonathan. I Samuel 18:2 again echoes Genesis 2:24. II Samuel 1:26 has David expressing his love to Jonathan: “Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.”
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz and Daniel’s relationship. The original Hebrew used the words “chesed v’rachamim” to describe their relationshipm which translates to “mercy and physical love”.
Well now you have made David into a homosexual; and I thought I had heard everything!
But I do not despair, as you either did not understand Matthew, or you purposefully misrepresented the passage. The passage states:
“Have you not read that He who made[a]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
How you could surmise that this had nothing to do with marriage is beyond me. It would also be beyond the understanding of my parish priest, as this was one of the readings at my own wedding.
And Ruth and Naomi were not lesbian lovers. Good grief!
@OSB #161: And here I thought David was just a polygamist.
@162 – “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Yet divorce is legal?
BTW…It is well known that King James, who commissioned the Bible that you often quote, was a homosexual.
King James was not a homosexual.
And the version I “quote[d]” was not from the King James version of The Bible.
And God did not legalize divorce, man did, starting with the State of California.
There are 2 good reasons for divorce–adultery and physical abuse. Today, however, with the proliferation of no-fault divorce, all you have to do is be unhappy and voila! there is a process for ending your marriage.
The problem with marriage, as with most of society’s problems, is a lack of maturity; that is a lack of commitment to your vows and your family. It’s hard, and you don’t feel like trying, and don’t you deserve to be happy? Well, actually, no you do not. You are obligated to meet your commitments.
The same thing with abortion and single motherhood. Abortion is necessary, what about the unwanted children, etc., etc., etc.? Well what about not having sex until you are married? OH THE HORRORS!
And as to homosexual conduct, well it is what makes them happy, don’t they deserve love too, and how does it affect you? Again, there is a right and a wrong. Just because you want to do something does not mean that you should do it. Life is not supposed to be a self-centered exercise, where every desire is fulfilled. There are obligations, commitments, and the concepts of right and wrong. Regrettably, in today’s society, that is considered bigoted, hateful, backwards and cruel thinking. Which is why our foundations are crumbling at an alarming rate.
@165 – King James’ favorite male lovers were the Earl of Somerset and the Duke of Buckingham. – Ben Edward Akerly
James’s sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying “King Elizabeth” had been succeeded by “Queen James.”
- Catherine D. Bowen, The Lion and the Throne
King James 1 was a known homosexual who murdered his young lovers and victimized countless heretics and women. His cruelty was justified by his “divine right” of kings.
- Otto J. Scott, James the First
At the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his cousin Esmé Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox.
When James inherited the English throne from Queen Elizabeth I in 1603, it was openly joked of the new English monarch in London that “Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen!” If there is still any doubt, it should be noted that George Villiers, also held an intimate relationship with King James, about which King James himself was quite open. King James called Villiers his “wife” and called himself Villiers’ “husband”! King James died in 1625 of gout and senility. He is buried in the Henry VII chapel in Westminster Abbey, with one of his favorite male suitors on his right, and another on his left.
“Which is why our foundations are crumbling at an alarming rate.”…Remember, the rise of Christianity was one of the main reasons Rome fell.
Homosexuality and other self indulgences were the cause of Rome’s fall.
Now, as long as we are engaging in historical fiction, tell us about Lincoln’s homosexuality too.
#165 Please show us your evidence, GFK, that King James definitely was NOT homosexual, or at least bisexual. There’s no question at all that he really, really liked some guys, and in fact early in his life others around him were so concerned about James’ infatuation with guys that they imprisoned James and made the future Earl of Lennox leave Scotland. Yes, he married and produced 7 children, but…
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote “And God did not legalize divorce, man did, starting with the State of California.”
——————————————-
Really, Glen? Really, Really?
Legal divorce began as early as the sixteenth century in Europe as a firm rejection by Protestant leaders against Catholic institutions, such as marriage. And while the Protestants supported the legal proceedings of divorce and claimed that Catholic divorce-equivalents, such as annulments that were primarily used to break off bigamous relationships, were easy to obtain, very few married couple ever filed for divorce or annulments. Soon after, however, the granting of divorce began emerging from secular sources of power in Switzerland and later the U.K. The cases for divorce during this time were based on some fault of the defendant, though the guidelines were described in religious terms, such as from the Bible.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/The-History-Of-Divorce-In-The-US/971637
Divorce regulation was first introduced by the Code of Hammurabi in ancient Babylonia.
In 1701 the state of Maryland in the United States declared divorce legal.
http://molly.kalafut.org/marriage/divorce.html
It appears that historically, You’re still 0 for 0.
@167 – I would hardly call books written by historical biographers “fiction”
And there are several accounts of Lincoln’s homosexual tendencies based on evidence ranging from a post-assassination interview with Lincoln’s stepmother to a poem about gay marriage that he wrote.
While we are on the subject of history, it is interesting to note that among early Christian church liturgical documents, we can find ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” (10th and 11th century), and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).
One Greek 13th century rite, “Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union”, invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to “vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants, the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints”. The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded”.
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
@169–I was referring to the current system of divorce on a whim; I apologize for my failure to better articulate my thought. HOWEVER, my basis premise was solidly correct–divorce is a creation of man, not of God. Really.
@170–What historians? And maybe everyone is a homosexual, who knows? Certainly neither King James nor President Lincoln can now deny it. Maybe Washington, Franklin and Adams all enjoyed a nice menage a trois before gaining independence from Great Britain! Yeah, that is probably what happened.
The so-called Christian examples you cite are actually departures from Christianity and God’s law. Indeed, I cannot fathom why you chose to go so far back in time, when you could have cited the Episcopal Church, wherein some dioceses have openly homosexual clergy, and same sex union blessings. But these too, are not examples of Christian endorsement of homosexuality; rather, they are examples of Christians’ departure from their own faith and God. And it is sad; certainly nothing to trumpet or celebrate.
@171 – “The so-called Christian examples you cite are actually departures from Christianity and God’s law. ” Seems to me that anything that does not fit into YOUR view, is wrong.
The reason why I cited the early historical references to the same-sex unions was because, based on your comment (@162) you mentioned a parish priest, so I assume you are/were Catholic, and these are examples from the early foundations of your own belief system.
@172–No, something that departs from its own foundation is wrong. If the Congress were to pass a law abridging freedom of speech, that would be wrong, and not an example of Constitutional authority. If a man had an affair that would be wrong, not an affirmation of a new kind of marriage. And if Christians abandon God’s law and plan, that is wrong, not a revision or affirmation of a new testament.
And I am a member of the Episcopal Church.
@173 – but aren’t laws against gay marriage abridging “the privileges…of citizens of the United States; …the equal protection of the laws.” as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?
174 No, Koontz <sarcasm>agrees with Voltaire</sarcasm> that the law is equal, as long as it prohibits the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges and stealing bread.
@174–No. Neither the equal protection clause nor the privileges and immunities clause requires that laws be rewritten in order to satisfy the whims of certain persons. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, a male homosexual is free to get married, he just must marry a woman. He cannot marry another man, a goat, or his favorite Barbara Streisand DVD. And that is because marriage is between one man and one woman.
@176 – So a male homosexual is free to marry a woman, whom he does not love, has not spent years in a committed relationship with?….and how is this protecting marriage? Reminds me of a New York lesbian who, in June, was denied a marriage license between her and her partner, yet was issued one on the spot between her and a complete stranger who was at the courthouse at the same time. All gay and lesbian American want is the right to be able to have a productive family, to be able to provide health insurance for them, to be able to make sure they are taken care of in the event of a death, to be able to make medical decisions for them…I would hope these are the same things you want for your family, Mr. Koontz.
And comparing same-sex relationships to bestiality, and this is not your first time, just shows how ignorant you really are.
Mr. Koontz, it is clear that you are too closed-minded to listen to anyone else’s opinion or ideas…I see your brainwashing was a complete success.
Enjoy your life of homophobia, racism, and ignorance….and I will enjoy my life of love, freedom, equality, and happiness.
@177…OtherSilentBob
Be patient my friend. I don’t know your age but I sense your passion. As admitted in earlier posts on this thread, I’m 54 years old and grey as a ghost (but at least I still have all of it!) but I still have confidence that we will prevail. We’ve already come a long way.
Be persistant and informed. The arguments that I’ve seen here both for and against have for the most part been as civil as I’ve seen.
While I do not agree with Mr. Koontz on a host of levels regarding his interpretation of religion, love, life and equality…he is free to have those interpretations. Where the rub occurs is when he and others like him impose their interpretations on others (including me).
My contention is a simple one and does not bring forth the notion of beastiality, polygomy, prostitution, drug dealing, gambling, infidelity or any other extreme behavior that some try to associate with homosexuality. As a gay man, I should have the right to obtain a civil union with my consenting gay male partner. Along with the civil union should come the same tax, health, right to life and right to care for benefits that follow a straight couple when they receive a government sanctioned marriage license.
Religion (Christianity specifically, if you agree with Mr. Koontz) seems to be the roadblock. I am perfectly happy if on a religious platform, you want to engage in marriage as one man and one woman…but on a civil platform, the rights of homosexuals should not be denied.
I use the phrase civil unions because I do respect the institution of marriage for religious beliefs and don’t want to infringe upon that notion. At the same time though, if homosexuals are allowed to engage in civil unions, the world will not come to an end and all the behaviors that Mr. Koontz has alluded to will not enjoy an exponential increase in activity or participation as a result. To imply such is shear lunacy at its best.
I do not view myself as some kind of moral deviant because I am gay. I respected and loved my parents, cared for a sibling with cancer, help my friends and neighbors as need be, pay my bills…all the things that most other people do with one slight twist.
I was created presumably in the same fashion that every other human being on this planet was created. I happened to be created as a gay man even though I tried living the lie that I was straight. Thankfully, I realized the road that I was going down when trying to be straight was going to be filled with lots of lies and unhappiness for my fiance’ as well as myself.
The thought of not being honest with those I cared about as well as myself was wrong on all levels; therefore, I decided to be honest with myself and my family and it was the best decision that I’ve made in my life. I know that there are others who have not been as fortunate as I was to have family and friends like I have.
We will prevail…perhaps not through loud screaming and shouting but through quiet contemplation and sincere dialogue. There will always be those naysayers…but I welcome them so as to educate and open their eyes as well as their minds.
@177–You asked a question, and I answered it. You may not like the answer, but it is the answer to the question you asked.
There is no such thing as homophobia. Look up the meaning of a “phobia” and you will understand my point.
How nice, though, that in response to a answer of a legal question, you were able to ascertain that I am an ignorant racist. Thank you for your insight.
@178–You are indeed free to seek the legislative solution you seek in any state in which you reside. Perhaps you shall be successful, perhaps you shall not. Certainly in Virginia, absent a Constitutional revision, you shall not. I wouldn’t hold out a lot of hope for Alabama either.
But in California, it happened. And Vermont. And if those folks wish to adopt such a policy, and live that way, it is for them to decide. On that level, my biggest complaint would be those who demand that Virginia do what California did; if you like California so much, live there. I prefer Virginia (though winters in California are much more pleasant).
It is the beauty of our Founders’ vision of federalism. Will and his partner can reside with like minded folks in California, and those who disagree can live in Virginia. Or somewhere else.
This is the United States. There is no need for national sameness. Do what you wish where you can, and let others be, as they will be.
phobia: noun:
1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.
Source: http://www.dictionary.com
Take that for what it’s worth.
@181–No. 1 is the accepted medical definition. And I, and others, are not afraid, rationally or irrationally, of homosexuals. We just find their acts repulsive. I have the same aversion to pedophilia, bestiality, etc.
And if a mere strong dislike of something is a “phobia”, then everyone suffers from them, and we are going to have to invent a lot more names. What should we call the phobia where children do not like vegetables? Or soccer; I really, really dislike soccer. And the French. Is that a phobia too?
Therein lies the biggest flaw in your argument Mr. Koontz.
Whether I am living with my partner in Virginia (which I have), Alabama (which I currently do) or California (which I hope to retire to) it should and really doesn’t make any difference to straight couples in those or any of the other 47 states of the union.
Me and my partner having a civil union enjoying the same tax benefits, health insurance benefits and other benefits afforded straight married couples will not cause the benefits to go away. As a matter of fact, it may indeed reduce the cost because you’re spreading them over a larger base.
It shouldn’t affect how you and your wife are intimate with each other (if it does, theres a more serious problem). Property values generally increase because most gay/lesbian couple improve the quality of their real estate.
All in all…I’d say that there is a certain phobia associated with homosexuals but I believe it’s more from within than outside of most people. They haven’t been taught how to love and they have learned exclusionary behavior from an early age.
But as I said before…persistance pays dividends and I am confident that Virginia (who is for lovers) will wake up as well as the rest of the country. Alabama will probably be last…LOL
@183–It is not a flaw in my argument; rather, it is a flaw in your expectations.
Marriage has been around for thousands of years, defined as it is today. You have only been on this Earth about a 1/2 century, yet you expect every jurisdiction to cater to your whims and desires? It does not work that way.
The folks in Virginia have lived a certain way since its beginnings. The folks in Virginia recently reiterated in loud legal fashion that they wish to continue on that path. The folks in Virginia have the right and authority to make that choice, which is grounded in law, morality and religion going back to the very beginning of time. WHO ARE YOU to say that they are wrong, and that something is wrong with them?
Is it not enough that you are permitted in this country to live in a way for which in other countries you would be tried and executed in a most painful fashion? Is it not enough that you live in a country where you have the freedom to live amongst others who agree with you? MUST EVERYONE AGREE WITH YOU in order for you to be whole, happy and free?
Please, do not ever accuse the traditionalists of ever trying to impose anything upon you. You are the one who is trying to impose upon a resistant society something which it has repeatedly rejected.
Glen Franklin Koontz:
You have declared repeatedly, persistently, that you believe homosexuality is “harmful” in some way. You have repeatedly declared that homosexuals who want equal rights are trying to “impose” something on you. You have tried to justify these claims with spectacularly inaccurate statements of history and wildly illogical arguments. You have persistently refuzed to engage in any meaningful dialog with those of us who disagree with you, instead regaling us with tedious, repetitious insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You have grossly misrepresented our statements at every turn.
In other words, you meet all the criteria for Other John’s sense 1, the medical definition of phobia.
From Dorland’s Medical Dictionary (2007):
phobia /pho·bia/ (fo´be-ah) a persistent, irrational, intense fear of a specific object, activity, or situation (the phobic stimulus), fear that is recognized as being excessive or unreasonable by the individual himself. When a phobia is a significant source of distress or interferes with social functioning, it is considered a mental disorder (sometimes called a phobic disorder ); in DSM-IV phobias are classified with the anxiety disorders and are subclassified as agoraphobia, specific phobias, and social phobias.pho´bic
simple phobia specific p.
social phobia an anxiety disorder characterized by fear and avoidance of social or performance situations in which the individual fears possible embarrassment and humiliation.
specific phobia persistent and excessive or unreasonable fear of a circumscribed, well-defined object or situation.
From the American Heritage Medical Dictionary (2007):
pho·bi·a (fb-)
n.
1. A persistent, abnormal, or irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid the feared stimulus.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.
From the Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine (2008):
Phobia
In psychoanalytic theory, a psychological defense against anxiety in which the patient displaces anxious feelings onto an external object, activity, or situation.
Taken the additional step…
From Mosby’s (2009):
homophobia
[hō′mōfō′bē·ə]
Etymology: Gk, homos, same, phobos, fear
fear of or prejudice against homosexuals.
And from the Mcgraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine (2009):
homophobia
Psychology An irrationally negative attitude toward those with homosexual orientation, or toward becoming homosexual.
Again, these are not my opinions, they are the accepted definitions. Take them for what they’re worth.
Going with the definitions I provided, review the context and meaning of your following comments. They are crystal clear:
#20: ‘This is all about the legitimization of same sex sodomy and the denigration of traditional Christian moral values. Civilization itself is at stake.’
#43: ‘But same sex sodomy–homosexuality is a perversion, hence the comparison is apt’
#179: ‘There is no such thing as homophobia. Look up the meaning of a “phobia” and you will understand my point.’
#182: ‘And I, and others, are not afraid, rationally or irrationally, of homosexuals. We just find their acts repulsive. I have the same aversion to pedophilia, bestiality, etc.’
Take these for what they’re worth too. I think I’m done over here. This has become as productive as bashing my head into a wall, and I need to work in my garden this evening.
@185–We shall have to agree to disagree on everything you just wrote, after the first sentence.
Mr. Koontz stated in comment #6 “…things will change with respect to religion. In Washington, D.C., because the Catholic Church would not change its doctrinal practices to accommodate homosexuals, it lost its contract to provide servicees to the District government.”
FACT CHECK: The archdiocese works under a contract to the city and receives taxpayer money,therefore they would be required to provide the same employee benefits to same-sex couples that it does to opposite-sex couples. The church claimed that this is a violation of their religious freedom, since the see same-sex marriage as invalid. However, according to Catholic doctrine, Catholics must be married by a priest. So, if we have a Catholic and a Jew being married in a Jewish service, the Catholic church does not recognize the marriage as valid. Does that mean that the Catholic church gets to say: “We won’t provide employee benefits to Catholics married to Jews in a Jewish ceremony.”? The church does not have the right to deny employee benefits simply because they do not consider the marriage valid. Also, the DC Marriage Bill state that “religious organizations…shall not be required to provide services, accommodation, facilities or goods…that is in violation of the entities religious beliefs…”
So to be clear, the church can do whatever it wants to do within ecclesiastical law, but when it is provided with taxpayer money (to the sum of $16 million of its $23 million budget through governmental contracts, but when it comes to CIVIL law, they must treat everyone equally.
@189–And to be clear, the District government violated the Church’s religious doctrines as a condition of receiving government benefits.
Ever heard of the First Amendment?
@190 – The church can continue with its anti-gay doctrine, but once public services are provided with public money, they are held to public law.
@191–The government cannot condition benefits with the loss of constitutional freedoms. We are supposed to be a nation founded upon liberty, not tyranny.
BTW, forget about the self-esteem of homosexuals and your perceived evil of the Catholic Church. I live and work in Washington, D.C. It is cruel–cruel–to deprive folks in need of the Catholic Church’s contracted for services, and to leave them to the devices of the D.C. government. The D.C. government is easily the most corrupt, inept, and ineffective on Earth. If you really cared about the needy, you would side with the Catholic Church on this question.
@190 – The Southern Baptist Convention in 1995, admitted that “Southern Baptist forbears defended the right to own slaves, and either participated in, supported, or acquiesced in the particularly inhumane nature of American slavery;”. The Mormons also has a history tinged with racism. For decades, church leaders taught that black people were cursed by God, and therefore ineligible to be priests in the church. This racism was based on religious doctrine. Would it be ok for the US Government to use public money to support public services provided by these churches?
“If ‘faith-based’ charities cannot or will not obey civil rights laws, they ought not benefit from public funds.” — The Rev. Barry W. Lynn
If faith-based groups want to promote their religious beliefs through public programs, then they should give up public funding. If they insist on disobeying civil-rights laws, the they should not get government funding. Allowing anyone -not just churches- to discriminate with public funds is unacceptable.
@192 – It was the church’s choice to stop the services, and there have been plenty of non-discriminatory charities that have happily accepted government funding to continue serving the needs of the poor.
Wow GFK, with all this law and Constitution breaking going on, I am amazed that you have time to blog. Surely the cases you have pending before the SCOTUS proving all these things you “know” take an inordinate amount of time.
@184…
Indeed Mr. Koontz! Who Am I? I am my own self made person and I am perfectly within my rights to point out the injustices of the masses even if I am in a minority.
Just because a plurality of people condone this discrimination doesn’t make it right. And NOTHING…not one single solitary thing that I have pointed out in my many posts on this thread would in ANY WAY shape form or fashion have an adverse impact on the ability for you to love your wife or for innumerable others to love their respective spouses.
You know it and I know it and so does the rest of the country. The problem is that based on your arguments, you view the marriage as more of a legally binding contract that a committment that should be made by two people to love honor and cherish each other til death do them part. I think I see the problem now more clearly than ever. A good number of straight people don’t know how to love; therefore, they want to chastise and criticize those of us who do.
Additionally, remarks like yours, while claiming to champion freedom and liberty are in fact providing the greatest obsticles and barriers to those very principles of democracy.
Sometimes good policy isn’t popular, but it is right. Fighting for independence from Britain wasn’t completely popular, but it was the right thing to do. Banning slavery certainly wasn’t popular, but it was right. Giving women the ability to vote was right, again not very popular. Passing civil rights legislation to remove segregation and institutional racism was right, again…not terribly popular at the time. And that’s how I see it with gay marriages/civil unions. It’s certainly not very popular among a substantial group of people, but I believe that allowing them is right…like the past examples I cited. I am in no way attempting to equate the past issues with the one of today, other than citing them as past examples of doing the right thing, even when it wasn’t popular to do so.
Fear of the French is called Francophobia or Gallophobia.
Fear of foreigners is called Xenophobia.
I think when it comes to discrimination, people have Optophobia.
@197–So let us enact all unpopular schemes, as their unpopularity is surely a measure of their justness? Let us start with what you loathe most.
@198–I do not fear the French, I dislike them. Who can possibly fear a people who have not won a war since . . . ?
@196–I am with the MAJORITY, not a plurality. Moreover, your argument would not only redefine marriage, but would also destroy our country, as it would impose nationally your desires, eliminating federalism’s main tenets. Domestic relations is MOST CERTAINLY NOT a federal concern, yet you would make it so, for your own selfish purposes. So . . . overturning God’s gift to man, thousands of years of tradition and morality, and reworking the country, just so that you can feel good? I don’t think so.
BTW, I see marriage as one of the Lord’s sacraments, not as you suggest. Which is why I passionately defend it against those who would desecrate his gift.
@199, I see you still don’t get it. Thanks for letting me know, that’ll make it easier. Have a good day.
Ran across this quote by Bishop Gerald Kicanas from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He is talking about current immoderation laws, but I thought it speaks a lot like the issue at hand…
“Immigration is [Gay rights are] ultimately a humanitarian issue since it impacts the basic rights and dignity of millions of persons and their families,” Kicanas said. “As such, it has moral implications, especially how it impacts the basic survival and decency of life experienced by human beings like us. … Our current immigration [marriage] system fails to meet the moral test of protecting the basic rights and dignity of the human person.”
@200–It seems that you are the one who doesn’t get it. You do not have to be a Christian, but you do not even pretend to care or consider Christian beliefs; which is, frankly, incredible, given that over 90% of the United States identifies themselves as Christian.
@201-I fail to see the human dignity in desecrating God’s gifts. And I venture, neither does Bishop Kicanas.
@199….
“I am with the MAJORITY, not a plurality. Moreover, your argument would not only redefine marriage, but would also destroy our country, as it would impose nationally your desires, eliminating federalism’s main tenets.”
I am amused and at the same time amazed that (in your opinion) allowing gays/lesbians the opportunity to enter into civil unions to be able to receive the same government sanctioned benefits that straight couples receive will “DESTROY OUR COUNTRY”.
Since we’re (again in your opinion) such a small fraction of the population, how is it that such a small number of people can have the power to destroy a nation?
The irrational fears and the unsubstantiated arguments really came home to roost with your remarks Mr. Koontz. But I am glad to know that I have that kind of collective power at my disposal. Perhaps we should become a little more proactive to reverse the injustice.
What I wrote, and what you misunderstood, was that a national policy on a domestic relations issue, in this case, civil unions, would destroy the framework put together by our Founders. And it would; ours is a federal system, not a national system.
If you wish to disagree with me, at least disagree with what I wrote, not what you thought I wrote.
@202, again, you illustrate your lack of understanding. In no way am I claiming Christians need to change how they act, practice, behave, or believe. I think Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, and everyone else ought to be free to practice and live their faiths in the way the holy books of each respective religion outlines, so long as their practice of religion does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. And therein is the crux of the matter. You are using your faith to justify the unequal treatment of homosexuals when it comes to government-recognized marriage/union benefits. You and a good number of other Christians are using your faith to justify that discrimination, and falling back on the Bible claiming that you do not have anything against homosexuals, by stating that you’re simply abiding by ‘God’s Law’. It’s shady, it’s wrong, and it speaks volumes to your concept of ‘freedom’. The truth is that granting the marriage benefits to homosexual couples that are currently afforded to heterosexual couples does not infringe upon, reduce, or change a single aspect of how you live your life, practice your religion, or carry out your marriage. And the fact that you claim that it will or that it will destroy civilization speaks volumes to your real feelings, and the fact that you have no leg to stand on.
@204:
‘This is all about the legitimization of same sex sodomy and the denigration of traditional Christian moral values. Civilization itself is at stake.’
Where was your mention of destroying the framework in that? It wasn’t there. Please don’t try to revise history here. Nowhere in your comment #20 do you mention such a thing.
@205–It is not “shady” and it is not “wrong”. And no one is being denied any “rights”. What you are doing is demanding to redefine “marriage” which you have no legal or moral basis upon which to do. And since marriage is a Judeo-Christian concept, it is entirely proper to view it from that perspective, and that perspective alone.
You can get married without the church, you cannot get married without the government; you can get divorced without the church but you cannot get divorced without the government! Ergo ALL marriages are civil unions. Some are then sanctioned, and given a sacramental blessing by their church, but ALL are civil unions and the government is not allowed to discriminate in such civil law matters. It really and ultimately is just that simple.
The benefits, protections and responsibility of marriage cannot be withheld from homosexuals without it being absolute discrimination by the government. The church may refuse to “marry” anyone it wishes, the government ultimately has no such luxury and will, in the end realize that.
Marriage is not an exclusive Judeo-Christian concept. It pre-dates the formation of those religions and was widely practiced in many ancient societies, and even existed in areas where no Christian influence was present.
Mr. Koontz, It is quite obvious that your main objection is the word “marriage”. I agree that the word “marriage” does hold some religious significance for some people. In 2004, the United States Government Accountability Office identified 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These benefits, rights, and privileges include tax benefits, estate planning benefits, veterans benefits, Social Security benefits, Medicare benefits, employment benefits, medical benefits, consumer benefits…the list goes on and on. Would you be willing to allow same-sex couple to receive those exact same benefits, as long as it was not defined as “marriage”? What if it was named “civil union” or “Domestic partnership”?
OSB…
That’s why I’ve used the phrase civil unions instead of marriage.
I think you’ll get the same response from GFK however.
Will, I am expecting the same response.
@206–I did not; and I am not trying to revise history at all. You need to scroll down and read my other posts, in response to Will. Then you will see that I did write what you claim I did not write.
@209–I did not say that marriage was an “exclusive” Judeo-Christian concept. I said it was “a Judeo-Christian concept.” And it is; it is a gift from God, and a sacrament.
@208 and 210-212–It would not offend me if government got out of the marriage/civil union business all together. It should not surprise anyone that I am opposed to all the federal “benefits” that supposedly flow to married couples, as the federal government is not constitutionally empowered to expend individual benefits (i.e. Social Security).
But I am firmly opposed to government blessing homosexuality in any form. I am sure that no one is surprised by that either. And I am sure that I have adequately explained my reasoning on that score.
210-212 I don’t think codifying two separate categories of familial relationships would work. This is the kind of situation blacks were facing up to the 50s & 60s. Under the then-current Plessy decision, blacks were being treated equally because they were allowed to ride the same busses as whites, but had to sit in the back.
Gays right now are even worse off; they are allowed to ride on the bus by hanging onto the rear bumper! Civil unions would let them inside, but they would still be sitting in the back, separated from the other passengers.
The supreme court has already ruled on this in 1954: Separate is inherently unequal.
@213, I re-read all of your comments on this thread, and the closest you ever got to what you said in 204 was in post 180 ‘This is the United States. There is no need for national sameness.’ Other than that, your arguments almost exclusively fall along a moral & religious line and using that to justify current discrimination.
Your claim of ‘Civilization itself is at stake’ is in no way qualified or explained with relevance to the founding documents of this country. You make mention of court cases where things like polygamy were found to not be Constitutionally protected, but from what I re-read you never, not once, mention anything along the line of ‘that a national policy on a domestic relations issue, in this case, civil unions, would destroy the framework put together by our Founders. And it would; ours is a federal system, not a national system.’
If you had written such a thing in any of your earlier arguments, I would have expected to find it in any of the dozens you left there. I did not.
I grow weary of this exercise though, because you fail to address several questions and comments directed at you, and the ones you do choose to answer are addressed with reflections, denials, and misdirections with a mix of the same morality statements that don’t hold true legal weight. You have yet to provide any compelling argument, reasoning, or justification that can support the continued discrimination aimed at homosexual couples. I would think that in a thread of 200+ posts that such would have been possible, but I don’t see it. Instead I see a whole lot of jargon and doomsday scenarios that don’t hold their weight, and that’s it.
Will, Sandi, Ed, OSB, and everyone else…it’s been an interesting couple of days going back and forth on this, but I must be moving along.
@214–Yes the Supreme Court has ruled on this; cf. Reynolds v. United States (no right to polygamous marriages). THERE IS NO RIGHT to same sex marriages. Sorry.
@213 – So basically, you are opposed to homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals….period. I have been with my partner for over 15 years, and yet, I can not make medical decisions for him…which is a right that heterosexuals receive the moment they sign the marriage certificate. If one of us were injured to the point of being in intensive care, the other would not be allowed to be by the others side, because we are not considered “immediate family”. Imagine, Mr. Koontz, if your wife were dying in the emergency room, and you were not allowed to be there. I personally know of a couple who had been together for over nine years. As Kate lay dying in an emergency room after a freak drowning accident, her partner was told by hospital officials that the state did not recognize same-sex couples in emergency situations, and therefore, would not be allowed to see Kate. Her partner had to contact Kate’s out-of-state relatives to get “permission” to see her before she died. Again, imagine Mr. Koontz, your wife dying alone in an emergency room while you have to contact her next-of-kin to get “permission” to see her. Kate’s partner was not even acknowledged as the executor of Kate’s wishes by funeral directors while making arrangements.
This is just one example of why we fight so hard to win the same rights that heterosexual couples have. And, in the end, we will win because what is right, and just, always prevails….always!
@215–I respectfully disagree; I answer every reasonable query put to me. I do not deflect, nor do I respond emotionally or via anecdote. I do not try to pretend to be something I am not, or state that I don’t care because it doesn’t affect me (because if I do not care, I would not bother responding in the first place). I do not adopt my positions because I know a class of people, but rather, I try and look to the law, or other foundations, upon which to base a sound, logical and correct opinion.
What question have you directed to me that I have not answered? Not what question did you not like my answer, but what did I not answer. Ask again, and I shall be pleased to respond.
@215–And by the way, Other John, perhaps I missed it, but what have you, or any other pro-homosexual marriage booster posted in support of your positions beyond the argument that it’s not fair! As in, it’s not fair that homosexuals cannot marry (never mind that the definition of marriage itself excludes such a union), it’s discrimination, they love each other, etc. Those are hardly compelling arguments for turning an thousands of year old institution on its head, to redefine it, all in an effort to accommodate a very minute number of folks who are defined by their engagement in behavior that the majority find immoral! Please, please enlighten me!
@217–You need to see an attorney, because it is a simple matter of drawing up a power of attorney over the person (and if needed, property), along with an advanced medical directive. You do not have to be married to make these decisions (I have been empowered to make them for others than my wife). It takes no time, and should cost you very little (it is well worth having a lawyer do it, as opposed to doing it on your own).
And no one is denying you equal rights; that is a canard that is just #)! offensive. Homosexuals seek the redefinition of marriage. If they wish to get married they can, just not to a member of the same sex. Right now, heterosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex either. And please do not argue but they don’t want to, or that you do. That is not the test for evaluating an equal protection matter.
Old, tired, discredited arguments already dealt with when miscegenation laws (also argued by some to be the Will of God) were rightfully thrown out:
Because we reject the notion that the mere “equal application” of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment’s proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State’s contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as Gov. Bob McDonnell recently noted, does not apply only to race, but also protects people from irrational discrimination based on their sexual orientation. There is no valid reason that the Supreme Court’s argument in Loving v. Virginia would not also apply to gays and lesbians.
@220 – In Virginia, there is something called The Marriage Affirmation Act, that states: “A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited.” So, therefore, gay and lesbian Virginians can not get powers of attorney or medical directives.
I too have grown tired of this conversation. It is clear that neither side is going to change the minds of the other. I just pray that one day,Mr. Koontz, you will realize that your ignorance and discrimination is far more immoral than committed same-sex relationships, and that you will come to truly show the wisdom,compassion, and care for your fellow man that you so strongly claim to posses in the name of God.
Governor McDonnell–who so far has been an exceptional Governor, certainly much better than his immediate predecessor–is neither a legal scholar nor a judge. He is a politician. And he is wrong on that score.
There are so many reasons why Loving v. Virginia does not apply to homosexuals. Indeed, that is why I continue to cite Reynolds v. United States. For example, Loving dealt with the innate characteristic of race, while Reynolds dealt with conduct. Homosexuality is conduct. Another example, Loving did not redefine marriage; homosexual “marriage” would.
I can hear this now:
There is no discrimination or unfairness in owning slaves. Black Slaves are not real people, the Constitution says so. There is no provision in the Constitution to deny slavery as an economic choice. If you want to change that you need to work for an amendment to the Constitution and the MAJORITY of this nation will never agree with such a change. How dare you try to dictate the economic solutions others may have or use.
There is no discrimination in a black man not being able to marry a white woman, because likewise a black woman cannot marry a white man and a white woman cannot marry a black man and a white man cannot marry a black woman, SEE, no discrimination at all. They are all treated perfectly equal. The MAJORITY in this nation feel that this is not an inherent right from God and certainly NOTHING in the Constitution says that any interracial marriage is a “right”! If you want to change the Constitution to suit your perverted belief, then you may try to do so, but I warn you, you will have a fight on your hands as this nation was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic presented to us in the Bible and this is an abomination.
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall, but I am willing to bet I am correct. “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” ~George Santayana
215 Other John, you are right, of course. This guy will not budge for any amount of truth or reason. The only worthwhile purpose a thread like this can serve is to expose him to public view.
This is going to be my last post here on the topic.
218: I believe you addressed most of the comments I had directed at you, perhaps I should have made that more clear…there were several raised by others that you never did address. Though, I suspect since you put a qualifier on your statement, you found their questions somehow unreasonable. I guess that’s a matter open for interpretation. The one question you appear to have never addressed from anyone, myself included, is how permitting homosexual couples to gain legal status for their unions would in any way alter, change, or impact anything you do currently. Because quite simply if that were permitted, the sun would still rise tomorrow, you would still be married tomorrow, you would still go to work like normal, pay your bills like normal, begrudgingly pay your taxes like normal, and go to church on Sunday like normal. Nothing for you would change. Not a thing. Yet you claim civilization is at stake. How exactly? What you have presented doesn’t come close to explaining or justifying such an irrational, fear-based claim.
@219, your arguments are based upon weak legal standing, though the bulk of your arguments are based upon reasoning that you appear to condemn such as emotion, morality, and other non law-based information…much like the example I just mentioned in the previous paragraph. For what it’s worth, I don;t personally care if the terminology for marriage is used. That’s typically been a religious term, and I’m ok with marriage being separated from government sanctioning. But, as long as the government provides any level of benefit for couples in a committed relationship, the law as I interpret it indicates that the government cannot discriminate based on the sexual status of the couple in question, be they heterosexual or homosexual. As long as the government bestows certain rights, privileges, and benefits upon heterosexual couples in recognized relationships, I believe it is legally-bound to reciprocate such recognition to homosexual couples who have likewise entered such a relationship with each other. If a particular church decides it doesn’t want to grant marriages to gay couples, that is within their right. If a church decides it wants to, then that’s also their right. But for the government to engage in open and blatant discrimination based on a religious argument is not only wrong, but that smacks in the face of what this country ought to stand for.
And, further, I argue that the greater danger to this country and the notion of a Representative Republic and our personal and cherished freedoms is not posed by homosexual couples seeking to obtain equal recognition under the law, but it’s through the spineless actions of elected officials failing to take on such heady issues and instead putting them to voter referendums. That completely usurps the concept of a Republic and pushes us closer to a mob-rules Democracy, which is nearly the antithesis of what our country was founded as. And once we begin placing controversial issues to the ballot box rather than deciding them within the halls of our government buildings, we open ourselves up for 50%+1 of the voters irrevocably and fundamentally altering the course and direction of our country. If you think this is not the case, look at the complete and utter disaster that California has become since most major funding, taxation, and major decision-making processes were relegated to voter referendums rather than being decided by elected officials in that state.
Well yes, as our former Attorney General and a Robertson Scholar, McD cannot be expected to know, much less uphold the law.
@222–One, you are wrong on the application of that law. Two, I am not ignorant nor immoral. Three, you are welcome.
@224–You might want to read the Thirteenth Amendment.
And I have not argued the merits of Loving v. Virginia; rather, I merely distinguished Loving from Reynolds.
Very Very well said Other John! Funny how “majority rules” is so foreign and needs to be obstructed at all costs in the Congress right now, but “majority rules” among those unelected who oppose them is just a fine and noble concept. Yes, that is JUST what the founders intended.
Ed H, I do not speak for anyone else here, but my purpose in challenging the positions and proclamations of GFK and those like him are never intended to change their mind or “bring them around”. I learned a long time ago the futility of informing anyone who does not wish to be informed. I blog here for the sake of those who might read the stuff that is not refuted and think it might be accurate, honest, credible or correct because it was not refuted.
@226–Homosexual marriage would affect me, and others, and damage society because of its immoral blessing of homosexual conduct. I thought I had addressed this several times in response to Sandi Saunders, wherein I pointed out all the damage that other immoral positions permitted by society–abortion, out of wedlock births, sex out of marriage, etc.–had created real problems for society as a whole. And to add insult to injury, the Left having demanded such behaviors be allowed, then demands government programs to cure the ills created by those immoral and damaging behaviors. I see homosexuality as immoral and I see out of wedlock births to be immoral, and I condemn them both.
And what legal argument are you asking for? There is no obligation for government to sanction or bless homosexual conduct. Do you realize that the Commonwealth of Virginia criminalizes homosexual conduct? It is a Class 6 felony. What is the sense in expecting Virginia to allow homosexual marriage while outlawing homosexual conduct? I am quite confused with your point.
As an aside, and in reply to your California point, it is a nice and familiar talking point about the referenda problem, but it is a straw man. The problem with California’s finances are directly traceable to the Legislature’s actions. All California referenda on spending and taxing questions do not come close to adding up the problem that state currently experiences. Indeed, I moved most of my practice out of California solely because of the tax issue–a province of the legislature.
Finally, I do not care if you are for homosexual marriage, or “rights” or whatever you wish to be for. This is America, you get to do that.
But I fail to see why you are so offended by my opposition to those same matters. I happen to think that homosexuality is immoral, and have carefully explained why. I also know that there is no legal basis for imposing homosexual “marriage” and have explained why. You don’t have to like my views, but your, and others’, responses go well beyond disagreement, and devolve into actual animosity and seeming hatred. As I have said on more than one occasion, I hate the sin and love the sinner. More liberals might wish to consider that premise.
Sandi,
The whole, informing those who don’t wish to be informed works both ways.
221,
One’s race is genetical, this has been proven without question. One’s sexual preference has not been credibly proven to be genetical. There’s your difference.
BTW, McDonnell is not stating anything about the right to same sex marriage. You are making a reach.
#230 – “I learned a long time ago the futility of informing anyone who does not wish to be informed.”
Weeks ago, during a discussion about the Fair Tax, I suggested you read the book by Neil Boortz. I don’t recall your exact reply, but in a nutshell you refused.
I find it ironic that you point the finger at “anyone who does not wish to be informed” while not making the effort to be fully informed yourself.
#231 – Still following the history of Virginia :
From Wikipedia:
Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692.
The constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583). The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the court, both races were treated equally, because whites and blacks were punished in equal measure for breaking the law against interracial marriage and interracial sex. This judgment was overturned in 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, where the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
January 1913, Representative Seaborn Roddenbery (Democrat of Georgia)
Quote:
“No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution … that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. … Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. … Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy”
AND: In 1965, Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile, who heard their (Loving Vs Virginia) original case, refused to reconsider his decision. Instead, he defended racial segregation, writing:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”[22]
—————————————–
Hmmmn, Sounds just like the anti-gay marriage crowd. -Joe
@235–No it does not.
Yes Richard, I fully understand and agree that it is a two way street. Patrick, if I wanted to know more about the so-called “Fair Tax”, I would go to a Tax Expert and get it; Not Neal Boortz. If I wanted to know about the History of this nation, I would go to a national historian; not Glenn Beck. If I wanted to learn about Conservative ideology I would go to an elected practicing Conservative; not Rush Limbaugh. If I wanted to know about Global Warming Science, I would go to a Climatologist; not Sen. Inhoufe. If you do not catch my drift by now, that remains your problem.
@236: You call that a rebuttal, counselor?
#237 – No problem…I get your drift just fine, Sandi. Boy, do I ever.
Sandi do you know that the Fair Tax was first introduced in 1999 by Rep. John Linder who wrote the book with Neal Bortz? If you really wanted to know about “The Fair Tax” it seems logical that you’d want to read about it from the perspective of the folks that came up with it.
If Rep Linder had written the book on his own, I may very well have read it when it was published. Have you read any books written by people you oppose?
BTW, since you are so big on reading what you do not support, have any of YOU read FAIR TAX: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing ?
@238–I learned a long time ago that there is no point in substantively addressing Mr. Mostowey’s posts. He does not even pretend to read my points.
@237–My guess is that you do not listen to either Mr. Boortz’s or Mr. Limbaugh’s radio shows. So it would be hard for you to accurately or intelligently comment on the content or quality of those programs.
And if you wish to learn about conservative ideology, there are few, if any, living politicians whom would aid your quest for knowledge. There are books, however, and I would be pleased to aid your studies. Just let me know.
Thought this was about being informed? I oppose socialism, marxism, and Jehovah Witnesses but I’ve read books about all of them. I liked The Watch Tower the best.
Sandi #242.
Nope haven’t read it. I’m actually more of a Flat Tax kind of guy rather than a Fair Tax but if it’s at the library (don’t want to actually finance the opposition just learn how they think) I’ll check it out.
@231 – The Virginia law § 18.2-361 states that ANY person participating in acts of sodomy is committing a felony….it is not limited to homosexuals.
Knowing my enemy is important to me. I have listened to both Boortz and Limbaugh. Which is exactly WHY I would not seriously consider any opinion, position or idea they put forth without batting an eye that I am wrong to do so. Bombast, hyperbole and condescension are hardly substitutes for knowledge, ability or intellect and it shows remarkably in both cases.
I oppose socialism, marxism, fascism, communism, dictatorships, military government and I have nothing against Jehovah’s Witnesses or any other religion whether I believe in them or not.
@247–I never said it was limited to homosexuals. In fact, I pointed out that its general application was why it was not invalidated by Lawrence v. Texas.
@247–But homosexual conduct is surely covered by that statute.
#249 – “I oppose socialism, marxism, fascism, communism, dictatorships, military government and I have nothing against Jehovah’s Witnesses or any other religion whether I believe in them or not.”
Judging by your devotion to Obama, that’s a hard statement to believe.
Oh, and thanks for recommending “FAIR TAX: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”. I’ll be happy to take a look at it.
@233…
Conversely, science hasn’t yet proven that it is not genetic.
Speaking from the first hand…I know it’s not a learned behavior.
I knew from an early age I was different and fortunately wasn’t berated for it because I had loving and understanding parents.
It’s a shame that those opposed didn’t have the benefit of my parents.
@251…
Exactly how do you know what a gay/lesbian couple does in the privacy of their bedroom?
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Seriously, since not one of the above mentioned evils would EVER offer an opportunity such as Obama and millions of minorities has achieved, it is childish name calling to consider him any of those evils either. Was Jesus a “socialist” when he told people to sell all they had and follow him?
@248 and 249–Please, no kidding here. Be serious!
#255 – Identifying someone for what they are, such as Obama being a socialist, is not “childish name calling”. It’s simply pointing out what a person is.
Calling you a “Poopyhead” would be childish name calling.
See the difference?
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote: “@238–I learned a long time ago that there is no point in substantively addressing Mr. Mostowey’s posts. He does not even pretend to read my points”
————————————–
Oh, I read them, Glen, and rebut everything you ever state, with references.
An argument that simply expresses one’s own moral bias, religious bias and political bais, with nothing of substance, lacking references or valid data is not a rebuttal.
It is simply an opinion.
The reality of the argument in this thread is that the rightwingers have, and continue to, whine about morals, vague dangers to society, God, religion and laws every bit as unconstitutional as Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute – and they use the same arguments as the folks back at the turn of the last century.
There has been nothing of substance raised in their arguments, nothing concrete, nothing supported by any evidence.
When one’s argument is based on emotion, then one always will attempt to avoid an argument where facts are present.
254 The homophobes’ insistence that sexual orientation is a matter of “choice”, and their claim that that justifies discrimination against them, are equally inane.
One of this nation’s most basic principles is LIBERTY. Another is the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. You have the right to do anything you CHOOSE to do, regardless of your reasons for doing it, as long as it does impinge on the equal rights of any other person.
258 ERRATUM: does not impinge.
I am just as serious and credible as you are GFK!
Yes Patrick, I see the many many differences and I thank God for them daily!
@255 – Reminds me of Acts 4:34-35 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
Lest anyone be fooled by Glen Franklin Koontz’s claim that he only “hate[s] the sin and love[s] the sinner”, consider this exchange:
—————–
#
What makes anyone think the rich are wished ill?
Comment by Scott M. — July 6, 2010 @ 4:35 pm
#
@15–Comments like “[c]apitalism is theft.”
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — July 6, 2010 @ 5:25 pm
@264–You lost me there, Ed H. I answered a question by Scott M. by quoting Scott M. and you deem that a personal attack? If so, some of you on this blog might well be guilty of capital murder.
@259–In the Commonwealth of Virginia, you do not have the right to engage in sodomy.
Richard S, was Rep. Linder involved in the Church of Scientology? I understood that the “Fair Tax”, with the catalyst being getting rid of the IRS was an idea they posited in 1993. A prominent Scientologist who started a group called Citizens for an Alternative Tax System (CATS) and that stemmed from the IRS’s refusal to grant them the religious tax exemption they sought. Is that all just a freaky coincidence or an urban legend?
Scientology’s Fair Tax Plot
In case anyone might actually take legal advice from someone on a blog, no one should worry that the state is going to break down your bedroom door. Lawrence v. Texas took care of that:
In his dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens concluded that (1) the fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by due process. That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled. This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention.
Absolutely nothing in that text would indicate to a reader that the decision is limited only to Texas or only to statutes that apply exclusively to homosexual conduct.
Clearly, two adults, with full and mutual consent, are free to engage in whatever sexual practices they wish without government intervention.
I do not think GFK’s comments leave any doubt about his sincerity when he says “I hate the sin and love the sinner“!
“Clearly, two adults, with full and mutual consent, are free to engage in whatever sexual practices they wish without government intervention.” Thankfully, because we all know that there are many who would work hard to see that judgmental “code” enforced here and in many other places.
@268–Bowers upheld Georgia’s sodomy laws. And Justice Stevens did not author Lawrence, Anthony Kennedy did; and the Texas law in Lawrence applied solely to homosexuals, that was why it was struck down, and Virginia’s law–which applies to everyone–has been upheld, and enforced, since then.
We have had this discussion before.
Do what you want, but I would not advertise it to the police.
Again, the text of the decision is clear and unambiguous. If enforcement of any sodomy statute was upheld, it was clearly in error. Funny, though, I don’t recall a cite to a case in which it was upheld. Nor can you cite language in Lawrence that says the law was struck down because it applied only to homosexuals – whereas the passage I cited made it abundantly clear that the ruling applies to any two adults engaged in consensual, non-injurious sexual activity.
You are simply wrong if you argue otherwise.
@272–The Court did not consider a broader statute. In the very beginning, it tells you what it did:
“Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause”
Also, what was the Court considering:
“The question before the Court is the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.”
You may recall that post-Lawrence, some Northern Virginia liberals wanted to rescind the Virginia Code prohibition, and that effort was defeated. Since then there have been several convictions, mostly of homosexuals seeking to make a point and create a Lawrence type challenge. So far those efforts have failed, either due to lack of funds, bad facts, or poor lawyering. And as you should know, very few lower court cases in Virginia are available for citation.
Now, if you wish to make an argument that if the Virginia statute made it to the Supreme Court it would be overturned, I would have to concede that Lawrence puts it in danger. But it is not a slam dunk. There are solid arguments to be made. And I contend that Bowers was correct and that Lawrence is a sham. We may never know. Indeed, probably not.
But the next time you hear of Lawrence it might well be in the context of a Supreme Court decision on homosexual “marriage”. And if you do, you should worry, as shown by this passage from Lawrence:
“It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”
I do not see Catholic Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy blessing homosexual marriage. He is in enough trouble with God over abortion.
I’ll accept a news story about any of these failed efforts you allege. I will not simply accept your word, however, that anyone in Virginia is continuing to enforce an outdated law that has been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in clear and unambiguous language.
For that matter, I’ll accept a news story from any state in the union where someone has successfully prosecuted under a sodomy statute post-Lawrence.
@274–I’ll get right on that research project for you Dan.
I won’t hold my breath. As I recall our last discussion, you disappeared for months shortly after I asked you for proof of your theory that this decision applied only to homosexual sodomy laws, despite the clear language I cited demonstrating otherwise.
Would it be wrong to hope for a repeat performance?
By the way, none of the language from the decision you cited states that the court overturned the Texas law because it only applied to homosexuals. Do you want to keep trying on that effort in between your Lexus/Nexus searches for a successful, post-Lawrence sodomy prosecution?
As I said, I will not hold my breath.
I did not disappear because of anything you asked for or challenged me on at all.
And you have ignored my citations and arguments. I am intellectually honest enough to evaluate your points and concede my argument’s weakness. Do you lack such intellectual fortitude?
Perhaps you do not understand how the law works, but decisions often turn on such fine distinctions as I have pointed out. And a majority of the Virginia General Assembly agrees with me. I’ll take that.
And I notice your ignoring my comment about Lawrence and same sex “marriage”; no thoughts there?
Don’t hold your breath. It would be a waste of time. My offer was purely facetious.
Chuckle. Laugh. A sense of humor would do you good.
I haven’t ignored your citations and arguments, such as they are, Glen, I have found them completely wanting. Again, none of them prove even remotely that Lawrence was decided on the issue that the Texas statute applied only to homosexuals. Yes, decisions often turn on such fine distinctions. This one did not – or if it did, you have utterly failed to prove it. I doubt you could even cite a recognized legal expert who shares your interpretation.
I ignored your comment about same-sex marriage because it was irrelevant to the discussion about whether Lawrence struck down all sodomy laws.
I knew your offer was facetious, because the search would be fruitless. You know that, and I know that. And, trust me, that does make me laugh.
Hey Dan, just kidding, you deserve a little help. I offer two (2) examples. First, as I suggested a court might hold, post-Lawrence:
“Gay City News, March 10, 2005
By Arthur S. Leonard
In yet another exception to a 2003 Supreme Court decision legalizing sodomy, a high military court, the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, has upheld the sodomy conviction of a heterosexual marine in a case arising from events at an American base in Japan.
According to the opinion for the court by Judge David Wagner, Aviation Boatswain’s Mate Jakarri Avery was living on the base during divorce proceedings from his wife, a Japanese citizen. Avery acknowledged to his unit mates that he had both anal and oral sex with two other Japanese civilian women in his barracks room.
In his decision, Wagner noted that Avery’s wife had sued him in Japanese court for “redress of injuries she alleged as a result of the extra-marital affairs. On one occasion there was a confrontation between [Avery’s] wife and one of the two females at the on-base hotel that had to be resolved by military police.”
Military authorities prosecuted Avery for sodomy, adultery and indecent acts, as well as the possession and use of marijuana and Percocet, a prescription drug. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months confinement and a bad-conduct discharge that included forfeiture of pay and a reduction in grade.
Shortly after his sentencing, the Supreme Court declared, in a 6-3 opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, that that state’s anti-sodomy law was unconstitutional, in effect nullifying nationwide other such statutes, long considered by gay Americans as a vestige of homophobic oppression. Avery promptly appealed his sodomy conviction, claiming that, based on the language in the Lawrence ruling, his private adult consensual activity was protected by the Constitution.
Last year, in the highest military appellate ruling on the impact of Lawrence on military sodomy prosecutions, United States v. Marcum, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled that Lawrence had not invalidated Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military sodomy law, but had merely narrowed the circumstances in which it could be used to prosecute uniformed personnel. Under the Marcum approach, sexual penetration that falls squarely within the parameters of Lawrence—consensual oral or anal sex—could still be prosecuted if there are military factors that affect “the nature and reach of the Lawrence liberty interest.” In the Marcum case, the military high court found that sexual activity between military personnel of different ranks presented issues of military relevance justifying prosecution.
Since the Marcum decision, there have been several military sodomy prosecutions, but in only one case, involving a service member and a civilian, did a military court find Lawrence to be controlling. Undoubtedly, Avery was hopeful that this precedent would be found to control his situation, but the court thought otherwise.
“His subordinates knew about the extra-marital activities, and local Japanese nationals also knew about the activities. In this case we find direct and obvious impacts on both the command structure and the armed forces reputation in the local foreign community resulting from the acts of sodomy committed by the appellant.”
Apparently, Avery’s candor about his extra-marital sexual behavior figured into the court’s decision. Not unlike the secrecy governing the sexual behavior of gay and lesbian service members, perhaps more discretion would have allowed Avery to avoid prosecution.
It is unclear whether or not Avery intends to appeal his decision to the military high court.”
And more recently, in a civilian court:
“June 2, 2010
Retrial brings sodomy conviction
A Dalton man was found guilty by a Whitfield County jury of sodomy last week after a mistrial was declared in April on the same charge.”
Lawrence is not a slam dunk. As I stated, maybe if the matter returned to the Supreme Court, your side might win, but then again, it might not. There are arguments both ways.
WOW, the courts language here is a real beacon of hope and makes me proud yet again of what America does to correct a wrong. Well worth the reading!
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
Applause! Applause!
Nice try, Glen. But the one case involved the military – a completely different standard, as I’m sure you well know (not to mention the fact that the sodomy portion of the charge seemed completely incidental). The second case, as I’m sure you also know, involved non-consensual sex, which is not covered by Lawrence.
Oh no. The military courts are bound by the Supreme Court precedent, as evidenced by the court’s consideration of Lawrence on appeal.
You stated that “I’ll accept a news story from any state in the union where someone has successfully prosecuted under a sodomy statute post-Lawrence.”
As you probably applauded, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in the Guantanamo case that areas where the United States exercises jurisdiction, the Constitution applies, hence it as if it were a state and Lawrence is applicable.
You also stated “I doubt you could even cite a recognized legal expert who shares your interpretation.” Well, I did. I cited a court, a conviction, and legal experts [judges].
The article I read did not specify that the Georgia case involved forcible sodomy, but I will accept your representation, and agree that forcible sodomy is not within the ambit of our discussion.
Nevertheless, I win; you lose.
Tomorrow is another day. Pick some good topics.
“decisions often turn on such fine distinctions“, NO! Say it ain’t so. So the whole “justice” idea is just a game and “such fine distinctions” can free or convict a person? Wow, who knew?
Did you read your own cite, Glen? Last year, in the highest military appellate ruling on the impact of Lawrence on military sodomy prosecutions, United States v. Marcum, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled that Lawrence had not invalidated Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military sodomy law, but had merely narrowed the circumstances in which it could be used to prosecute uniformed personnel. Under the Marcum approach, sexual penetration that falls squarely within the parameters of Lawrence—consensual oral or anal sex—could still be prosecuted if there are military factors that affect “the nature and reach of the Lawrence liberty interest.” Of course, that same story also backs up what I’ve said all along: “Shortly after his sentencing, the Supreme Court declared, in a 6-3 opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, that that state’s anti-sodomy law was unconstitutional, in effect nullifying nationwide other such statutes…”
You win only in your own mind, counselor. The facts are squarely on my side.
@284–How so; Lawrence did not overturn all sodomy prosecutions, which is what I stated. It is the very argument I suggested would be used to defend the Virginia statute.
“the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled that Lawrence had not invalidated Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military sodomy law, but had merely narrowed the circumstances in which it could be used to prosecute uniformed personnel.”
Does that sound like all sodomy prosecutions are null and void after Lawrence? It sounds a whole lot like what I have said about the Virginia Code.
No, Glen, it doesn’t sound a whole lot like anything you’ve been saying. It sounds a whole lot like a reach. You know that the Code of Military Justice is different, and stricter, than civilian laws. And what the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled is that consensual sodomy cases could only be prosecuted “if there are military factors” that play into the prosecution.
Are there any “military factors” that play into the VIrginia code, Glen?
You are wrong. I know it. You know it. Anyone reading this exchange knows it. Do yourself a favor and give it up.
@284 should now read @285
Dan, I thought better of you than this; the Military Code of Justice is different only in the sense that Georgia is different than Virgina. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, be it in the context of city, state, district, territory or the United States Military Code of Justice. Military officers take an oath to the Constitution.
IF Lawrence, as the law of the land on the question of the criminalization of consensual sodomy, and that law is there can be NO criminalization of consensual sodomy, then Avery could not be decided as it was.
On the other hand, if there is wiggle room in Lawrence and distinctions to be made–as I, and many in Virginia have reasoned there is and are–then Lawrence does not clearly mean that there can be NO criminalization of consensual sodomy.
You stated that no one agreed with me. You stated that there were no post Lawrence convictions on consensual sodomy. You told me that Lawrence was clear.
For the moment, pending a clarification or expansion of Lawrence, I am right. And you are wrong. On the facts and on the law.
So, Glen, you are saying that there are no areas of military justice in which members of the military can be held to standards that would be unconstitutional if applied to civilians? There are no behaviors that would be protected in a civilian context but prosecutable in a military one?
Are you sure that’s your final answer, counselor?
You might want to rethink it, if not.
That is not what I said. We were discussing Lawrence. Stay with me here.
BTW, more cases for you to consider:
MacDonald v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 249 (2007)
Singson v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 724 (2005)
Tjan v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 698 (2005)
All rejected constitutional challenges to sodomy convictions post-Lawrence. You will note that the courts find all sorts of room to wiggle and not strike down Virginia’s law.
It is not as clear as you think.
By the way, I’ve now listed civilian convictions in Virgina, post Lawrence, and again, it appears that there are some legal experts–judges–who agree with me that Lawrence is not definitive; it is certainly not as sweeping as you suggest.
Give up Dan. You lost.
MacDonald involved sodomy with underage girls. However, the decision explicitly states that in Lawrence, the Supreme Court “held that a state may not criminalize such sexual conduct when it is private, non-remunerative, and engaged in between mutually consenting adults.”
I couldn’t find the other cases online in a brief Google search, which is all I had time for at this hour. I would guess, however, given your track record, that there are extenuating circumstances – military, forcible sodomy, underage sodomy, etc. – that explain those, as well.
In any case, I am right. You are wrong. That is as most certainly as clear as I think it is.
Good night, counselor.
@293–So what? Same statute. And what about the other cases? They did not involve girls.
You said there were no convictions under Virginia’s sodomy statute, post-Lawrence. I said there was. You said there were no consensual sodomy convictions ANYWHERE post-Lawrence. I said there was. AND THERE WERE. You said no legal experts agreed with me. They did.
I also pointed out that there were many fine points on which the statute might survive. That is exactly what has happened. I never claimed that in the face of Lawrence that the statute would definitely survive on the merits; I SAID MAYBE. We will likely never know.
I was right. You were wrong. The statute is alive and in use. And as I advised several posts ago, do what you want, but DO NOT ADVERTISE IT! Still darn good advice.
Singson and Tijan both apparently involved soliciting for public sex, also not covered by Lawrence.
There has not, nor could there be under Lawrence, a successful prosecution of sodomy for private behavior between consenting adults. Your claim that Virginia continues to outlaw such sexual behavior is false. Post-Lawrence, the sodomy statute can no longer be used for such prosecutions. Nor can it be used, as you have attempted to do, to justify an irrational prejudice against gays and lesbians in this state or any other.
Virginia does not – and, after Lawrence – Virginia may not “outlaw homosexual conduct.”
@295–It does not matter. You made a blanket claim as to the viability of the Virginia statute. I made a much more circumscribed claim. Now you are trying to point out all sorts of fine distinctions. Sorry Dan, that is my argument, not yours.
And Virginia can–it has–outlawed homosexual conduct. It is on the books.
You made blanket statements, I did not. I told you there were convictions under the statute–you said there were not. There were. The law lives.
I win. You lose.
I think the beacon is bright and clear, unlike some “fine distinction” prejudice that still is resistant. Again, the whole thing is well worth reading! But this is the “All States” part:
“(c) Bowers’ deficiencies became even more apparent in the years following its announcement. The 25 States with laws prohibiting the conduct referenced in Bowers are reduced now to 13, of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct. In those States, including Texas, that still proscribe sodomy (whether for same-sex or heterosexual conduct), there is a pattern of nonenforcement with respect to consenting adults acting in private. Casey, supra, at 851–which confirmed that the Due Process Clause protects personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education–and Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 624–which struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals–cast Bowers’ holding into even more doubt. The stigma the Texas criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not trivial. Although the offense is but a minor misdemeanor, it remains a criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged, including notation of convictions on their records and on job application forms, and registration as sex offenders under state law. Where a case’s foundations have sustained serious erosion, criticism from other sources is of greater significance. In the United States, criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapproving of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions. And, to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case’s reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 828. Bowers’ holding has not induced detrimental reliance of the sort that could counsel against overturning it once there are compelling reasons to do so. Casey, supra, at 855-856. Bowers causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after it contradict its central holding. Pp. 12-17.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
@297–It is not “prejudice” to state, opine on, practice or predict the state and direction of, the law. It is a profession.
@GFK: #296: Obviously, you are psychologically incapable of admitting error, so this will be my last response. Here is a summary of the arguments we have both made, and that you have lost.
You have repeatedly asserted that sodomy remains against illegal in Virginia, and that Lawrence did not invalidate Virginia’s sodomy statute. That assertion is incorrect. Consensual, private sex acts by adults cannot be prosecuted – and have not been prosecuted – in Virginia since Lawrence. You have not shown otherwise. No case you have cited involves consensual, private sex acts by adults – which was the topic of conversation here.
@250 and elsewhere, you asserted that the fact that the statute was not limited to homosexuals was “why it was not invalidated by Lawrence v. Texas.” That is completely incorrect. No such reasoning can be found in the text of Lawrence, and no opinion can be cited to back up that assertion. It is false, and you are wrong.
Claim victory all you like, Glen. You are clearly incorrect in your major assertions. Adults are free to engage in private, consensual sodomy to their heart’s content in Virginia. The fact that Virginia’s law applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals has no impact on the fact that, post-Lawrence, it cannot be used to prosecute those engaged in such private, consensual sexual acts.
If nothing else, GFK has demonstrated one thing very clearly. He is a master at double talk and full of opinions that are morally and ethically challenged when trying to apply his version of the law.
His type love to use broad sweeping generalities when making their condemnations but then run fast and furiously from specifics and one on one pointed debated. In his mind and the minds of many, it is correct to discriminate based on his personal beliefs no matter how grossly ridiculous they are.
His profession is based on arguing. I think he’s met his match on several levels within this thread and I think all have managed to go toe to toe with him. He hasn’t made a convincing argument as to why gays/lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to have civil unions in order to obtain the same government santioned rights, benefits and treatment as heterosexual couples. His arguments, like that of many against us, then become broad brush generalitites based on his personal phobias.
But at the end…GFK, your God made me the way I am. Who are you to say that he was incorrect when he made me. The Bible, which you cite as your authority, only regurgitates man’s opinion about the topic.
In my view, you’re committing the greatest sin of all when you question why your God makes people the way he does. Many would say “how dare you to have the audacity to question His creations”.
@299–I am “psychologically incapable of admitting error”? Look in the mirror.
I have repeatedly noted that Lawrence did not invalidate the Virginia statute. It did not. The statute is alive and has been enforced post-Lawrence.
I have also repeatedly noted that the Virginia statute applied to both heterosexual and homosexual conduct. It does.
I have been remarkably clear.
I have not discussed enforcement of Virginia’s statute, other than to advise you–in the face of your claims to the contrary–that the statute had been enforced post-Lawrence. It has, and you have been shown the proof you denied [rather rudely, I must state, as well as incorrectly] existed.
I have also admitted that the Virginia statute would be in danger if it arrived at the high court, in light of Lawrence. But, I noted, it is not “slam dunk”. I also stated that I doubt it would ever get there.
You claimed, rather broadly, that Lawrence invalidated all prohibitions against consensual sodomy. The Virginia cases and Avery clearly demonstrate that you are incorrect. It does not matter whether if those cases followed through to the Supreme Court that your view might prevail; they did not, and so we do not know. You make a valid point on that score, which I have acknowledged.
And frankly, this whole discussion of the Virginia statute is a sideshow. I have only mentioned it as an aside in the context of the larger question, which is same sex marriage. And Lawrence hurts your side, not helps, as I pointed out last night (and which you dismissed).
I have also stated–though no one has acknowledged or seems to care–that I, indeed, most people, do not care what folks do in private. There is not now, nor has there ever been, an elite squad of Virginia state troopers peeking into bedroom windows hoping to catch offending sodomites. It is far down the list of folks’ priorities.
The problem is when folks who practice sodomy are in public. As you note, some of the latest Virginia cases involve public acts. This is, actually, a large and growing problem in Virginia. And there are a lot of people who truly think that public sodomy should not be criminalized; regrettably, many are lawyers and judges.
But public sodomy is offensive. To many, so is homosexuality; people do not care if you do it, but are upset when you brag about it. You may call that honesty, others find it rude.
Hence part of the explanation for the opposition to state sanctioned homosexual unions. People may not want to prosecute homosexuals, but that does not mean that they concur with the behavior. When homosexuals demand that marriage be redefined to suit their desires, and that folks must accept their lifestyles as normal, the vast majority of people are going to vote no.
Fair enough. I have made my points. I have conceded to you what is owed, and a little bit more. You don’t have to admit you were wrong in your assertions–I’ll even allow that you meant something you did not type–but you were. You were wrong, and I was right.
Have a great day.
@300–I do not question God’s actions or creations. I question the actions of man.
No need to announce your profession, that is beyond certain.
Who in the world has ever approved of public sex of any kind?
#253,
Will, how do you prove the existence of something that is “not”?
There is plenty of research going on with this and trying to identify a gene associated with it. No such link has been found. Every time they think they have something, they find there are heterosexuals with that link, and homosexuals that don’t have it.
Until it (sexuality) is proven to be genetical, the comparison of race to sexual preference is invalid. And should not be done. And there are plenty of examples of people going back and forth on their sexuality. The Vermont mom comes to mind as a recent one.
Lack of choice about something is not a prerequisite to be free from discrimination. Religion is a choice, yet it is still illegal to discriminate against someone based solely on their religious beliefs.
Even so, I know I never made a conscious choice to be straight. Bob, in the past, has said he did – he just can’t remember when (proving only that he doesn’t understand what is meant by “conscious choice”). Will says he never made a conscious choice to be gay, which seems obvious. Who would choose a lifestyle that subjects you to so much hatred and revulsion?
Ask most straight people, and they’ll tell you they could not choose to be attracted to someone of the same sex. Others might suggest they could make such a choice, but never would. Either they are lying about the ability to make a choice, or they are bisexual.
I don’t know if sexual orientation is genetic. Something does not have to have genetic roots, however, to not be a choice. (Is there a gene for right-handedness? I don’t think so, yet I know I never chose to have a dominant hand, and could not “choose” to suddenly become left-handed.)
Again, however, the whole choice thing is red herring. It doesn’t matter if gays and lesbian choose to be that way. Whether it is a choice or not, they should not be subject to irrational discrimination, any more than a Christian should for choosing to have faith.
#306,
Are you not the one pulling out Loving vs.Virginia in your justifcation of your position or am I just imagining that?
I am saying to not equate race with sexuality. They have not been proven to be the same thing.
ONE Massachusetts judge is not the final say for the entire country on this issue.
It is not “irrational” to choose NOT to redefine marriage. Nor is it discrimination.
Bob,
Loving v. Virginia is perfectly applicable here. Virginia had an irrational prohibition against marrying the person of your choice. The Supreme Court found that the right to marry is fundamental and that necessary to that fundamental right was the right to marry the person of your choice, absent a compelling state interest, i.e. age of consent.
It doesn’t matter whether the irrational prohibition is based on race or sexual orientation, the principles expressed in Loving v. Virginia are applicable and relevant, and they will eventually prevail.
305 BoBH, we have been over your nonsensical remarks about the causes of sexual orientations before. I gave an example of one linkage that is almost certain to be genetic, and is supported by your own anecdote about two siblings, one a homosexual male and the other a promiscuous heterosexual female.
There are other hints of genetic or congenital causes as well. For example, I believe most identical twins are of the same orientation, especially if raised apart from early infancy.
And there are indications of learned behavior in other cases. Boys expozed to pedophiles often grow up to be pedophiles themselves. Men have gone into prison heterosexual and come out preferring homosexual relations.
And of course there are plenty of examples of people going back and forth on their sexuality. There would undoubtedly be a lot more if our culture did not place such harsh taboos on sexual behavior.
I know this is a hard concept for a dichotomic mind to grasp, but try to focus: Every human being is a unique individual. One size does not fit all.
@309–Loving concerned marriage restrictions based upon innate characteristics (i.e. race). A restriction was removed, but nothing was redefined.
Same sex “marriage” concerns conduct and the redefinition of marriage. Loving is inapplicable.
@310–In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like Lawrence, which made a point of suggesting that it would be different were the court being asked to sanction homosexual conduct/unions. I really, really do. Lawrence, not Loving, is the key.
@305…BobH
I didn’t compare race to homosexuality.
The reason I know is because I am what I am. I didn’t choose to be gay. For Christ sake, man…why in the name of all that’s holy would anyone choose to live with the hatred, bigotry, malice and personal injury that’s thrown at gay people as has occured? Surely you’re not that naive as to believe that any rational person would purposefully put themselves in that position.
I might be gay but I’m not ignorant or stupid.
The only thing that I could choose, if you want to use that word, is to choose to live a lie and pretend to be straight. Would that be honest? I’ve been taught all my life to be honest with myself and others. Why then should I choose to lie to people? Is lying not a sin?
@302…GFK
Apparently not. Your response is consistent in it’s inconsistency.
No one is promoting public sodomy here and the gay community as a whole doesn’t promote public sex of any description. That being said, the straight community seems to enjoy practicing public displays of affection that get very close to crossing the line of public decency but I don’t hear a lot of bitching and moaning about that.
But the issue is not about public sodomy…the issue is about denying government sanctioned benefits and privileges to gays/lesbians that are provided to straight couples.
Any way you slice it, dice it, argue it, litigate it, bemoan it, or otherwise futz about it, denying those rights to gay/lesbian couples is wrong. It was wrong yesterday, it’s wrong today and if it continues it will be wrong tomorrow.
You can be thankful GFK and others that stand with you that there are people like me who will not let this issue rest until such time as it is corrected.
As Other John posted earler, once that happens, the sun will still rise in the east the next morning, you will still be able to love your spouse, have intercourse with him/her, enjoy a nice dinner, a good cocktail…and all those other things that you enjoy today.
As Plato said: “Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.” Let’s hope he’s not entirely correct.
Over 1,500 species practice homosexuality. Homosexual behavior has been observed in swans, mallards, gulls, penguins, vultures, dolphins, bison, apes, elephants, giraffes, macaque, lions, polecats, sheep, hyena, several species of lizards, dragonflies, fruit flies, bed bugs, rats, bears, caribou, cats, cheetah, marmoset, raccoon, dogs, prea, chickens, emu, over 15 species of fish, skink, snakes, tortoise, turtles, salamanders, frogs, toads, worms, weevils, wasps, bees, beetles, blood-flukes, blowflies, crabs, butterflies, damselflies, crickets, moths, lacewings, spiders, milkweed bugs, octopus, locusts, mites, ants, stinkbugs…
On the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females. Studies have also shown that not only is homosexual activity in animals widespread, but may also be part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.
So much for homosexual activity being unnatural……
@313–Since you mistakenly believe me to be inconsistent, let me be clear.
The Bible opposes same sex sodomy. I oppose same sex sodomy.
Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. It is a gift from God, going back to the Garden of Eden, and a sacrament. It needs no improvement or redefinition.
I oppose the redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples (or for that matter, any other arrangement that might logically follow, such as polygamy).
I also oppose civil unions. One, it is marriage light. Two, it is society blessing a union defined by unnatural and sinful conduct. It is wholly offensive to me, and to the vast majority of this country.
I do not care what you do, so long as I do not know about it. It is none of my business, and I really cannot understand the need to inform the world of your sexual preferences. It is not the manners of the world I grew up in, or that my wife and I are teaching our children.
I see no need for the federal government to be dispensing benefits to anyone, married, single, straight, homosexual, what have you. It is unconstitutional. Eliminate those benefits, and perhaps you won’t feel so put upon. Since you bring it up regularly, it is clearly the impetus for your desires on this subject. I can assure you that I did not get married to receive a government benefit. Come to think of it, I haven’t received one either.
It is not wrong for society to choose to NOT redefine marriage for a distinct minority. It is not wrong for society to choose to NOT create a new category of union. And it is not wrong to view homosexual conduct with disdain and revulsion. There are many forms of conduct of which folks do not approve; everything is not relative or equal. There is a right and there is a wrong.
Now, having reiterated what I believe for your benefit, I hope we are clear. And if you have spare time, perhaps you can find anything I wrote that is inconsistent with this post. If so, let me know.
@314–Balderdash. If homosexuality were natural, then homosexuals could reproduce. They cannot.
@GFK #315 “I do not care what you do, so long as I do not know about it. It is none of my business, and I really cannot understand the need to inform the world of your sexual preferences. It is not the manners of the world I grew up in, or that my wife and I are teaching our children.”
You “really cannot understand the need to inform the world of your sexual preferences,” yet proceed to do so in the very next breath.
Intriguing.
@315…
In your word…BALDERDASH!
You claim that neither you have not enjoyed the benefits as provided for by the government for straight couples? Unless you’re living in a bubble, Mr. Koontz…I seriously question the accuracy of your answer here. And until such time as those benefits are removed, then I want them. Plain pure and simple.
You might want to have a discussion with Mormans regarding polygamy. I don’t want more than one partner and I don’t see the gay/lesbian community wanting more than one partner; hence part of the reason for wanting to be able to obtain civil unions (albeit not necessarily the primary reason).
By your very being, you promote your sexual preference Mr. Koontz. Is my not being able to express mine not repression and discrimination just because you personally don’t like mine? Again…BALDERDASH.
Based on your perception, you view gays/lesbians as wrong…my perception (and I think my point of view is about as accurate as yours if not more so) is that we are just as right as you believe you are and in many ways better.
At the end of the day, I suspect that I obey the 10 Commandments just about as well as anyone and live a life that trys to enrich others by helping them any way that I can and giving of myself to help others regardless of their station in life.
If you can say that while looking in a mirror with a (pardon the word) straight face given all you profess, then good luck.
I’ve been fortunate to have many straight friends over the years. My neighbors here are staunch conservatives that were somewhat taken back by the fact that they have a gay couple living next to them. They indeed sounded a lot like you at first but since we’ve been here, they’ve moderated their position and see that we all are faced with the same day to day issues of making it through life one day at a time.
They have come to realize that if my partner and I achieve equality in the eyes of the government that their world will not fall apart. They like having us as neighbors because we look out for each other and help each other. That’s what it’s all about.
I’m sorry that you have such difficulty grasping that simple concept of life.
@317–I admit that there is an assumption that people are heterosexual, and further that there is an assumption that heterosexual couples engage in heterosexual sex. Is that a double standard? Maybe. Maybe not.
The way I see it, if a heterosexual actually discusses his sexual behavior, that is rude and boorish behavior. Similarly, if a homosexual says only that he is a homosexual, he has engaged in rude and boorish behavior, because I now generally know what he does or prefers, sexually. And I do not want to know.
BUT, you protest. You know what heterosexuals do; why is that not rude and boorish as well? Because, I would tell you, that heterosexual conduct is generally natural and, dare I say it, normal.
If you view homosexuality as a sin, you will easily understand my point. And if you view homosexuality as just another lifestyle, well you probably won’t.
In other words, you have a double-standard. Simply admit it, and be done with it. You don’t mind people informing the world of their sexual preferences, you mind gays and lesbians informing the world of their sexual preferences. Funny, when I find out someone is gay, I don’t immediately begin imagining their sexual behavior. The fact that you apparently do may explain much.
@316 – Using that logic…homosexuals are not able to reproduce,therefore it is not natural, therefore they do not get the same treatment as those who can reproduce. Does that mean that people who can not reproduce for medical reasons, age, or choice should not get the same treatment as people who can reproduce?
@315 – So when you talk about your wife to friends and co-workers, or walk down the street holding hands….are you not advertising your sexual preference? I also find it amazing that you say you have not received any governmental benefits from your marriage. I call B.S! Do you not have the ability to file a joint income tax?
@320–I believe that I did admit that it was a double standard. I do not see that as a problem. There are double standards throughout life, this is just one of them.
I did not say that imagined anyone’s sexual behavior; it is, however, common knowledge that homosexuals engage in certain conduct. And that they engage in all or any of it is wrong. So if you tell me that you are a homosexual, you have told me that you engage in conduct which I consider sinful.
@318 and 321–No, when I talk about my wife, or hold hands, I am not advertising my sexual preference. As I stated, heterosexuality is normal. It is the natural order of things. And before you ask, yes I am saying that homosexuality is abnormal and against the natural order of things. Please do not pretend that you did not know that was my view.
@319 – “if a homosexual says only that he is a homosexual, he has engaged in rude and boorish behavior, because I now generally know what he does or prefers, sexually.”
WHAT? so when someone says they are gay, you start thinking about gay sex? Then maybe, Mr. Koontz, you need to seek psychological help because you obviously have issues with your own sexuality.
I would like to point out that studies done by psychologists suggest that 80% of men who are homophobic have secret homosexual feelings. Those who shout the loudest against homosexuality might just have something to hide.
Prof. Henry E. Adams of the University of Georgia concludes that homophobia is an individual’s inability to cope with his “own homosexual impulses”. The findings concur, he says, with theories that hostility to gay people is a form of sub-conscious, distorted homosexuality, and that anti-gay attitudes indicate fear and loathing of one’s own inner, suppressed homosexual desires.
@322 – so a male holding hands with a female does not advertise sexual preference, but two men (or two women) holding hands does advertise sexual preference? That is not even logical….
And when I find out someone is straight, I do not start thinking about what body part they put where.
@323–Nice try. There is no such thing as homophobia.
But thank you for citing Henry Adams. He could be the poster child for why public education is a waste of money. Starting with his salary.
309,
Loving vs. Virginia has no application here at all. Loving vs. Virginia decided that marriage restrictions based on RACE are unconstitutional by a 9-0 decision of the SCOTUS (and 9-0 decisions are extremely rare).
It overturned the “racial integrity act of 1924″.
The SCOTUS has not ruled that laws banning marriage between members of the same sex are unconstitutional.
Apples and Oranges. Well, not even that close as they are both fruits, rocks and apples more like it, is what you are comparing.
Read it for yourself Dan:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing and Loving v Virginia does not apply here as it has to do with ONLY RACE.
@324–Sure it is logical. It is normal for a man to hold hands with a woman. It is not normal for two men to hold hands.
Tell that to President Bush.
@328–I never claimed that President Bush was normal.
@Bob #326: Bob, I’ve read Loving v. Virginia many times, and it is perfectly applicable, as these quotes make clear:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.
The only argument is whether “gender classification” is as unsupportable a basis as “racial classification” to deny someone one of the basic civil rights of man.
I say no. You may argue differently, Bob, but you cannot say that the questions raised in Loving are not relevant to discussions of same-sex marriage.
Well, you can say that, but you’d be wrong.
@326 and 330–Bob, you are right and Mr. Radmacher is wrong. He is optimistic, but his optimism is misplaced. As noted below, I have explained this to him.
@309–Loving concerned marriage restrictions based upon innate characteristics (i.e. race). A restriction was removed, but nothing was redefined.
Same sex “marriage” concerns conduct and the redefinition of marriage. Loving is inapplicable.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — July 16, 2010 @ 11:51 am
#318,
I gotta tell you Will, I really like you. If I ever meet you I would be proud to shake your hand.
FWIW, I don’t stand in judgement of you or your lifestyle. I think, rather strongly, that there is alot more to Will, the person, than the fact that you are gay. It isn’t up to me to tell you it is right or wrong and I would be hypocritical to even say that, because I, as a heterosexual, am certainly a sinner. In my church, I have pointed out that nowhere is it written that a sinner cannot preach the Bible (because we are all sinners). In fact, the Bible is FULL of examples where God took sinners and made them, now, bigger than life people. Gideon, Moses, and even David who God selected to be part of the lineage which would bear His precious Son.
As I have said before, I do understand much of what you are saying. That gay couples should be entitled to the same insurance benefits, etc as heterosexual. I do support a civil act/ceremony where such things can occur, but they will have to be called something other than a marriage. Because, constitutionally, marriage in this state, and in every other state where it has come onto the ballot, has been defined as something that occurs between male and female.
I do not support, ever, a wayward judge thwarting the will of the people. The people are what makes this country great. The people are what gives the constitution meaning. Without that, it is just another piece of paper with writing on it.
I see, gay “marriage” as a states rights issue. And Amendment 10 of the constitution reads clearly to me. Each state has the right to set its speed limits, its laws about prostitution, and its own laws about what the legal age one must be to enter into marriage. This is no different, to me.
I will not sign off on race being the same as sexual preference and I am glad to see you agree with me on that. You may have been born that way, or something that happened in your infancy could have caused it. We don’t really know, do we? and, it doesn’t matter. But we do know of plenty of examples where “homosexuals” revert back (and sometimes forth) into being heterosexuals (google the Vermont mom). And where known heterosexuals revert to homosexuality (google Meredith Baxter). Clearly, at least some, seem to be able to turn it on and off like a light switch.
I do not agree with the narrow mindedness of GFK. In the end, I think there will be a state where homosexuals can unite. And, as this is a free country, one can live in whatever state they wish, preferably one that has laws consistent with how one wants to practice their lifestyle. And then maybe 2 states, and then…..
Bravo to your post. I don’t care if you are gay. You are OK in my book!
“Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?”
@332–Thank you Bob, for calling me “narrow minded[]“. I was feeling a little left out today, as very few folks had personally insulted me. And that gratuitous inclusion added a lot to your overall message to Will.
Again, many thanks.
@333–Because guns are protected by the Constitution.
@331: When laws and state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage are finally overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court – and they will be – Loving v. Virginia will be one of the main precedents cited.
I guarantee it. And I’ll bet anyone here a $150 bottle of Dom Perignon that I’m right.
There’s one catch: Whoever wins must send the bottle to Will so he and his partner can celebrate the victory in style.
@336–You are undoubtedly correct that if that decision were reached, that case would be cited prominently.
But I am not too worried about that happening. Remember Lawrence.
You’re putting an awful lot of faith in one small clause in Lawrence – which regular readers here will be unsurprised to find you misquoted @273 when you said the passage read: “It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”
That language cannot be found in the Lawrence decision. Perhaps you were referring to this, which leaves the question far more open:
“They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.”
In fact, Lawrence will probably be cited as a precedent as well.
@338–I may have to check my citations.
@339: Perhaps that quote is right next to the part of the decision that says laws pertaining equally to homosexual and heterosexual sodomy are OK?
336,
Until that happens, it isn’t valid. Weren’t you the one surprised that McCain/Feingold got struck down based on the free speech rights being attributable to corporations?
One thing I am sure of, the decisions of the Supreme Court cannot be predicted. And surely not as easily as you make it sound in your post.
BTW, no bet. I am not a drinker. I have said all along I could be wrong about whether sexual prefernce is genetical or not, but until it is proven, my posotion is what it is.
Did the Massachusetts judge cite Loving vs. Virginia in the recent ruling made?
GFK, sorry to offend you, but on this issue I think you are being too narrow minded.
#338,
“They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.”
Sounds like it is a choice to me rather than something you are born with. How can you cite this to suit one position but ignore what it says when you take the “born this way” stance?
@340–No, no, no. It was somewhere else.
@342: Engaging in sex is always a choice. Who you’re sexually attracted to is not.
#332 Don’t look now, BobH, but you and I agree on a few things here — among them the narrow-mindedness of GFK on this issue.
#334 Hope that helps you feel not so left out today, GFK.
#344,
Tell it to the Vermont mom.
One size thinking does not fit all, knowhutimean?
346 Whatever size your thinking is, is wrong unless it fits reality.
What causes sexual orientations is a scientific question. It has nothing to do with the immorality or illegality of discrimination.
The mere fact that so many good, decent, productive, artistic, educated,successful, attractive, generous, religious and even Republican people, would not CHOOSE to be or do anything immoral, amoral or demeaning for the thrill of it should be all the answer a moral person would need to realize this is not a choice. The treatment that gays have been subjected to alone should tell an intelligent person that it is not a choice at all for the vast and overwhelming majority. Maybe like the latter day racists among us, you will cling to your judgmental and irrational condemnations of gays even as the rest of the nation moves on and corrects this error too. That is always your choice to make.
I agree Sandi. As a gay man, I know I did not have a choice over my sexuality…and I have yet to meet anyone, gay or straight, that made that choice. If anything, homosexuals often try extreme methods NOT to be gay because of the treatment that gays and lesbians receive. Why would anyone chose to be shunned by family and friends? Why would anyone chose to live a life where they can loose their job….or their life, simply because of who they love?
OtherSilentBob, I will tell you the same thing I tell my “unknown” but very dear and valued friend Will and my other gay friends. Please do not ever allow the bigotry and willful ignorance of the intolerant, wanna be holier than thou people to ever make you feel that they have any point, any validity or any human endeavor in them that makes what they say, or how they feel all right! I am ashamed for them, for how they feel and how they believe it is alright to speak of and to you the way some do. Such will never be the right or decent thing to do. and I beg your forgiveness for them. You keep your head high, and know that there are more and more people like me who will join you in your fight for the equality you deserve. God willing, some day soon, we end this travesty.
@349–Because they choose to? It is a CHOICE!
@ BobH
Bob…I would honored at some point to be able to meet you as well as a good number of other posters on this particular thread as well as many others that we’ve all been a part of. And yes…Mr. Koontz, that would even include you. Perhaps a Roanoke gathering (any excuse to get back to our Blue Ridge Mountains!).
I was taught at an early age not to be afraid to fight for what you believe in as right or what you believe to be an injustice. Thank you Mom and Dad.
It pretty much boils down to this. Regardless of what the “laws” on the books might say or what the Bible (which was written by man) might say, neither has the power to control my life when it comes to my sexual orientation or that of any other gay/lesbian. That occured at my creation (again thanks to Mom and Dad and their ability to pay their house mortgage off ten years early).
People like GFK can yell and scream and thump their chests and Bibles all they want; but, if a gay/lesbian couple achieves equality with regard to the benefits granted by the government to heterosexual couples the world will not come to an end. There have been lots of changes during the course of history and regardless of those changes, the sun still rises in the east, spring follows winter and the sun still sets in the west. This will merely correct a wrong that has been in place for a long long time.
I said it earlier…and it bears repeating: Persistence will advance this efford forward. Young people are seeing the senselessness in this regard and are moving forward with more equality. I’m not sure about having just a state of gays/lesbians…I like a lot of people that are neither and I don’t want that kind of exclusivity (but can you imagine??? It would be a fabulous looking place to say the least! HA! HA!)
I truly feel sorry for people like GFK who can’t see the beauty and worth of all people and what they can contribute to life. It’s indeed their loss though and I’m glad that I’ve been able to experience the color of life. I think it would have been pretty dull to have experienced 54 years in black and white.
@350 and 352–I do not scream or yell. Indeed, I am invariably polite to folks, often to a fault. This blog is not a tea party, but a discussion; at least at times it is a discussion. So if my opinion disturbs you, it would be a mistake to consider the voicing of my thoughts to be a personal attack upon anyone. It is nothing more than my own thoughts.
I am neither a “bigot” nor “ignorant” and resent the many accusations hurled against me as being such. Then I remember that none of you know me, and so, why do I care? I don’t.
The fact is, I have an opinion, and I explain that opinion. Others’ opinions, and bases therefor, intrigue me. I try to engage in discussion, and do not engage in personal ad hominem. It would be nice if those who regularly decry such behavior would behave accordingly.
@352–There is no need to feel sorry for me. You do not know me.
@351 – You failed to respond the last time I asked, but please tell us all when you chose to be straight? When did you chose not to be gay? At what point in you life (puberty? high school? college? summer camp?) did you have to make the “choice” to be attracted to women or men? I will venture to say that you are going to say “I never had to make that choice”. If that is the case, why is it always gay people who are ever faced with having to make the decision to be gay or straight?
There are multiple studies that suggest that homosexuality may be a result of chromosome linkage, epigenetics, birth order, hormones, brain structure, etc. Just because none of these have “proven” that homosexuality biological, does not mean that it isn’t. There is no proof that God exists either, but you don’t seem to have a problem with that!
Studies have also shown that we ALL start out as female in the womb and based on a surge of hormones from the mother in the first trimester, testes develop and changes happen within the architecture of the brain.
“Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.”
Thomas Jefferson
Notes on Virginia, 1782
@355–Since you asked:
Being heterosexual is not a choice. Everyone is born heterosexual.
Being homosexual is a choice. Some folks choose to be homosexual because they wish to experiment, some because they are unsuccessful with members of the opposite sex, some because they develop unusual sexual tastes . . . who knows all the reasons?
Some folks become homosexual after marrying and starting a family, deciding to leave behind their wife and children (Bishop Robinson, for example). Others become homosexual, decide that they do not like it, and then go back to heterosexual.
Why do people decide to become homosexual? Perhaps for the same reason some folks commit adultery, change careers, take narcotics, or drink excessively; because they can.
BTW, there is proof all over that God exists. You just have to know where to look.
356 “Everyone is born heterosexual.” is your most preposterous claim to date.
And, of course, you’re just brimming over with oodles of proof, but will never feel like revealing any of it.
Your insistence that certain sexual orientations are a “choice” sound like something an asexual person might say, who having no sex drive of their own, do not understand how compelling it is.
@357–Gee, you persuaded me. Thank you for setting me straight. I never knew I was asexual. This explains so much!
“Everyone is born heterosexual.”
We await your proof of this statement, GFK.
#356 BTW, GFK, I always find it amusing and astounding that someone like you has the temerity to tell others what they think. Will and othersilentbob both say they know for a fact they cannot be anything other than homosexual and that for them it was not a “choice” they made. Yet somehow you know better than they do? Very odd and more than a little presumptuous.
Seeing the last couple of posts, I’m going to add something. I know someone who grew up and had homosexual feelings and tendencies while growing up. They were with her as long as she can consciously remember. When she began to express these feelings in her early years, her parents threw her into a church that said those feelings and tendencies were the devil’s doing. So, out of fear, she did her best to live a straight lie. She eventually married, and had two children. However, those innate tendencies and feelings never went away, she chose to try and bury them and live in a way completely counter to her nature. She was miserable. After about a dozen years of being married, the pain of living a lie became too much and she and her husband divorced. She came out about who she really was, and has lived a much happier life being who she was born as. The only choice regarding her sexuality that she made was to try and conceal her sexual orientation so that she could fit in with societal expectations of folks of a similar mind to Glen. Once she decided to truly accept who she was and live her life in truth, she became a much happier person. Eventually, even her parents who were very much against her coming out, came to accept and love her for who she is, as has everyone else she knows.
The people who say being homosexual is a choice do not know what they’re speaking about. People who are born with homosexual tendencies often cover up and conceal those feelings out of fear for themselves, fear of rejection, fear of losing the love of their friends and family. They choose to try to live as a straight person would, and it almost always leads to a divorce or later trouble in life as they struggle to keep their sexual preferences concealed. Now, I don’t doubt that there may also be a tendency for people to choose to alter their orientation through traumas or other life experiences and them making a choice to live in a way other than heterosexual, I’ve also seen that happen. But I also have no doubt that many homosexuals are born as homosexuals, I simply know too many who have always been homosexual and never were any other way. But whether it’s a genetic marker trait, or something that happens in the womb during fetal development, or it’s random chance. or it’s an actual conscious choice…it should not make a damn bit of difference.
A person of homosexual orientation is still a person, and their sexual preference ought not have any bearing on how they are treated by society. I fully believe they should be afforded the same privileges, rights, and respect afforded to anyone else, and that includes the ability to have their relationships with their partners being legally recognized on an equal footing as any heterosexual married couple does. No amount of Bible-thumping or other argument will ever change my mind about that, and I fully believe that eventually, there will be widespread acceptance as people come to realize that their lives are in no fashion impacted by it, because they aren’t. Any attempt to say otherwise is simply absurd, and rather facetious. Society will not end, overall societal values will not degrade, and heterosexual marriages will be in no way cheapened.
The tide is turning, and the current opposition I see as a last ditch effort to keep homosexuals from attaining truly equal status in society, and I see it as an effort that will ultimately fail.
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote “Being heterosexual is not a choice. Everyone is born heterosexual”
——————————————-
Ah, No. As in most every argument Glen Franklin Koontz undertakes, in this one he is again wrong.
Homosexuality exists in animals, in reptiles in fish – Glen wants everyone to believe they made a “choice” to be homosexual despite the fact that only one drive is stronger than the drive to reproduce, and that is the drive to survive. In almost every species there is a female who goes into heat and males must respond, yet even in these species males who are homosexual do not respnd to the chemical goads.
In 2008 a study of twins at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm concluded that genetics played the greatest role with random environmental (as in chemicals involved in foetal developement ) being the next largest factor.
The “choice” has always been a myth.
Religious fanatics and bigots, as they have done all throughout history since the dawn of time inject their own fears and their own hatreds to make anything they cannot comprehend on an emotional level, anything that scares them into an evil that must be stopped.
Galileo Galilei found out the hard way, as did Socrates. They had the misfortune to discover truths that contradicted the “official” versions of what mankind was supposed to believe.
Small minded bigotry cannot accept any truth that frightens it.
@360–First, I never mentioned any specific individual, so I hardly think that I was telling Will what to think, or what he thought. Never mentioned his name.
But second, I may be mistaken, but I believe–and please correct me if I am wrong–Will was once married. So at one time, he was heterosexual. Did he choose to be heterosexual? If so, did he then choose to become, or resume, homosexuality? If so, it seems that there is definitely some choice involved here somewhere. And human nature being what it is, the explanation of those choices tend to reflect a defense of our choices.
I stand by what I stated as to generalities. I do not presume to know about others what remains unspoken.
@361–Since you are-admittedly–not a Christian, I shall thank you not to presume what those people know and do not know. It would also be nice if you did not use pejoratives such as “Bible thumper”.
My request is consistent with your fellow Lefty gdad’s admonition to me. Let us all be on the same page.
@362–One, I am right. Two, I am not frightened. Three, I am not a bigot.
Side out.
How come the Left only believes in “choice” when it comes to murdering innocent unborn babies?
@363…GFK
Well Mr. Koontz, your really put your foot in it this time. You made an assumption without knowing the facts. Poor form there counselor.
I am not nor have I ever been married to a woman. I was engaged while in college bowing to the peer pressure that I must conform to what everyone else was expecting. Fortunately, the engagement was terminated and I was able to stop living the lie and the train wreck that would have no doubt occurred because of the lying. In your lofty opinion though, it appears that you would condone lying under this circumstance. How noble.
@ your 365…BALDERDASH…not even from the get go.
@ your 366…this thread is not about abortion. If you want to start another thread about that then have at it. Your inability to stay on topic is further proof that you have been completely debunked.
Game – Set – MATCH
#363 I don’t remember or know if Will was ever married, but it doesn’t matter. Being married to the opposite sex does not alone prove you are heterosexual. It merely proves you did what society expected and married the opposite sex. Having children does not alone prove you are hetero. It merely proves you had sex.
GFK, we still await your proof of your statement that ALL people are born heterosexual.
#366 GFK, I really expect better of you than this tired, worn-out right-wing, baseless cliche.
I was married for almost three years. Does that mean I was heterosexual? No. Just because I had sex with a woman did not make me heterosexual. It means I was a homosexual living as a heterosexual.
I grew up in a Southern Baptist family, was president of our church’s youth group, went on mission trips, witnesses to teenagers hanging out in parking lots on the weekends etc.etc.etc. and can’t begin to tell you the number of times I was on my knees, in tears, praying not to be gay. Guess what….still gay!
I got married because, at the time, I was so afraid of being gay. Rejection from my family, my friends, society, and God. Who would want that? So I did want a lot of gay and lesbian people do. They suppress who they truly are live a life of lies and suffering. Not only are these people harming themselves, but also the spouses and children that are involved in this. Even when I was married, I was still homosexual….still had homosexual feelings, and knew that my life was missing something…and that was the deep love and connection that one can only find when they are being who they truly are…and living an authentic life.
After finally realizing that I was only harming myself and others by living a fraudulent life, I divorced and embraced my true nature. And yes, I did experience rejection from my family and friends. I have a sister that I have not spoken to in almost 10 years because of her views on homosexuality. So much for “family values”. Her oldest son has recently came out as homosexual. Unfortunately, he is also afraid of being his true self with his own family because he has seen the way I have been treated. It seems that the ones who are so vocal about preserving family values, are the ones who are at the forefront of destroying them.
Be careful who you hate, it might be someone you love.
@367–Did you actually read what I wrote? I wrote that I thought you were, but allowed that I could be mistaken. I didn’t put my foot in anything. But thank you for the correction–which I believed I also asked for in the event that I was mistaken.
That being said, let us remove your name from my example. My proposition still holds.
Second, if it makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead and insult me. I have been civil to you, but you do not seem to wish to reciprocate. That is fine, I can take it. Call me a bigot. It does not make it so.
And third, I was making a point related to my on topic post. I was not trying to change the subject. I like this subject, as I am winning the argument. I LOVE THAT!
@368–I disagree. It makes no sense to say that heterosexuality is a choice, but homosexuality is innate. It goes against all of nature.
@369–Read Genesis.
@370–It is not a cliche. It is actually telling that with abortion, the Left screams choice. But when it comes to other subjects–let us say education–the Left hates choice. Indeed, President Clinton once spoke against tax cuts on the premise that if the American people were allowed to make their own decisions on how to spend their money, they might make the wrong choices. Heck, Social Security is all about removing choice. So is obamacare.
So no, it is not a cliche. It is an astute observation. It might even win me a Pulitzer for commentary.
I tried to live as a Christian, tried going to church, reading the Bible…doing all the things expected of a good Christian. However, that was not who I really was and after many years of trying to force myself to believe in a theology I never could embrace because it never felt right, I walked away in search of what did fit. And thankfully, I found it. I am certainly not as well-versed or knowledgeable as most Christians, nor do I pretend to be. But what I have experienced from Christians in terms of open and blatant hateful language and actions directed at me for being a non-Christian. my friends and family members who are homosexual, and some of the other non-Christians I know is all I really need to know. Granted, a good more than half the Christians I know do a pretty good job of exemplifying their religion and how they practice it, but there is a sizable amount who seems to completely ignore their teachings and react with hate and anger toward those who are different from them. Perhaps one day that will not be the case.
@371–I suggest to you that your post is wholly consistent with what I wrote in my post #363. Thanks for the validation.
And I do not hate anyone. I certainly do not hate you. I do not know you.
I’ll say it again, hate the sin, love the sinner. In translation, hate bad conduct, love people.
And, I’m far more conservative than liberal in an overall sense. However on this one issue in particular, I am very much in the liberal camp because it is the correct side of the issue.
371 “I have a sister that I have not spoken to in almost 10 years because of her views on homosexuality. So much for “family values”. Her oldest son has recently came out as homosexual.”
BobH, are you paying attention?
@376–I have not noticed you condemning Islam because of the actions of some Muslims. Why is that? And in case you did not know, Muslims do hate homosexuals; they hang them.
@378–You are entitled to your opinion.
@372…GFK
Your proposition does not hold not even one milliliter of water.
There is no reference in my post that you are a bigot but if the shoe fits….
You refer to Genesis in the Bible…let’s see, woman was created from the rib of man…had nothing to do with sexual genetalia and the ability to have sexual intercouse to reproduce.
Frankly, I think God may have had it correct when he created homosexuals. We were more of a perfect creation and therefore didn’t see the need to have us continually reproduce (although many today do). He gave heterosexuals the change to do it over again until they got it right.
Have a good Sunday all. I’m off to finish painting the living room, foyer and dining room. I think I’ve painted about 500 miles of crown molding and picture molding in the last week!
People cannot rhetorically slap other people in the face for over 5 days and then expect anyone to believe they “do not hate anyone” and the language, phrasing and choice of offensive delivery give lie to “hate the sin, love the sinner”. What some may think is simply presenting a position in a logical, fair and respectful manner is not being received so by practically all of the people in the thread, even some who agree with them. That alone should give one pause. Any individual or even majority belief is not necessarily superior to those of others, neither is one person’s understanding of the law and interpretation of it superior to that of others and the presentation of “facts” is certainly not superior to anyone else’s effort. Everyone’s assured position comes from the evidence they see, self affirmation they seek and testimony they will accept even if it is not their comfort zone or expertise. That also does not make one superior to the other. Refusing to see or feel beyond what is beyond what you know and believe is a form of bigotry, prejudice, arrogance and yes, ignorance. Wearing blinders and labeling something “sin” even in the face of scientific, testimonial, anecdotal, cultural and human kindness evidence is belligerence not loving the sinner.
@380, Islam in general is a beautiful religion as is Christianity (when taken solely for the religion and not the actions of the practitioners), and I do condemn the people who use it to hate, kill, or otherwise harm others, always have…you must have missed my comments pertaining to that. And the Muslims that I know do likewise and despise the image that their religion has in the minds of many because of the actions of a relatively small amount of narrow-minded fanatics.
“Islam in general is a beautiful religion as is Christianity” ?
De gustibus non est disputandum.
@381–You responded to my post which responded to a post calling be a bigot; hence by incorporation . . . . But if that is not what you meant, I accept your apology.
But you read only part of Genesis. Yes, God made woman for man. But why? It was to give him a companion, and by their union, man is made whole. It is the story of civilization, from the very beginning. Why do you think Noah took two (2) of every beast on the Ark? Because it was a round number? No, no, no.
Heterosexuality is the norm. It is natural. And that is why society should not endorse homosexuality by any means, including so-called same sex “marriage” or civil unions.
@382–I–as opposed to some, perhaps you–have made no personal attacks. But I find it curious that you are so offended by my ideas–which are mainstream, that you get so worked up.
Most folks would not actually state publicly some of the things I state, true enough. Certainly politicians do not, because they are cowards. Ordinarily, people are more circumspect. Most people do not normally engage with others on a subject which is contentious. It is called good manners.
But again, this is a blog. Robust discussion is the point. How can you possibly be comfortable with your own beliefs if they are never challenged? Would you really be happier living in a world of Sandi Saunderses? I would hope not, as it would be very boring to only hear your own voice.
All views and beliefs are not equal. Some views are superior to others. There is a right and a wrong. While there is gray in the world, there is also black and white. More of it than some are willing to acknowledge.
@383–I must have missed those comments. Because in this thread, you have not condemned any religion except Christianity, even though all major religions–all–condemn homosexual conduct. Islam is only the most radical, with respect to its punishment of the sin.
Given that Christians seek the sinner to reject the sin and repent–a very benign reaction if you ask me–I found your condemnation of Christianity in your various posts to be interesting.
Is the holding of an idea and belief really worthy of condemnation? I could swear I read in the post of one of your fellow travelers that all ideas were equal.
#374 Genesis is proof of nothing at all. Try again, GFK.
#373 Now exactly where did I say heterosexuality is a choice, GFK? I certainly don’t think I had any choice but to be hetero.
#375 It might win you a prize for blindly and mindlessly parroting Rush, but certainly not for original commentary.
Glen Franklin Koontz WROTE “#362–One, I am right. Two, I am not frightened. Three, I am not a bigot. Side out.”
________________________________________
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
1: You have produced no science to back your stance. You are proven Wrong.
2. Only a frightened individual would campaign to deny other people the same rights and freedoms they enjoy. Your previous argument that they are treated equal becuase each are free to marry a member of the opposite sex is no more valid than Alabama’s argument:
The constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583). The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the court, both races were treated equally, because whites and blacks were punished in equal measure for breaking the law against interracial marriage and interracial sex. This judgment was overturned in 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, where the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.
3: Every racist, every anti-semite, every bigot always denies what their own actions and attitudes convict them of.
387 “all major religions–all–condemn homosexual conduct”
You missed your calling. You ought to be a novelist, specializing in alternate-reality fantasies.
You said somewhere you are a member of the Episcopal Church, so how can you be unaware that it does NOT condemn homosexuality? Were you in a coma during the worldwide furor over the ordination by an American Episcopal church of a practising homosexual as a bishop?
Name one other religion in the world, besides the three Abrahamic religions, where even a few sects are intolerant of homosexuality.
There’s the crux of the issue, I do not see homosexuality as a sin or other thing to be condemned, whereas you do. And in this thread, the arguments against homosexuality have been made from the Christian theological base, hence my comments pertaining to such.
#385 – You seem to be all about proof that homosexuality is biological. Where is the proof this Noah’s Ark thing ever happened?
You are basing your whole argument argument on a “divine” book that says chickens have four legs….
Again, just because there has been no concrete proof that homosexuality is biological does not mean it’s not. Just as there is no proof Jesus existed, but you still base your entire life on the idea that he did.
What you have proven beyond doubt is that you will see this discussion and your beliefs through your own prism and still condemn others for the same. You have every right to feel how ever you like on this or any other issue, but it is extreme arrogance that professes not to have used any personal attacks while at the same time knowing that the judgmental condemnation and revulsion you have shown for the people as a whole that we are discussing is certain to have been, as we have repeatedly told you, offensive and a personal attack. There is a cognitive dissonance that you are either avoiding or deliberately ignoring. YOU are the one who has used the Bible and Christianity to condemn, judge and demean homosexuals, why would anyone drag in another religion when only Christianity has been used as an excuse? Since you disdain Islam and Muslims, using their position on this issue is specious on many levels.
@389–Nothing is preventing you from engaging in homosexual conduct. Indeed, you can move tomorrow and marry a man in Massachusetts.
Is this a great country or what?
@390–I parrot no one. But it would be a privilege to be compared favorably with such a successful businessman and great American as Rush Limbaugh. Thank you.
@391–First, I have not been proven wrong. I have supported my positions. But even if I had not, that would not mean I had been proven wrong.
Second, based upon your definition of a “bigot”, there is not a contributor to his blog who is not a “bigot”, including, no, especially, you. Frankly though, I do not accept your definition, and prefer to believe that no contributor to this blog is a bigot. I have certainly not read any bigoted posts.
@392–The Episcopal Church is not a religion, it is a sect of Christianity. That some folks–not even close to a large minority–in the Anglican community have chosen to turn their backs on God and his law does not serve to condemn either the sect or the religion.
Ever meet a homosexual practitioner of Shinto? No.
@394–Again, read Genesis. And are you really challenging Christ’s existence? Is that a serious statement?
@395–You’ve tried earlier to accuse me of making personal attacks, and you failed. You should admit that you find my arguments offensive, but that does not translate into my having made a personal attack. I have condemned conduct, period. I have argued that immoral conduct does not warrant society’s blessing, period. That is not a personal attack.
I do find your arguments and presentation offensive. I do not accuse you of making personal attacks, I point out that you have done so. Accusation is your characterization. How you meant your words and how they are taken/perceived are two different things, that is what I point out. As you so graciously noted in another thread, society and the mores of it, evolve. You understand this fully and yet choose to condemn homosexuality, call it perversion, immoral and whatever other derogatory term you can imagine even as you KNOW that slavery and women as chattel were acceptable to and practiced by the majority and are now considered immoral. You fight with literal zealotry to deny that homosexual Americans deserve equal rights because the majority have moral objections to their “conduct”? Surely not hubris, but certainly not warranting society’s blessing either.
400 “And are you really challenging Christ’s existence? Is that a serious statement?”
Unlike any of yours — Yes.
@397 – Rush Limbaugh a great American….Are you serious?! He is one of the most idiotic and racist people I have ever know…no wonder you think he’s a great man.
@399 – There are homosexuals in EVERY religion!
@400 – I am absolutely questioning Christ’s existence. There is no real proof.
@402–My views are mainstream, worldwide. As much as you might like to think otherwise, you are in the minority on this question. That, however, is not why you are wrong on this question.
You are wrong on this question, first, because under our present system of Constitution and laws, there is no way to impose same sex unions on the nation. It is not legally possible, absent a constitutional amendment. Now I realize that you prefer Constitutional shortcuts, but the amendment process is the only way you can do this legally.
And in Virginia, same thing. You would have to amend the Constitution, because the MAJORITY of Virginians voted to forbid same sex unions and embed that prohibition in our Constitution. So you have a steep climb on this question.
You are also wrong, second, because there is a natural order of things, and homosexuality is unnatural. And because it is unnatural, it is immoral, and has been so considered since the beginning.
I didn’t write the rules, I am just obligated to follow them. Even if you changed the federal and Virginia Constitutions, you would be wrong, because homosexuality contravenes God’s law. And man may not amend God’s law.
@403–I pray that one day you will change your view.
@404–You know Rush Limbaugh? Will you introduce me? Please?
Sure there are homosexuals in every religion. There are also liars, adulterers, murderers, drunks, and thieves; name a sin, and you will have about covered it. Man is imperfect, and cannot be perfected on this Earth. But man’s imperfection is no excuse not to strive and to live without sin. The key is to seek forgiveness and to repent of the sin. This is what all sinners–liars, adulterers, murderers, thieves, and homosexuals–should do.
I am sorry that you question Christ’s existence. I hope you find the answer.
GFK…
You’re not changing my mind nor am I changing yours. Consequently to continue this dialogue with you is of little relevance to either of us.
I frankly don’t agree with your position relative to civil unions for gays/lesbians and will fight to my last breath to see that we achieve the same government sanctioned benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy today.
You’ve flounted the word bigot relative to several of us in this thread. You are the only one that is wanting to exclude gays/lesbians from receiving the equal treatment that they deserve. Nothing in my posts have the slightest inclination toward denying heterosexual couples from being able to enjoy the same things tomorrow if gays/lesbians are allowed civil unions that they currently enjoy today.
To do anything less is indeed bigoted by your definition.
You’ve paraded the Bible handily during this discussion but you’ve not proven anything by it.
So rest assured that for every breath you take against me and people like me, I’ll be taking a breath to fight against your discrimination.
Caio.
There is no need to amend any constitution. The constitution of Virginia is subordinate to the Constitution of the United States, which already guarantees equal rights for all of us. All that is needed is for the US Supreme Court to acknowledge this. And if history is any guide, it eventually will. Every ruling that has gone against equal liberty and justice for all, from Dred Scott to Plessy to the first ruling on criminalizing sodomy, to that infamous Douglas quote about our institutions presupposing a god, has been overturned in the end.
Since the present court has a majority of Catholic judges, they may buy into this dithering about “natural law” at first. But decent Americans must hope that sooner or later truth, reason, and justice will prevail, as they have in the past.
@408–You unwillingness to believe does not equate to my failure to prove something. ADIOS!
@409 “[D]ecent Americans do not want a radical homosexual agenda imposed upon them, especially by the Supreme Court.
Moreover, the Virginia Constitution is not “subordinate” to the United States Constitution on this question. Far from it. The United States Constitution is supreme only on matters explicitly delegated to it alone. Guess what? Marriage is NOT explicitly delegated to federal government. It is reserved to the States or to the people, as is set forth in the 10th Amendment.
If you read what I wrote more carefully, you would note that I first addressed the need to amend the federal Constitution. I then addressed the need to amend the Virginia Constitution.
And finally, your citation of Dred Scott as having been overturned by the Supreme Court is incorrect. Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment, which is the ONLY LEGAL WAY to make the kind of changes that homosexuals wish to impose on the American people. It is not for the Supreme Court to impose same sex marriage on the American people.
Indeed, let us take your proposition. Let us say that the Supreme Court finds Virginia’s marriage laws unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot rewrite the law, or require Virginia to pass another law. So what happens? Virginia ignores the Supreme Court (a tactic I would favor), or refuses to do anything (my second choice). NO MORE state sanctioned marriages in Virginia, which means no same sex marriages. SO ALL YOU PEOPLE WILL HAVE ACCOMPLISHED is the abolition of Virginia recognizing an institution that has existed since the beginning of time. Boy, oh boy, is that a positive contribution to society. Congratulations!
@GFK…
So I have to believe everything you say? BALDERDASH again!
Counselor…just so you’ll know, I have a natural distrust of lawyers…not just you but the profession in general. Consequently, for me to take at face value much of anything that comes from the mouths of that profession would be next to damned near impossible.
Radical agenda? Please don’t make me laugh. Now you’re taking the conservative talking garbage and regurgitating it. Broad brush generalities prove nothing and do little other than to incite hysteria.
Decent Americans do not want a radical Conservative agenda imposed upon them, especially by the Supreme Court. This has been proven time and time again. The most recent outrages include the eminent domain and the unbridled corporations are persons with rights idiocy, so your sword, as usual cuts both ways.
And opinion that the Virginia Constitution is not subordinate to the United States Constitution on this or any other question, is just that. Many people, including the end of the Civil War decided that one too.
Marriage may not be explicitly delegated to or from the federal government, but civil rights are. Since so many gun rights advocates hang their hats on the SCOTUS decisions trumping state or local decisions on “rights” that argument fails on several levels as well as makes a specious case.
There is no need to amend any Constitution. Once the unequal rights have been established, any law that bars equal access will become moot, struck down or unenforced. It really is that simple.
You are correct that it is not for the Supreme Court to impose same sex marriage on the American people, but it is most certainly for the Supreme Court to impose and enforce equal rights, protections and responsibilities to all citizens on the American people. Once the right is legally established and upheld, the civil union of Marriage, with or without the sacrament will be available to all of us equally.
Whether you believe it a “contribution” or a heinous burden is of no consequence as you well know. Laws, once established are laws until such time as they are struck down. First we will strike down the law as unconstitutional and then when the world does not fall apart as Chicken Little has suggested whenever they have the chance, we will move forward. Slavery required an amendment eventually, yes, Equal rights are ALREADY codified in every Constitution in this nation as well as the Supreme US Constitution and no such is required. YOU are blowing smoke and praying for a “miracle” that will not come.
@412–You do not have to like lawyers. But that does not make them wrong or untrustworthy.
And I like bankers. Very much.
Finally, it is radical to redefine an institution that has existed for thousands of years, on the whim and desire of a distinct minority, and in opposition to the wishes of the majority. It is r a d i c a l !!!!
Be honest; this is not about civil rights; it is about a desire to gain, not tolerance, but acceptance. It is about the legitimization of homosexual conduct. That is radical.
404,
There is no proof of the existence of Christ? Where do you think today’s DATE comes from?
There is no PROOF today that George Washington existed either but I am convinced that he did.
@413–So called “gun rights” are merely God-given rights, which the federal Constitution acknowledges in the Second Amendment. These rights are not enforced as “equal rights”.
Homosexuals are not being deprived of “equal rights”. They are demanding special rights. And they are going to lose.
BTW, you are afraid of a conservative agenda being imposed by the Supreme Court? No conservative has ever sought such a thing. On the other hand, the Left is famous for using unscrupulous judges to impose upon the American people the very agenda that they could never win at the ballot box. So I understand completely why you wish to frame this as an equal rights question and get the courts involved; the only way you win is if enough judges violate their oaths of office, and implement your radical agenda.
@415 – I don’t see how todays date has anything to do with Jesus. Monday is derived from Moon’s Day and July is after Julius Caesar. Dates do not prove Jesus existed.
And there is historical evidence that George Washington. There is no reliable historical evidence of Jesus.
#416 God gave us the right to own guns? Wow. Amazing.
417,
What year is this year? And how did it get assigned that number?
#411 Cave men and women got married, GFK? Please tell us more.
416 “So called “gun rights” are merely God-given rights”
So when Your Lord and Saviour said “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword”, you’d argue that he meant “Trade in your sword for a gun”?
Be sure and remind him of that when you come before his throne for judgment.
419 “What year is this year? And how did it get assigned that number?”
This is the year 2010 of the Common Era.
It was given it’s number by Dennis the Short.
GFK, it is not remotely a “radical” effort to “redefine an institution that has existed for thousands of years“. Marriage will still be marriage; there has been no change in the definition. Only a change in who can participate in the civil contract between two consenting adults and their government (ala Loving). At most, we would be redefining what “consenting adults” means. No one has or is advocating for any change in the religious sacrament through legislation or court action. That homosexuals are undeniably humans, undeniably citizens and therefore undeniably covered by ALL rights, privileges and responsibilities that the rest of us are, is simply not litigated in the high court YET, not something that needs to be determined. Regardless of the beginnings, or the minority of the populace, and in regardless of the opposition to the wishes of the majority. It is r i g h t !!!!! And it will be done.
I agree that your argument is not at all about civil rights, but ours is. It is about a desire to gain full and unrestricted equal rights, privileges and responsibilities for homosexual Americans. History has taught us well that tolerance, acceptance and decency cannot be codified but conduct and anti-discrimination can. It is about the legitimization of homosexual citizens and that is not remotely radical, it is incumbent upon us. It is radical to think otherwise in the face of all evidence and decency.
You may well believe that gun rights are “God-given rights”. I find that ludicrous, but you are free to think it. By virtue of interpretation of the federal Constitution’s Second Amendment it is the current law of the land. I never said these rights were enforced and certainly did not mention them as “equal rights” or “Civil Rights”. I said: “many gun rights advocates hang their hats on the SCOTUS decisions trumping state or local decisions on “rights” relating to guns, and therefore cannot say that a SCOTUS decision including homosexuals as being covered with Civil Rights and guaranteed equal rights, privileges and responsibilities could be treated differently.
Homosexuals ARE being deprived of equal rights. They are NOT demanding special rights. And they are going to win!
BTW, we are well aware of what makes a judge “unscrupulous” in your eyes and I find it disengenuous for you to pretend the courts have not been used for “Conservative” agendas as well. I frame this as an equal rights question because it is. And while I appreciate your support for “majority rule”, I find it suspect and fleeting when you are not IN the majority. We have a Representative Republic with three branches of government that make, enforce and decide our laws. Thanks to those “giants” without flaw you so admire.
#419 To expand further on what Ed said in #422, BobH, while Dennis the Short did indeed say the date was tied to the “incarnation” of Jesus, there’s no proof anywhere that he was right and no one knows how he came up with the year he invented it to being 525 years after Jesus’ birth. IOW, the answer to your question “How did it get assigned that number” is that one guy arbitrarily assigned it that number. Not too scientific OR very religiously grounded.
423,
You lost it on Loving. Race and sexual preference are not the same thing. You are comparing fish to the outer space on that one. Absolutely no correlation between race and sexual orientation. Not the same thing at all.
The ancient Egyptians used a calendar with 12 months of 30 days each, for a total of 360 days per year. About 4000 B.C. they added five extra days at the end of every year to bring it more into line with the solar year.
http://adammclane.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/jesus-gun.jpg
Bob,
Even GFK, who you think is narrow-minded on this issue, concedes that if laws and constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage are overturned, Loving will be a major precedent cited in the decision.
#427,
Sorry Dan, you can use GFK when you want to and then not use him when you don’t want to.
There is no correlation between race and sexual orientation. And neither you not Sandi have offered any correlation.
This is year 2010 AD.
Wonder what AD stands for and who they are referring to (once you figure out what AD stands for)?
There is a clear correlation between the two matters, Bob, whether or not you allow yourself to see it or not. Both deny fundamental civil right (marriage) to someone because on discriminatory grounds with no rational basis.
428 This is the year 2010 CE.
But you have freedom of speech in this country; you don’t have to speak plain English if you don’t want to.
BobH, I realize that YOU (and others) believe that “Race and sexual preference are not the same thing, but there are many of us and some scientific conclusions that say they are both inherent, genetic or hard-wired into a person whether there are outward manifestations or not. A black person can “look white” and a white person can “look black”, it is not relevant to who they are. A left handed person, a savant, a miracle baby, etc can all defy the odds and be what they should not “be”, but again that is not the way it is judged when comparing their place in our society. Civil Rights are civil rights for ALL citizens and discriminating for a skin color you cannot change is the same as discriminating for a sexual preference you cannot change. Nothing in the criteria of what a civil contract for marriage (license) is has to be or is predicated on denying equal rights to same sex couples except in the context of morality/religiosity which has no bearing on the legal act of marriage. Loving will be cited because it established that using the innate difference alone was discriminatory and not allowed.
Latin “Anno Domini”, which translates to “the Year of Our Lord,” but because it is specifically related to the Christian religion, most scholars (that’s learned people) use CE for Common Era.
Oh wow, you can’t use _______ (insert organization here) when you want to and then not use them when you don’t want to? Who knew? That is such a regular and normal occurrence on this blog that I find that statement funny!
This has got to be one of the longest threads in the history of this blog…
Today’s date varies depending on the base culture/religion. For the world where Christianity is most prevalent, it’s July 19, 2010 based on the Gregorian calendar. For Muslims, today is 7 Sha’ban, 1431. The Hebrew calendar it’s 8 Av 5770. China still maintains their thousands year-old calendar system with the year a few thousand ahead of the Gregorian system, but they have adopted the Gregorian system for most governmental and international affairs to be on par with other economic powers who use it. But they maintain the ancient system since their cultural celebrations are based on solar and lunar cycles during eh year, and their ancient calendar system reflects that whereas the Gregorian system has no regard for solar or lunar cycles.
So how we designate time, holiday designations, what slogans are on our currency and the changes to the Pledge of Allegiance means that the government has “established a religion” and we are a “Christian Nation”? Is that what you want someone to admit and throw us into a Constitutional crisis of “the first proportion”? Not I.
@417–There is no historical evidence that Jesus ever existed? How about millions of his followers that are alive today, much less the millions that preceded them? How about the fact that since the invention of the printing press, the Bible is the largest selling book in all of history? How about the fact that even the Muslims acknowledge Jesus’s life, though they, like the Jews (who also acknowledge his life), dismiss any claims that he was the Son of God?
There is more evidence that Jesus lived, than there is for George Washington, and I have no doubt about Washington. Do not let your prejudices cloud your mind!
@418–Yes he did. Ask the Founders. Or ask the Barons who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymeade.
@420–Adam and Eve.
@421–The Second Amendment never mentions guns. It refers to the right to bear “arms”. Guns are arms. Self defense is among the oldest rights on Earth.
@423–If you change marriage from one man and one woman, to permit homosexuals to marry others of the same sex, it is a redefinition of the term marriage as it has been used, known and implemented, through the ages. It is not serious to argue otherwise. And it is radical.
Moreover, there is no logical barrier to further redefining marriage later. Once you permit homosexual marriage, why not polygamy? Why not permit minors to marry adults? Why not family members? Why not, indeed?
You argue that the right to bear arms is not a God given right, and that such a thought is ludicrous. Well the Founders–the ones who wrote the Constitution–believed just that. So did the Barons who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. Rights are necessarily God-given, otherwise they are but privileges that can be taken away on the whim of man.
You accuse the Courts of imposing a Conservative agenda? Name one decision. You don’t need to name the case, just the policy. What conservative policy has been imposed by the judiciary, and not by the Constitution?
You cannot do it, because it does not exist. I can list dozens of liberal decisions, however, that have no basis in the Constitution.
@427–Without question. It will be wrong, but you are correct on that point.
438 If you’re going to hold a seance, why not go directly to the top? You don’t know that the Founders or King John’s barons are even in heaven, let alone have access to God.
It’s highly unlikely many of the Founders are there, since most of them were Deists. And King john never heard of guns.
@432–Are learned people and atheists one and the same?
@443–The Founders were Christians. I do not know who is in heaven, other than what is written in Scripture. And it is the right to bear “arms”; it is the right to self defense. Goodness!
444 “Are learned people and atheists one and the same?”
You’d be surprized. Education is not necessary for critical thinking ability; in fact, in many “educational” systems, it’s a hindrance. That’s why so many otherwise-intelligent people come to atheism so late in life.
@ Ed/446, have you seen the movie ‘The Invention of Lying’? Somehow, I suspect you’d enjoy the humor in it…I know I did.
@446–I would not wish atheism on anyone. What a sad, hopeless existence it must be.
Mainly in the appointment of Conservatives to the SCOTUS the Conservatives achieve the “agenda” you seek, but there are cases decided that look to meet my criteria as well:
Meacham v Knolls
Ricci et al v DeStefano
“…Further Conservative Agenda but do not further the interests of employers”
http://www.nkms.com/uploadcache/NHLRA_Article.pdf
I also include the ruling on political contributions by corporations, an age discrimination ruling that will make discrimination harder to prove, and the aforementioned, gun ban and eminent domain decisions, all seem as Conservative Agenda Driven as any cases you feel are Liberal Agenda Driven IMO.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-03/news/21936703_1_campaign-finance-ruling-justices-gun-owners
#439 GFK, Adam and Eve are allegorical fictional characters. They weren’t actually real. In fact, there are several different versions of the story out there.
@448…GFK
Much the same as it is to purposefully discriminate against a segment of society that poses no threat to your way of life but in fact enhances and provides color and enthusiasm.
Indeed.
@450–I regret to inform you that you are mistaken in your assertions.
@451–No one is discriminating against anyone. All we are doing is condemning immoral conduct, that is no different than thievery, adultery, drunkeness, and all other matters of sin and wrongdoing.
One of the most egregious right-wing distortions of the constitution was the obscene decision of 1974 (an appropriate term in both senses of the phrase).
Obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. There is no objective, value-neutral criterion for it. But the justices took it upon themselves to indulge their personal prejudices and carve out an exception to the freedom of speech clause that the constitution does not authorize.
One of them blatantly admitted to this: “I can’t define obscenity, but I know it when I see it!”
@449–I regret to inform you that you have proved nothing.
The Ricci case is the matter in which the white firefighters had been denied promotion after having scored highest on the promotion tests, all because no blacks had scored high enough to be promoted. In overruling the Second Circuit (and then Judge Sonia Sotomayor), the Supreme Court held for racial equality and against racial preferences. In other words, they stood for the Constitution. Are you going to argue against the Constitution and for racial preferences?
In the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court upheld the free speech rights of citizens to engage in the political process, even if organized as a corporation. In particular, the Supreme Court rejected the argument of Solicitor General Elena Kagan that the government had the Constitutional authority to ban books, if it contained political speech, and was printed or distributed by a publishing house (i.e. a corporation). It should also be noted that other corporations’ free speech rights had not been curbed, for example the corporations that own The Roanoke Times, Washington Post, NY Times etc. In other words, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution, most specifically the part that begins “Congress shall pass no law . . . .” Are you against the Constitution? Are you against free speech?
As for the gun cases (Heller and MacDonald), the Supreme Court upheld the clear plain language of the Second Amendment. Are you against the Constitution? Are you against the Second Amendment.
In short, given the cases you cited, the Supreme Court imposed no “Conservative agenda” or policies; rather, the Court applied and upheld the Constitution. That is its job.
Now for you, a short list of so-called Progressive policies that unscrupulous Leftist judges/justices have imposed upon the American public, even though there is no Constitutional basis for doing so:
1. Wickard v. Filburn, wherein the Court abandoned the Constitution’s plain language, and held that a farmer not engaged in interstate commerce was engaged in interstate commerce, precisely because he was not engaged in interstate commerce. This is one of my all time favorite stupid decisions. It is also among the most dangerous and corrupting.
2. Griswold v. Connecticut, wherein the Court invalidated a law regulating birth control sales, finding a heretofore non-existent right to privacy. This is the second most dangerous decision issued by the Court.
3. Brown v. Board of Education, wherein the Court offered not a scintilla of Constitutional or legal reasoning for its decision. Such “Conservative” luminaries as Robert Bork have posited arguments that the Court could have used, but did not, preferring the result to the result’s legitimacy. And people wonder what spawned “massive resistance”. Could it have been judicial illegitimacy?
4. Mapp v. Ohio, wherein the Court created out of whole cloth the exclusionary rule.
5. Reynolds v. Sims, wherein the Court established the principle of “one man, one vote”. This despite the fact that the United States Senate stands as stark proof that the Constitution NEVER contemplated such a scheme.
6. Miranda v. Arizona, wherein the Court again created out of whole cloth the “reading of the rights” to criminal suspects. It makes for good television, but lousy law enforcement. And there is no Constitutional basis for it.
7. Gideon v. Wainwright, wherein the Court created the burden that indigent defendants were entitled to government paid attorneys. Not only is this unconstitutional, but it is hardly helpful to the defendant. I wouldn’t wish to be represented by the public defender.
8. Roe v. Wade, wherein, building upon Griswold, the Supreme Court held that the States could not prohibit the murder of innocent unborn babies, aka abortion. Harry Blackmun should burn in hell for that decision.
9. Regents v. Bakke, wherein the Court held that racism wasn’t racism if you called it affirmative action.
10. Lawrence v. Texas, wherein the Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick and outlawed a state prohibition against homosexual sodomy.
There you go Sandi Saunders; my top ten instances where the Court imposed Leftist policies upon the American people WITHOUT Constitutional basis.
Well I can’t define stupidity, but I know it when I see it too! Buck up Ed H, you know only Liberal, left wing distortions are ever a problem in this world. Like I said, I know stupid when I see it.
@454–Justice Potter Stewart.
I do not regret to inform you that I did not read your list, it was not requested and your judgment of my answer means even less after the display of your open minded attitude on the subjects discussed here. You asked a question, I answered it and now you are just trying to grandstand and pretend we are having a discussion when nothing could be further from the truth.
Hey, look on the bright side, you sure beat Sarah Palin and she thinks she can be President!
@437 – Just because millions of people believe in Jesus, does not mean he existed. Millions of people have believed in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, but that does not prove existence. Again, there is no historical proof of Jesus….no evidence…none.
@458–I have responded to your query, I have engaged you in conversation and debate, and your response is that you have no interest in what I write. Fine. Please cease telling me that I am wrong, since you do not read or consider what I write.
Perhaps the blog would be better–in your opinion–if you only had to read what you agreed with. How very open minded of you!
@460–What is your proof that Washington existed?
456 Yes, Sandi, I know.
Once again, you change the terms. You and I have verbal sparring matches, we do not have nor will we ever have, discussions. The civility is forced and the response is ONLY to insure that others do not think I agree with or cannot refute what you say.
I never challenged you on Liberal activism in the courts, nor would I. As someone who is honest, I know very well that many civil and human rights gains in this nation have been at the hands of a brave court standing up to the bully majority and I have nothing but respect for them when they have done so. That YOU have a problem with that only seals my admiration and respect for them.
YOU challenged me to name Conservative Agendas served by court decisions. You did not have a caveat that YOU had to agree with it until of course, I had done so. You do not “discuss” nor debate any more fairly than I do even as you brag about your wealth, education and experience with doing so. You can look down your nose all you like, but you are wrong to do so.
@453…GFK
I guess it’s less immoral then to live a lie than it is to be honest with yourself and those you love?
Please, that’s just about as tired an argument as there is out there these days. I certainly don’t hear the same level of complaint when it comes to the adultry, drunkenesss and a host of other sins that seem to befall the straight community in large numbers.
Yet when one segment of society that wants equality for government sanctioned benefits, then it’s a whole other story.
I don’t consider loving my partner immoral in the least. Quite frankly it’s something very special that I cherish each and every day of my life. To have you in your narrow minded, bigoted, prejudiced and uneducated manner demean and condemn it is reprehensible on levels that are too numerous for even you to comprehend. That’s obvious.
We don’t partake in public drunkeness, we don’t steal from our neighbors, we maintain a beautiful home, way pay our bills and our taxes and we support the economy much in the same way (and perhaps more vigorously) that you do. We care for our parents and our friends and go out of the way to help others when they need help without asking their sexual preferences.
Simply put, it doesn’t make a tinkers damn worth of difference if I’m gay, straight, red, yellow, black, white, indigo or violet. I am a person that has needs and responds to those needs in a loving and controlled manner. Just because it happens to be with the man I love will not cause your life as you know it to cease (although I’m beginning to think it’s got to be pretty dull).
There is no other way to describe the travesty other than discrimination that is occuring by not allowing gays/lesbians the right of civil unions and the government sanctioned benefits that come with those civil unions.
Perhaps the traditional form has been that way for years, but who’s to say that it’s not time to change it. I, for one, will press on for the change.
@464–Sending me links to San Francisco Chronicle summary articles does not tell me what you think. You did not explain a thing about the cases you mentioned, nor did you argue what about the opinions made them untethered to the Constitution or constituting the imposition of a “Conservative agenda”.
What do YOU think. I read the San Francisco Chronicle, so I know what its writers think. I explained myself to you. Try doing the same. Otherwise you are really just a less interesting Drudge Report. Anyone can attach a link.
Jeez Dan, what is the longest thread on the RT? We have to be getting close if not surpassing it. We all just feel the importance and need to “refudiate” some positions I suppose.
@465–I did not accuse you of any sins. You admitted to one, which happens to be related to the topic of this thread.
And I would find it strange if you believed your behavior to be immoral, all the while continuing to engage in it. That would make little sense.
If all we are discussing is government benefits, I have proffered the solution of ending them for all. Somehow I don’t think that is what you want, otherwise you would have mentioned it by now.
No, what you wish is to redefine marriage, to suit your own selfish purposes. You are dissatisfied with tolerance, and now demand acceptance and society’s blessing. Perhaps that is a reasonable request, perhaps not; but it is unrealistic. It is not going to happen.
Who is to say that marriage should not be changed? The people. The vast majority of people. And they are on the side of traditional marriage; which is the only kind of marriage.
As has been typical of GFK…
He tends to deviate away from the main topic at hand when the heat in the kitchen gets a little too hot for him to handle. As is the case now with his deflection away from the central issue at the core of this thread: Providing gays/lesbians with the same government sanctioned benefits as those provided to heterosexual couples.
He’s not been able to in all of his comments to come up with a valid and sustainable reason why gays/lesbians should not enjoy those same benefits other than his own baseless fears that the world will come to an end.
When I go on and on I am accused of writing boring diatribes and when I am brief, I have not answered fully. I told you the cases I thought furthered Conservative Agendas, as well as the appointments of Conservative “strict constructionists” to the court that Conservatives support for those same purposes. WHY I think anything has never seemed to interest you beyond something to knock down and denigrate as being ignorant, so you will just have to excuse me for not giving you more reason to vent your spleen on why I am so inferior and my thinking so flawed. Suffice it to say, you would find it so and move on.
@469–Homosexuals can receive the aforementioned benefits; as soon as they are married. But, of course, they shall have to marry someone of the opposite sex. That is the price of admission.
@470–Well since you left the field vacant, I filled the vacuum, explaining why those cases do nothing other than adhere to the Constitution. You may be irritated at my response, but you have offered no reasoning why I am wrong.
@444 – Actually, studies have shown that people with higher education degrees, tend to believe less in a personal God. Of 43 studies since 1927, all but 4 showed that the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold “beliefs” of any kind. Studies have also shown that the more religious the parents, the lower the IQ of their children. Another study from 2009 studies data from 173 countries and found conclusive evidence that countries with a higher average IQ have less belief in God.
@468…GFK
I don’t give a damn about marriage. You can have it all you want. I want civil unions. Marriage is a religious right that should be reserved for those who have that need to fill.
Civil unions should be available to gays/lesbians as they are to heterosexual couples.
Is it not just as selfish of you to deny that benefit to gays/lesbians? Seems to me like a little bit of the kettle calling the pot black to me.
GFK keeps talking about a vast number of Americans that oppose marriage equality. The National Organization for Marriage is currently doing a multi-city tour to promote bigotry and hate, but it seems that no one is showing up….except people who SUPPORT marriage equality….in some places, equality supporters outnumber these vast numbers of Americans 5:1.
@474–You could argue that my desire is selfish, except for the fact that homosexual conduct is immoral. If it were moral, then yes, I would be selfish.
No civil unions. It is a societal blessing of immoral conduct.
@473–If you say so. Personally, I have noticed that religious persons have contributed far more to history and society generally, than non-religious persons. For example, who gave more to society, Pope John Paul, II, or Vladimir Lenin? Thomas Aquinas or Charles of Anjou? Thomas a Beckett or William de Tracy?
@475–How about all those folks who vote in favor of marriage, and against the redefinition of marriage? Did you count them?
@477 – The Dark Ages are a result of the rise of Christianity and the suppression of scientific thought, history, the Christinization of art, genocidal evangelism….
I neither left the field vacant nor rendered anything in a vacuum, presto-changeo! I have not posited that any SCOTUS decision, for a Conservative Agenda nor a Liberal Agenda was Unconstitutional, ergo there was no need to explain why the Conservative Agenda decisions were within or without and YOU are the one who questioned and answered as to the Liberal Agenda ones and your certainty that they were unconstitutional and no Conservative ones were. You asked: “You accuse the Courts of imposing a Conservative agenda? Name one decision.” And I answered. In my layman’s knowledge, the eminent domain and free reign of Corporations could be judged unconstitutional, but that is only my opinion, not a certainty I hold, much less something a high school graduate could “argue”. Enough uneducated and uninformed as well as educated and politically driven people have argued Constitutionality of individual cases. SCOTUS reversal of SCOTUS and lower court decisions prove that it can and has been done so the argument that any case is or is not is mostly opinion until a decision is rendered. And even then it is open for opinions.
My opinion on the equal rights, privileges and responsibilities for Homosexual citizens with regards to every right, privilege and responsibility I have could be adjudicated as wrong and the discrimination I see could be judged Constitutional and “acceptable”. I just happen to believe it won’t. Every other right, privilege and responsibility I have is also granted and expected of them and since I and many other people (many of whom are as wealthy, educated and experienced as you claim and then some) consider sexual preference to be the same as left-handed, able to carry a tune, a savant, or race. We believe the case is strong for the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the civil union government contract not being withheld for discriminatory reasons.
Personally I have noticed that many well educated, devoutly religious people refuse to consider homosexuality a sin and will not publicly condemn homosexuals when there is so much else that the Bible in general and Jesus in particular spoke about, warned against and deemed sinful that go on and are accepted without complaint every day by that same “vast majority” that clings to the judgment that was cast on homosexuals.
@479–The Dark Ages were caused by the fall of the Roman Empire. Interestingly enough, the fall of the Roman Empire was caused by licentiousness, including the relaxation of sexual mores, such as the common acceptance of homosexuality. Hmmmmmmm.
@480–Is your point that you really do not have any knowledge of what you assert, beyond your own feelings? If so, that would explain our disconnect. I do not argue feelings, as they are inarguable. Facts, and the logical extension thereof can be argued.
@481–Can you name one (1) sin to which those who condemn homosexuality give a pass?
BTW, I also know of “religious” folks who give a pass to homosexual conduct. And they are wrong. Perhaps they are well intentioned, but they are, nevertheless wrong. We pray for their awakening.
@482 – Maybe you need to take some history classes.
@484 – Hmmm…..sins at which people who condemn homosexuality give a pass:
Divorce? Murder/support of the death penalty? Pride? Lying? Adultery? Fornication? Gluttony? Greed? Lust? Drunkenness?
Yes GFK, that is my point. I have argued, presented facts, links, and “refudiation” for all your self righteous blather and yet all it boils down to is my emotional female inept “feelings” matched against your superior intellect, knowledge and expertise.
YOU are the one who quoted Leviticus, you tell me what “sins” are accepted by the vast majority every day we breath! I am sure that your superior brain can manage the feat, if my inferior brain can make an effort to feel it is true.
@485–I have no doubt that some folks give all sorts of sins a pass. So what? That doesn’t make it right. Sin is sin is sin. We are all sinners, and we are charged with striving to avoid sin, and to seek forgiveness for our sins and to repent. The real problem with homosexuals is that they are in denial that they are engaged in sin; indeed, they celebrate it as if it were a virtue. That is a problem.
And my history is pretty good. Christianity did not cause the Dark Ages.
#486, Sandy – Remember the movie “war games”, and the solution the computer came up with in response to Matthew Broderick’s provocation?
Exactly.
Here’s why:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?camp=misc:on:share:article
Great link Joe, THANKS!
“This would also explain why demagogues benefit from keeping people agitated. The more threatened people feel, the less likely they are to listen to dissenting opinions, and the more easily controlled they are.”
Well worth the read!
Thankfully life is not one-size-fits-all. We are not all Christians nor are we all born as Christians nor expected to live that way. I love freedom, it makes for so many wonderful options in life, such as a person being able to say they reject a particular dogma and choose to live in a different fashion where who they are is not considered sinful.
488 Joe Mostowey,
I have believed this for decades, so I can confirm unequivocally that the article is entirely correct.
@490–Nevertheless, this is a predominantly [overwhelmingly so] Christian nation. You cannot demand that the tenets of Christianity, which are largely responsible for the tolerance that pervades our society, be suppressed because you disagree with them in some fashion or the other. Tolerance is a two (2) way street.
@487 – But why should christian’s (or any religion’s) ideas of what is sin and what is not dictate civil law? If a sin is a sin is a sin as you said, then why deny rights to just one group of “sinners”? Why are drunks allowed to get married? Why allow fornicators to marry?
@492 – “the tenets of Christianity, which are largely responsible for the tolerance that pervades our society” GIVE ME A @$%# BREAK! If christianity were tolerant, we wouldn’t be having this conversation!
They don’t have to be suppressed for the practitioners of Christianity, and I’m not arguing as such either. But they should also not be foisted upon those who do not abide by that particular religion, as the Founders intended.
@493–You do not think that Christianity is tolerant? Move to Iran. I’ll attend your hanging.
@495–Society has to be formed on some belief system. Like it or not, this one was formed by Christian white guys from England. So if you live here, those traditions and morals are going to govern you.
@483…GFK
You argue your “feelings” all the time man. Good god!
You are not high brow enough to get anyone to fall for that thory. You have the feeling that gays/lesbians are wrong to want equal treatment under government sanctioned civil union benefits.
I have the feeling that to deny such government sanctioned benefits is just as wrong and just as dicriminatory.
You still haven’t provided any evidence that providing those benefits through civil unions will create any hardship on existing marriages or those that will occur in the future except for your “feelings”.
Your arguments agains civil unions for gays/lesbians are shallow and without merit on a personal level and are discriminatory on a legal level.
As I said, younger people are seeing the injustice and as we old goats die off, things will change. If my Dad who was born in 1916 and my Mom who was born in 1921 could accept it warmly…then I have hope that all good people will do the same.
@496–No I do not argue feelings. What I, or anyone, “feels” as to a particular legal concept or public policy is of no moment.
I “know” that homosexual conduct is immoral.
I “know” that homosexuals are already treated equally in this country.
I “know” what the relaxation of social mores and moral traditions has done to this, and to other societies, hence I can logically extrapolate what further relation in the area of homosexuality is likely to do.
I “know” that my arguments against societal blessing of homosexual unions are rooted in God’s law, which would make them deep, not shallow. I also “know” that legally, I am quite sound, and stand on the solid high ground.
I “know” that there is no discrimination against homosexuals.
I “know” that there is discrimination, and righteous condemnation, of homosexual conduct.
I “know” that my views are the majority, and that your side is on the losing side of history.
My feelings have nothing to do with any of this. If you cannot separate your emotions from reason, you cannot reason.
@497…GFK
You “believe” but you “know” nothing.
I debate with emotion and passion.
I believe that I am on the correct side of this issue with regard to ending discrimination against gays/lesbians with as to government sanctioned benefits afforded to heterosexual couples that are not currently granted to homosexual couples. The ability to have a civil union to correct that “wrong” would correct this discriminatory policy.
You’ve avoided my point about living a lie to pretend to be straight in order to conform to what is your perceived norm. I guess you do “know” that lying is the better alternative. I believe it is the worst alternative.
I’m sorry that you and those like you are so insecure with their love for their respective spouses that the concept of a civil union for gays/lesbians can unnerve you to this degree. I suggest that this is more of an introspective problem than anything.
I know that homosexual conduct is innate, genetic and not a defect or perversion.
I know that homosexuals are not treated equally in this country or many others.
I know what the enforcement of uptight restricted social mores and amoral discriminatory “traditions” has done to this, and to other societies, hence I can logically extrapolate what renewed affirmation of such destructive ideology in the area of homosexuality is likely to do.
I know that my arguments to end illegal discrimination against gays by granting them the same rights, privileges and responsibilities I have are rooted in our Constitutional freedoms and rights, which would make them deep, not shallow. I also know that legally, I am quite sound, and stand on the solid high ground.
I know that there is real, blatant and illegal discrimination against homosexuals.
I know that there is unconscionable self-righteous condemnation, of homosexual conduct.
I know that my views are not the majority yet, and that your side is on the losing side of history.
@498–I have avoided nothing. I very clearly stated that heterosexual is normal, and that everyone is born heterosexual. I just as clearly stated that homosexuality is a choice.
That being said [again], I “know” that folks rationalize their immoral choices by insisting that they had no choice. Hence Scott M.’s claim that stealing was not immoral if you had to; stealing, like homosexuality is a choice. But Scott M. rationalizes that it might be okay to steal. Perhaps you rationalize some as well.
I am not insecure about anything. Indeed, I imagine that my security is what annoys you, and others, the most. I maintain no doubt as to my positions.
And I submit to you that you have never met anyone as introspective as I am; all you would have to do is ask someone who knows me. Indeed, my introspection is why I maintain no doubts.
@497 – I “know” that there is no discrimination against homosexuals. WHAT A CROCK! There is discrimination every day against us! I can be fired from my state job, I can be beaten to death because I’m gay…..that’s not discrimination?
Would it be discrimination if you were fired for being a christian? or if you were denied housing or a hotel room because you are a christian? what if you were denied “family rates” for being a “christian” family? or if you were beaten and tied to a fence because you are a christian? Would that be discrimination?
GFK said: “I’ll attend your hanging.”….that’s very christian of you.
@495 – You would probably be supportive of imprisonment or the death penalty for gays…just like many other so-called christians.
A truly introspective person would never have certitude, arrogance and intransigence as a mantle. An ideologue, a demagogue, yes, but not an introspective person. Anyone who truly and deeply examines themselves, finds the flaws in their own arguments, ideal and passions and works to correct them even if not announcing them. A truly introspective person who was educated and learned enough about history would know that there are not nearly as many absolutes and black & white “truths” as they might have imagined. A truly introspective person would admit that a Christian is just as likely to hang in Iran as a homosexual and show gratitude that both of you are here in this great nation.
@502–Christians do not advocate hanging homosexuals. Muslims do.
@504–Introspection is not a euphemism for navel gazing. Introspection allows you to examine your thoughts and actions, so that you may arrive at the correct conclusion. It would be a sorry state indeed if once you arrived at the correct conclusion that you failed for lack of nerve.
And I have not read where any Christians were unhappy to be here; rather, Christians only wish to preserve what is great about this nation, while thwarting the efforts of the Progressive tyrants.
@499–There is no proof–NONE–that homosexuality is innate or genetic.
@505 – there are multiple cases where “christians” have called for the death penalty for gays. Several US churches and ministers are actively supporting Uganda’s attempt to legalize the death penalty for homosexuals.
@507 – And there is not proof -NONE- that it’s not.
@508–Those are not Christians, no matter what they call themselves. Can you name a US Church and minister who is advocating the death penalty for homosexuals?
@509–I refer you–again–to Genesis. And the chapters thereafter. It is an interesting read.
@510 I’m not sure you get to decide who is a Christian and who is not, but here’s an example of an U.S. minister urging the death penalty for gays.
That bit of christian hate came from one Pastor Steven L. Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Ariz.
He’s also the nice bible-boy who prays for President Obama to die.
It’s a nice story, but it’s not proof of anything, and would never suffice as evidence in any sort of court if one were to base an argument upon it as being ‘factual’. There is a much greater chance of scientific research finding a genetic or other biological link to for sexual orientation than there is for Biblical stories being proven factual as presented.
@512–Of course I do not get to decide who a Christian is; God does. And being a Christian means professing a belief in Christ and an adherence to God’s law. Hence, the “Reverend” you cite has strayed from Christianity and God’s law, just as has Gene Robinson. Both need to repent and return to the Lord.
@513–We shall have to agree to disagree on your point.
#511 I’m sure that would hold up in court, eh, counselor?
#508 And Uganda is 84 percent Christian.
@514: I don’t know, what he said looks pretty consistent with Leviticus to me: “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”
@510 – Canyon Ridge Christian Church in Las Vegas financially supports and considers Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa a “strategic partner”. Pastor Ssempa is leading efforts in that country to criminalize homosexuality with the death penalty or life imprisonment. Pastor Ssempa also heads an organization called “Uganda National Pastors Task Force Against Homosexuality” which includes members from The National Fellowship of Born again Churches, The Seventh Adventists Church, The Uganda Joint Christian Council which represents The Orthodox Church in Uganda,The Roman Catholic Church in Uganda, and Born Again Faith Federation.
Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona: “The same God who instituted the death penalty for murders is the same god who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals, sodomites and queers”
Pastor Scott Lively of Abiding Truth Ministries helped the Ugandan government draft legislation that mandates death by hanging for Gays and Lesbians unless they return to their natural heterosexual orientation. He has also said that the legislation is “a step in the right direction”
Joel McDurmon, director of research for American Vision (AV), a Georgia-based Religious Right group has stated that the Bible demands the execution of gay people.
@517, Dan, you must be reading some sort of non-christian bible, or perhaps that one part about execution is the Jewish part of law that we aren’t supposed to believe.
Either way, the bible only means what the reader wants it to mean. It is, after all, a book of man and therefore fallible.
@516-519–Is Al Qaeda the face of Islam, or a departure therefrom?
@519–I have no problem, however, with imposing the death penalty on rapists.
@521: Funny, I thought we were discussing Christianity, not Islam.
@515, we certainly will. You are as strongly set in your perspective on this issue as I am, and neither one of us is going to budge. Probably a bit over a decade ago, I might have found myself generally agreeing with you though. Times change, opinions change, people change. That’s quite possibly the only real universal truth out there: everything is always changing, even if we can’t perceive it happening or if we choose to ignore it…it still happens.
@520–God is the Bible’s author; man is but a transcriber of his word.
@523–Are you saying that all Christians subscribe to the rantings of a few? Do you wish to tar all Christians with that brush?
Your editorial board would never tolerate any argument that all Muslims were Western hating terrorists, based upon the actions of a few. Indeed, one of your more prominent posters argued in this very thread that Islam was a “beautiful religion”. Yet the Koran directs violence unimaginable in the Christian faith.
So God wrote Leviticus 20:13? How, then, can you say the pastor Christian cited is deviating from God’s law?
@522 – But what about all the justification for rape in the Bible?
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Numbers 31:7-18 But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
@526: No, I’m saying the discussion was about Christianity, not Islam. But, if you want to talk about the Koran, I’m pretty sure that the Bible stacks up pretty well against it in the “unimaginable violence” category. OSB cites a couple of examples. Here’s another: “If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.”
@528–Deuteronomy does not justify rape, it explains the resolution in the specific case of sex with a minor. You will find that the Virginia Code embodies a statute affording a defendant a similar statute.
The other two citations also do not justify rape. You should reread them.
@525 – and God wrote Lev. 11:20 that says chickens have four legs? or that unicorns exist (Job 39:9-12)?
I am well aware what introspection is and what the result should be.
@526, when taken in proper context and free from erroneous interpretations, just about any religion can be inherently beautiful. However, the cumulative impact of taking things out of context, or simply ignoring parts of the texts, or wrongly interpreting them to justify atrocities, or failing to adapt to societal changes and increases of understanding serves quite poorly to make how certain religions are practiced and reflected. I personally think religion is not relevant in modern life. It may have been relevant when people were nomadic, lacking in understanding, and seeking explanations to why things happened. But by and large, it doesn’t make much sense now, especially in holding certain portions of the Bible or Koran in strict interpretation and saying those portions must be abided by fully, while conveniently casting aside other portions as dated or irrelevant. The inconsistent approach to using religious doctrines is a major part of why I place little stock in them beyond their being decent works of fiction that I place beside my Tom Clancy novels. If I want to live in a fantasy world, I will fire up some Star Trek re-runs.
I would love to hear your explanation for Lot offering up his innocent daughters to the debauchers since you are offering to interpret and explain scripture and “God’s Word”, GFK.
Actually, I thought the discussion concerned homosexual “marriage”; or not, as the case may be.
500 “I imagine
thatmy security”Introspection. Trying to create the whole world in your own head. No reality checks.
“Navel-gazing”. Just about the only way it would be possible to reach the absurd “conclusions” you have been expressing.
Oh so deflection is only yours to make?
@510 – and who can forget the words of Rev. Fred Phelps:
“You can’t preach the Bible without preaching hatred.”
“God doesn’t hate them because they’re fags; they’re fags because God hates them.”
You are all correct; Christians bad, homosexuals and Muslims, good. Enjoy your fantasy.
I believe that is GFK’s way of saying he has lost this one and can’t explain how the comments of the pastor cited by Christian conflict with the message of Leviticus.
I don’t think OUR fantasy is the issue here, Glen.
But he did such a brilliant summation of the facts presented!
@540–Actually it is YOUR fantasy. It is a common tactic of the Left to deflect to not defend the merits of their position, but to demonize others. Saul Alinsky and obama are masters at the art. Dan is not bad. Sandi Saunders is tremendous.
The thread began the DOMA. When you folks lost that one, it went to the merits of homosexual conduct, except that you never defended it beyond that it wasn’t “fair” that homosexuals are treated differently. I pointed out that they aren’t treated differently, but that society condemned their conduct. Moreover, it is they who wish to impose their agenda upon society and not vice versa.
We have now degenerated into bashing Christianity. And I find the hypocrisy nauseating. I’m happy to discuss the thread, but I shall not demean my faith by debating those who have no interest in truly discussing it, but only in bashing it.
I have no interest in bashing Christianity, GFK. I am a Christian. My only interest is in those who would use a selective interpretation of the religion to justify their discrimination of others.
#538 Mo matter what he calls himself, I don’t consider Fred Phelps a Christian.
@543–I do not find that selective. What I would argue is selective is the “faux” Christians who would argue for hatred against an individual. As you know, we are all sinners, and no sin is less egregious. It is because of that that I try to remember to advise, hate the sin, love the sinner. Conduct can be deplorable, but our goal should always be to find the best in our fellow man and to help them (without government coercion, to be clear).
542 We are not the ones demeaning “your” faith. YOU claim Xianity as “your” faith, and then claim all other xians are wrong and you are right.
Nobody here is “bashing” anything but your repugnant value system.
@542 – So it’s ok for you to demean and bash my life, but I can’t yours? Talk about hypocrisy. And when you use your religion to attack others, then I feel it is fair game to expose the utter hypocrisy and ridiculousness of it.
It is beyond conscionable that you have literally spent a week, not defending the merits of your position, but demeaning, condemning and demonizing others and then pretend it was done TO you instead of BY you.
The burden of proof, as they say is on you to prove your case not us to prove ours. We do not think homosexuality is a choice so we should not have to prove it is not, you should prove it is. We do not think homosexuals are deviants, perverted or sinful, so we should not have to prove that they are not, you should have to prove that they are. We believe that homosexuals have been repeatedly, purposefully, sytematically and illegally discriminated against in a government contract – marriage. We have more than proved our case; you on the other hand have used religion, specifically the “word of God”, discriminatory laws still enforced and even ones no longer in force and insisted that the only way to change the situation was (incorrectly) to fight the majority and make a new Constitutional Amendment. NO, it is not us who have failed, not us who have demeaned anyone and not us who have corrupted the sacred word of God for our own bigotry.
I do not bash Christianity, I try hard to live as a Christian. What I do not do is pretend that the Bible (and religion) so clearly and utterly used and abused for political gain through the ages, is infallible word of God cover to cover. No sane person would risk the chance that is blasphemy, knowing well man’s self serving and corrupt thirst for power. Like our discussions on the Founders, you see what you want to see and “refudiate” anything that does not suit your chosen frame of “truth” as being dishonest, disdaining or demeaning even when the truth is just the opposite. While that magical thinking is very familiar, it is not right. I am not right because I am good, I am good because I am right. “He guides me in paths of righteousness”.
@544 – But Fred Phelps is taking his ideas from the very same book used in every christian church every Sunday morning.
@548–The burden of proof is most certainly NOT on me. It is YOU, and your compatriots who desire a change in something that has existed since the beginning. YOU have to convince the MAJORITY that they should change their views.
I have defended my position, quite well, thank you. We tried discussing the law, but you did not wish to do so. Then we discussed the merits of homosexual conduct. Finally we moved to Christian bashing. I am not taking part in that.
I accept Dan’s comments that he was not Christian bashing, but he was the only one who offered an explanation. And frankly, today was not the first time that some of you have engaged in Christian bashing, so I am not surprised.
That being said, if you wished to call me a hypocrite for demeaning homosexual conduct, but taking offense at your Christian bashing, you might have a point IF I had taken offense yesterday, or the day before, etc. That is, if you had criticized Christianity for condemning homosexuality, which some of you did; but I did not take offense. Rather, I engaged you. You didn’t convince me, and I didn’t convince you. That is okay.
BUT TODAY, some are purposefully distorting and outright lying about the Christian faith. The Christian faith does not advocate the execution of homosexuals, and it is a far stretch to connect a refusal to accept homosexual conduct, and wishing them dead. I have never said that, and I don’t know anyone who has even thought such a vile thing.
Some folks are tolerant of all sorts of sin. I assure you that in my profession that I encounter many liars, some of whom I must tolerate in some fashion. But that does not lessen their transgression, nor would I agree if one of those persons argued that lying was not really wrong. Same with adultery. I see a lot of that also; I condemn it. I do not go, well they are my friend or colleague, they are just trying to be happy. No.
Homosexual conduct is no different. If you want to see hypocrisy, have a Christian proclaim his faith while giving a pass to that particular sin. That is not Christian.
Now no one wishes to think ill of anyone, especially someone that they know and like/love. But we are all sinners, and it is foolish to think otherwise. So you should not accept homosexuality any more than you should accept lying, pride, adultery, etc. That does not mean that you should throw rocks at homosexuals. But it does mean that you do not celebrate or reward their sin.
Glen,
How can you say the Christian faith doesn’t advocate the execution of homosexuals when the very chapter of the Bible that you have used to previously to demonstrate why homosexuality is immoral in your point of view specifically says homosexuals should be put to death?
The point here is not to bash Christianity but to show that standards have evolved since then. The Bible DID advocate the execution of homosexuals. You no longer agree with that. That’s excellent. I and many other Christians believe the notion of homosexuality as a sin is similarly outdated and should be given as much credence as you give the notion that homosexuals should be executed.
For an action to be immoral, someone must be harmed by that action. No one is harmed by gays and lesbians involved in consensual, adult relationships.
However, people are harmed by discrimination against homosexuals – making that action far more immoral in my eyes than homosexual behavior.
@551–As I have said earlier, there is a difference between Jewish law and God’s law. And while the Christian faith and the Jewish faith split largely upon acceptance of Jesus as the son of God, there are other differences. The Christian faith does not accompany most of [then] Jewish law or customs. For example, the Christian faith does not forbid the consumption of non-kosher food, the naming of a child after a live relative, or any number of other Jewish laws and customs.
There are some things from the Old Testament common to both faiths; sexual mores are one aspect of similarity. But it has never been an article of Christian faith to execute homosexuals or, for that matter, adulterers.
The sexual mores common to both faiths are also consistent with the laws of nature, and of basic common sense. I see no need to expound further on what I mean, and I have touched on both already.
That some would call for Christians to support the execution of homosexuals is a vile use of Christianity, in addition to being a vile action. In all my life, I have never heard of such a thing.
Yes, times have evolved, and the evidence of that is that there is widespread tolerance [in this country] of homosexuals. I have not called for an end to that, and I, again, know no one who does. BUT, it is quite different to move from tolerance to acceptance and blessing.
We as a country are suffering from a decline of standards, largely due to sexual licentiousness. Out of wedlock births are epidemic and crushing to society. Such conduct is also immoral. I do not argue for throwing rocks at single mothers, but I also would oppose a societal “attaboy” for them too. It is not just homosexual conduct, it is all immoral conduct that should be deplored. That conduct will not be eradicated, but there must be some standards.
There is no case for redefining marriage. I would agree that there is a case for claiming it unfair to give federal benefits to married couples while not to other “couples”, hetero or homo. I wouldn’t agree with the argument, but there is an argument. That being said, I submit that society dispense with these federal benefits, giving them to no one. There no more unfairness. And no more unconstitutional actions by the federal government. It is the perfect solution.
BTW, I “no longer agree with that”? When in the world did I ever agree with executing homosexuals?
You didn’t, most likely. The Bible you think is to be taken so literally most certainly did.
BTW, the point here is not what Jewish law or customs are practiced by Christianity – it’s what the Bible says. The Bible says that homosexuals are immoral. It also says they are to be put to death.
I say it’s wrong on both counts. You say it’s only wrong on one. In either case, neither of us appears to be arguing that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, which means the status of homosexuality as immoral is open to debate and discussion.
Perhaps you’d like to explain a non-biblical rational for why society should continue to shun and discriminate against homosexuals?
Wrong again GFK.
We do not want to CHANGE anything, we want the SCOTUS or the Congress (and of the two the SCOTUS is the one without voters to please), to agree that the laws that defend, promote and assure equality mean what they say and do so for all. The only “change” is the folks like you that need to accept and realize it. The burden of proof is ABSOLUTELY on you to explain why they STILL do not mean what they say for ALL, and you have not done so. I have no need nor intention of convincing you and your majority of anything except compliance with the law once the inequality and discrimination is finally overturned. How you “feel” about that is totally beyond relevance for me.
Of course you feel you have “defended” your position, “quite well” but such is not the case in any sense. You have been half way round the barn but still not found the farm IMO. You are still arguing that homosexual Americans are not the same, not equal, not worthy of the coverage the rest of us have and that is horse feathers that already failed, twice and will do so again.
You have no problem “bashing” homosexuals but balk at explaining the Christianity and “word of God” you purport supports your side and questions are considered “bashing”. This was hardly the first day you “bashed” things other people believe and certainly have not drawn any line at religion either.
I do not criticize Christianity for condemning homosexuality because I am not convinced IT does so. Many Christians, like you, certainly feel it does and like to announce it as if it were a shield. Time will certainly tell. If I wished to call you a hypocrite for your belief that would not be honest. You do not believe one thing and say another, which is what I define as a hypocrite. But you are, in my opinion as God has led me, wrong.
What you HAVE said, quite vehemently and with vigor, has led people to believe you would not be the least upset if people were hanged for being gay or any other of the treatments many think are fine to exhibit towards people they have condemned and demeaned as you clearly have. You made that bed. Frankly, no matter what you condemn now, you have not condemned anything in your time here with as much disdain as you have homosexuality and that is where we are.
Insisting on equal rights for homosexuals, made by God the same as you or me, is not about being tolerant of, condoning or upholding sin. It is not sin to be what you are unless that is a perversion, criminal or deviant, and homosexuals, no matter how you and those like you paint it, are not. NOTHING homosexuals do cannot be and is not done by heterosexuals. The ONLY difference is in who they are attracted to and you choose to use Old Testament, priest/rabbi written “laws” as the certain “word of God” to condemn them. Up to this moment, divorce, adultery, murderer, theft, rape and any other Old Testament “laws” that precluded ever walking among and being included in society with equal rights has heard not word one of condemnation from you. But this ONE “law” cannot be challenged?
YOU are not allowed to judge what is Christian! You go too far. Casting that stone alone, might well cost you one day. Following a false prophecy because you believed it is also sin, BTW.
Brava Sandi!
@556–”It is not sin to be what you are unless that is a perversion, criminal or deviant . . . ” So wrote Sandi Saunders.
Well since homosexual conduct is a perversion, criminal in some states, including Virginia, and deviant, it is a sin. YOU AGREE WITH ME!
Finally.
@555–Let me tell you a story.
I recently represented a homosexual on some very serious criminal charges directly related to his homosexual conduct. He came to me for help, and could not afford my normal rates. I took his case without hesitation.
In the course of my representation, we had very frank and graphic conversations, as you might imagine. Nothing he told me comported with my personal code of conduct or that of my faith. I judged him only with respect to his legal jeopardy.
I helped this client, both personally and legally. I assured him of God’s love for him. I reassured him as to his personal worth, and the good things going for him in his life. And to top it all off, I convinced the prosecuting office to drop the charges. My client walked; always a good thing.
It might interest you–and it might not–that this client came to me knowing full well my thoughts on his personal conduct. He also knew things that I have tried to explain in this blog as to my overall thoughts and philosophies; the difference being, he listened and understood.
I hate no one. I try hard not to dislike others. I sin. Everyone sins. I treat no one any different than I treat myself on this score. We all can do better, and we shall all fall short in this world.
But striving to do better does not mean giving a pass because some immoral conduct has become fashionable and politically correct. It does someone who errs no favor to congratulate them on their failings, and to encourage them to continue. Sometimes compassion means being firm. Kind, but firm.
You prove yourself sir!
@560–What does that mean?
It means what I said and you always know what I say.
We all discriminate. If you have a favorite color you discriminate against the others.
If you prefer Chevy, you discriminate against all other automobile manufacturors.
If you are a man and you love women you discriminate against homosexuals.
It’s all relative
haddit, the question is “does your discrimination against another thing (color, car, whatever) deny the rights of the thing?” In the case of discrimination against a person because of their skin color, religion, or sexual orientation, that is exactly what happens, and that violates the principles of our Constitution. It really is that simple.
Late though I admit I am to this kerfuffle, allow me to have what I think should be the definitive word on this topic:
The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the World Health Organization, the American Counseling Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers all agree that there is nothing whatsoever that is inherently harmful about homosexuality or homosexual relationships, that it isn’t a choice, that it can’t be changed, and that attempting to change it is harmful.
I’ll gladly take their scientifically valid, peer-reviewed word for it over the word of some willfully ignorant religious fanatic any old day of the week.