Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., has died at age 77.
Click to Print
Include Comments
No gay marriage? Then, no straight marriage.
Lyndale United Church of Christ, a small, liberal church in south Minneapolis was the first of several Twin Cities congregations last year to stop performing civil marriage ceremonies as long as gay marriage is illegal. Lyndale will still hold a religious ceremony to “bless” the unions of straight and gay couples. But if straight couples want to get married, they have to go elsewhere.
Street Prophets, a Kos blog on faith and politics, quotes from a Dec. 14 AP story by Patrick Condon that has since mysteriously disappeared from the Web (let us know if you come up with it):
“If you feel that gay and lesbian people are loved and credited by God, then how can we continue to discriminate against our brothers and sisters?” asked Rev. Don Portwood, the reserved Nebraska native who’s been lead pastor at the 120-member Lyndale United Church of Christ for 27 years.
The Lyndale congregation voted unanimously to cease civil marriages. A handful of other congregations around the country have taken similar action. What do you of this protest?
back to top201 Comments to “No gay marriage? Then, no straight marriage.”
OK, so it is WRONG according to God’s word. But I find myself asking the profound question: What can I do to help? Build health; stop focusing on disease. I would rather focus on who is doing what RIGHT to protect and promote God’s design for human happiness–real marraige. I know of a church started 18 years ago to be a place where divorced people would be welcome. (Some of us divorcees have been harshly treated by so-called conservative Christians–driven out and even excommunicated from these churches, so the need for a church for divorced persons is very real.)
This church now has incredible ministries not only to those who are divorced, (they saved me from spending $1,000.00 on my car when the dealership was lying to me!!) but now compatibility testing for those who want to get married.
Report comment to moderator
I, like many others, am trying to work out my opinions and feelings on this issue. I went to a family funeral last week. It was held a the funeral home, but the family had gotten a minister to “perform” the service. It was apparent the minister had never met the deceased. He called him “Donald” his name was Doug. Later he called the guys brother David “Donald”. It was embarrassing. I have known people who never darkened the doors of a church want to get married in one because it would be “pretty” or it was the thing to do. Perhaps, civil marriages are best all around and you can only have it blessed if you are an active member of the congregation.
I really don’t know and don’t have a solution.
Report comment to moderator
Again, I advocate separating marriage, as a religious ceremony, from civil union, as a civil ceremony.
Churches should be able to marry or not marry whomever they please. Civil unions should be contracts administered by the state.
Report comment to moderator
Many people recognize that since the majority of people are Christian, the majority of gays come from Christian families. They just can’t discriminate against their own children anymore. It’s, well, immoral.
Report comment to moderator
The church doesn’t marry on it’s own authority anyway. It borrows authority granted by the state. It’s not really much of a protest. So, members go to city hall to get married and then get the marriage “solemnized” in the church. Whatever. Perhaps that’s how it should be. It’s how many people during the reformation got married.
Report comment to moderator
The majority of people are Christian –RDean at #4
If asked, most Americans will say the religion they were brought up with is some type of Christianity. However, when you start getting into the particulars, like God appearing as some type of animal or plant, many will say they believe in A God, just not a magical one. — RDean on 12.15.07 at 11:31 pm
Perhaps when you’ve arrived at a coherent idea of who you’re talking about you’ll have something cogent to say about them.
Until then,
SG
Report comment to moderator
The issue of marriage may be one for which it could be quite helpful to think very carefully about separation of state powers and exercise of religion. As Wiglaf pointed out, the church “borrows” authority from the state to perform “legal” marriages. Perhaps it would be best if everyone’s “legal union” was obtained from the state. Then people could have their “legal union” solemnized by their church. That would leave churches free to teach and do whatever they believe right about marriage. What the state would consider a “legal union” could be established by referendum in each state. I think this is basically what Random is advocating(?). I personally do not have any problem with this, but want my own church free to exercise and teach what it and I believe.
Other Christians may have more of a problem with this than I do, I know. But I live in a large urban area near a large university where there are actually quite a few gays/lesbians living in stable, committed relationships. I don’t see why it should not be open to them to have state and/or church sanction for this, as long as I and my own church are not forced or pressured to participate. When the members of a society have such different beliefs and practices, every effort should be made at the public level to accommodate everyone fairly and peacefully.
Report comment to moderator
In the first paragraph of Lynn’s post, she wrote, “But if straight couples want to get married, they have to go elsewhere.”
That’s for sure. If the Lyndale United Church of Christ wants to refuse to serve people and put political policy posturing over ministry to actual people, they should knock themselves out. From what I now know about them, the less they do, the better.
Easy solution: Go elsewhere!
Report comment to moderator
SG,
Rdean is on this Christians-disown-their-gay-children kick. It is oft repeated on many threads. I think cogency is lost when the point is made yet again. Many on here obviously aren’t convinced so he seems to think, like many newly married couples, that if the other doesn’t agree with him they must not have heard him.
Report comment to moderator
Excellent point, Adios.
Report comment to moderator
To Rev. Don Dortwood, “If you feel that polygamist and polyamorist people are loved and credited by God, then how can we continue to discriminate against our brothers and sisters?”
By the way, marriage is itself an ongoing act of discrimination–In keeping with me vows, I daily discriminate in favor of my wife and “against” other women (and among my brothers and sisters in Christ, they totally and joyfully support me in that moral discrimination).
Report comment to moderator
“If you feel that gay and lesbian people are loved and credited by God, then how can we continue to discriminate against our brothers and sisters?”
God does indeed love us all – but this is not carte blanche to continue in sinful conduct.
There are a few sins that look attactive to me. I don’t get to indulge them based upon the knowledge of God’s love for me. In order to achieve salvation, I must love God back. Part of my love back to Him is endeavoring to overcome/reign in my sinful desires (as best I can through His power available to me as a part of my faith in Him).
“If you feel that stealing/murdering/lying/(etc.) people are loved and credited by God, then how can we continue to discriminate against our brothers and sisters?” So let’s give free reign to every sin? Poppycock!
Report comment to moderator
Janie 7: I think C. S. Lewis advocated this same basic idea.
I’m having more and more reservations about the FMA, on the grounds that I don’t think the federal government should be in the marriage-defining business, even if the way they (currently) propose to define it is something with which I agree on biblical grounds.
Report comment to moderator
Christians don’t seem to realize how costly their battle over marriage has become, and what a face-saver civil marriage would be. Their “defense” of marriage has joined well-meaning believers with homophobes. It has misdirected energies away from real problems in marriages. It has hurt the prestige of marriage by subordinating romantic love to a scripturally-imposed arrangement. It has implicated Christians in a deception, which is that, instead of marriage, Christians really are trying to defend an interpretation about the relevance of some ancient middle-eastern texts. Except for the historical accident of patriarchy and compulsory heterosexuality, Christianity could survive gay marriage intact — and so would marriage. Worst of all, the “defene” of marriage against gay marriage has torn up Christian families.
Report comment to moderator
#6: Perhaps when you’ve arrived at a coherent idea of who you’re talking about you’ll have something cogent to say about them.
God appeared as a “burning bush” and a “dove”. How is that incoherent?
#9: Christians-disown-their-gay-children kick.
See Alen Keyes, Republican. Certainly representative of many Christians. Disowned his daughter for being gay.
I suspect the real problem is that when your beliefs are put into regular language without all the “thees” and “thous”, all of a sudden, it’s not too pretty.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean – When put into plain language, Christianity is offensive to those who wish to remain the centers of their own universes and to cling to their own favored sins.
However, God remains beautiful; it is us who are revealed in our shabby ugliness.
Report comment to moderator
“God appeared as a “burning bush” and a “dove”. How is that incoherent?”
You’re right. It’s not incoherent except for the fact that God never appeared as a dove. Neither did the Holy Spirit. I believe the scriptures says The Holy Spirit descended like a dove. It’s a literary device in case you didn’t know.
Report comment to moderator
Janie,
Perhaps it would be best if everyone’s “legal union” was obtained from the state.
Isn’t this pretty much what already happens? When TJ and I got married in Georgia, we *had* to have blood tests, and we needed to procure a license from the government for it to be recognized.
I actually sat through a wedding once where the bride and groom neglected to have their blood tests, which nobody (including the wedding planner) noticed until two days before the wedding. Since it takes a week in Georgia, they walked down the aisle, but the preacher skipped the part about “by the power vested in me,” etc.
They went to city hall after the honeymoon.
Report comment to moderator
Donato [4]
Many people recognize that since the majority of people are Christian, the majority of gays come from Christian families
Uh wow, you just laid bare your understanding of argument. A huge logical flaw here. May I suggest a Venn diagram?
Report comment to moderator
#18: Cameron, if I may add one thing to that anecdote, since it will highlight one of the serious problems with religious marriages in this country.
It was actually the day before the wedding (Friday morning for a Saturday afternoon wedding). I was one of the groomsman, and the groom asked me (since I was only one of two folks in the wedding party who was married at the time), “Tim, how long does it take to get a marriage license in the state of Georgia?” I would say you could have heard a pin drop, but the sound of my jaw hitting the floor probably interfered with that. When I explained waiting for blood test results and the like, there was obviously disconcertment. The parents of the bride were old money and had dropped a chunk of change on the wedding and reception (just as an example: there was free booze at the rehearsal dinner, an open bar and a live band at the reception, and hired serving chefs for the pasta, shrimp, etc.). I’m sure they paid hansomely for a wedding planner, too, but this obvious detail was left out.
The biggest problem (as I see it, from a now pastor’s perspective)? Even though this wedding was being conducted at a “neutral site” (a country club), the wedding was officiated by a minister (Methodist, I think). The couple met the minister, for the first time, for so-called marriage counseling, that same Friday, the day before the wedding. What kind of counseling do you think took place? What if he had found the two were completely incompatible; does anyone seriously think, at that point, the wedding would have been called off (as my wife pointed out, they went through with it despite the fact it was not a marriage in the eyes of the state). If the pastor had met with the couple weeks prior, for instance, he would have a better idea of whether they should be married (thankfully, that was back in 2003 and they still are happily married). He certainly could have mentioned the license thing. But, as a pastor, I never would have married a couple having only met them a day prior to the ceremony. IMHO, that is just going through the motions on the part of the minister, and it speaks volumes about the shallow view of marriage too many folks (especially those within the confines of the church) have today.
Maybe I should have saved that for Friday’s rant…
Report comment to moderator
#19: A huge logical flaw here.
Just curious. Where do you think gay people come from? Please, don’t say from under a cabbage leaf.
Report comment to moderator
We are all avoiding the lesson being thought in this church. This is not just a way of protesting the ban on gay marriage, the poeple are atempting to put themselves in the shoes of those gay couples who are not allowed to marry the ones they love. Atleast they should count themselves lucky that they can leave and go elsewhere to get married anyway.
Report comment to moderator
The parents of the bride were old money and had dropped a chunk of change on the wedding and reception
. . . or were acting like old money while spending the equity in their house. You never know what motivates the expense of the kitsch-defying aesthetic extravagance otherwise known as a wedding. I don’t like attending them anymore. It would be one thing if a guy in a bathrobe and sandals with shoulder-length brown hair dropped by to turn the tap water to nice cabernet or chardonnay. Otherwise, I’d much rather attend a wedding anniversary, and they may be as extravagant and tasteless or frugal as they want. An anniversary is never less than classy.
Report comment to moderator
Donato,
Alan Keyes is not every Christian, and I do not support his actions in this instance. I have two good Christian friends who have stood by their gay children and have received their partners into the family. They are both quite conservative. In one case, I was holding my breath to see where they would come out. They came out loving their daughter as much as ever.
It is quite possible to love and support your children without agreeing everything they do is perfectly ok with you. Most parents do this on a fairly regular basis in regard to a lot ot things.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron #18,
What I am advocating is that no church no longer have the capacity to wield the authority of the state in regard to legalizing unions. The union would be “legalized” by the state and then separately solemnized as a marriage by the church.
I have been aware of instances like you mentioned happening, where for some reason of circumstances the two things had to take place separately.
And I totally agree with TJ–a pastor who marries a couple without knowing and counseling them adequately is irresponsible.
Report comment to moderator
Those who wish to live sinful lives and profess to be Believers are exactly what the passage of Scripture below is referring to.
It’s a hard thing to do, when children or loved ones go astray, after believing in Jesus Christ as their Savior – However, there is no possible way to embrace a sinful lifestyle with anyone within your home –
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. 1 Corinthians 5
Report comment to moderator
From Lynn’s piece: “If you feel that gay and lesbian people are loved and credited by God, then how can we continue to discriminate against our brothers and sisters?” asked Rev. Don Portwood…
Undoubtedly, gay and lesbian people are loved and by God. The question is whether they are behaving morally and entitled to Christian or civil marriage. Most Christians regard marriage ideally as a life-long sacred conjugal union between a man and a woman for the purpose of bearing and properly nurturing children according to the complemewntary natures of a father and mother. Children deserve both a mother and father.
The Christian tradition, based on both scripture and philosophical natural law for millennia, has strictly forbidden homosexual acts as a grave sin. It, also, bases marriage on Christ’s word of a sacred union of the flesh between a man and woman.
Pastor Lockwood has fallen for the contemporary secular piety that homosexual behavior is just dandy and that homosexual folk have a right to marriage.
As to civil unions, the law could with careful consideration provide full benefits to all non- marital relationships, for example those between grand parents and grandchildren, caught by difficult circumstance in close household relationship.
Another point is that within the homosexual community, many argue that the gay-lobby move towards marriage “rights” is a sellout to Victorian prudes who are the enemies of counter-cultural gay-folk. I have been advised by a friend from the gay community that the gay marriage advocates counter this argument by saying that what they are really up to is weakening the whole idea of marriage i,e. embracing it to destroy it.
Christians inclined to pragmatically accept gay marriage and civil unions to keep the peace need to get a grip on this issue. The issues of abortion and marriage are the central moral issues of out time.
Report comment to moderator
#24: It is quite possible to love and support your children without agreeing everything they do is perfectly ok with you.
So you are saying it’s ok to love your children but because of the way they are born, they may not deserve the same rights as you, their parent, because you were lucky enough to be born with “acceptable” inclinations. Unfortunately, they were not. So human rights is a “Lotto”?
There are over a thousand rights that straights receive in marriage that are denied to gays. You agree that it’s ok to deny these to your children because of their, um, “choice”?
It just doesn’t sound like love to me. Sounds exactly like “discrimination”.
Report comment to moderator
Peter – 27
I believe this too, it’s become obvious -
Report comment to moderator
#27: that what they are really up to is weakening the whole idea of marriage i,e. embracing it to destroy it.
No “friend” of the gay community has ever said this. This is what is called a “slanderous” lie by those that hate gays. Pity you could believe such a ridiculous slander. Some might even think you were the originator.
Gays are the product of hetro unions. They are the sons and daughters of Americans and American Christians as much as you want to deny it.
#27: philosophical natural
Which is it? Can it be both? If it’s natural, then it’s “natural” thoughout the entire kindom of nature. One stallion can have many mares. Another example of a “type” of marriage that is practiced today.
Hate for gays spread throughout the world as the Christian religion and influence spread. They are the perpetrators of the greatest program of evil towards a minority in history. Their program has lasted 2,000 years and the hate is still strong.
Report comment to moderator
What the evangelical folks on here, and the average evvie on the street, doesn’t understand is that “liberal” churches are only “conservative” churches following the tenets of modern day evangelicalism to their logical conclusions. In other words, 95% or more of the evangelical churches in existence today will, in a hundred years, be a “liberal” church. Where do people think all these liberal churches and denominations came from? From churches and denominations that used to be conservative and “Bible believing”, that’s where.
Even on here we see evangelicals ashamed of what the Bible teaches on various topics, such as the proper sex roles for men and women, slavery, etc. I can’t remember the thread, but a month or two ago someone actually stated that nowhere in the OT or NT does God allow, permit, or tolerate slavery. He didn’t need to do a Bible study on the topic; his God is a god of love and would never do such a thing. But, of course, God does do that very thing over and over in the OT. But Christians hate that, and so they invent a “nice’ god, and just ignore all the parts of the bible that don’t fit the “nice” god. I’ve had more than one person tall me that it’s wrong to even quote Leviticus about executing homosexuals. It’s no longer in effect, therefore we shouldn’t talk about it. It should go down the “not nice OT god” memory hole along with all the stuff about slavery.
Evangelicals are mystified that a church like this one can call itself Christian. But in 50-100 years almost all of current evvie churches will have accepted gay marriage as perfectly normal. It’s the nature of modern day Christianity, with its emphases on being nice, not judging, being inclusive, valuing equality, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Random has it right in #3.
Report comment to moderator
per·sev·er·a·tion n.
1) Uncontrollable repetition of a particular response, such as a word, phrase, or gesture, despite the absence or cessation of a stimulus, usually caused by brain injury or other organic disorder.
2) The tendency to continue or repeat an act or activity after the cessation of the original stimulus.
–Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
Get well soon {:~)
Report comment to moderator
NT
What is your definition of “evvie” ?
Report comment to moderator
As usual, Night Train, our wise, resident non-Christian, is absolutely right.
Report comment to moderator
#31 “It’s the nature of modern day Christianity, with its emphases on being nice, not judging, being inclusive, valuing equality, etc.”
all of which are values they should be proud to hold if they could just get over their fear.
Why do i say fear? It is only fear that would prompt such an argument as ‘the gay agenda’ or ‘homosexuality would destory marriage’.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train, you’re analysis at #31 that evangelical Christians will in the long run join the liberal mainline churches in accepting the gay agenda is dubious. Anyone following the present cultural scene knows that the best evangelical theologians and preachers in America have joined with Orthodox Jews and orthodox Catholics in a full frontal intellectual assault against the secularists on the issues of both abortion and marriage that they regard as the two most crucial moral issues of our time.The mainline churches are involved in a precipitous decline, while the serious Christians are in the ascending.
What you smugly and viciously refer to as the evvie churches are in truth quite aware of people like you who, as Cole Porter once spoke of in his song Anything Goes, remarked that:
The world has gone mad to-day.
And good is bad today,
Anything goes
You and your anti-Christrian buddies who despise devout Christians on this blog are actually rather garden variety secular rubes.
Report comment to moderator
I have a sense of right and wrong. Most people I know, religious and non-religious, do.
Some claim that they know what right and wrong is, based on “absolute values” communicated in a book inspired by God. As Night Train points out in his message #31, the “absolute values” have gone through a lot of massaging and repositioning over the centuries.
First, I think it’s perfectly possible that our ethical/moral values are the product of our evolution (physical-genetic and cultural-philosophical). We have appetites and fears that lead us to behavior most of us consider bad and evil; we also have traits such as empathy and genetic instincts to care for our young and our kin which lead us to behavior such as caring for others and self-sacrifice. I think most people also find that discovering what is good and bad is sometimes difficult, as is behaving in accordance to whatever standards we believe in.
Interestingly, religion has taken these negative and positive traits and created positive and negative feedback loops with them. So some of the deadliest evil behavior (pogroms and inquisitions and genocides, etc.) has been inspired by religion. The evils of the worst secular horrors does not let religion of the hook in this regard. By the same token, religion inspires some of the most caring and courageous behavior. Such behavior is not limited to Christians, much as many of the Christians here like to think most of it is.
Again, I think murder and rape and theft and so on are evil. Most people I know, religious and secular, do.
It gets trickier to evaluate consequences of actions that may seem harmless or neutral but prove harmful over the long haul. For example, it’s tempting and easy to give in to a child’s wishes, but parents are often correct that a child must be guided and disciplined for reasons it does not understand.
(The analogy that we are all “children of God” who must be guided by Jesus in the same way we as parents guide our children is comprehensible, but not necessarily fully persuasive and correct.)
Sex is a source of great trouble and difficulty, so I am not shocked that many people are concerned about sexual behavior. It makes sense for example to encourage sexual standards that protect against deadly disease, that prohibit rape, that encourage the proper care of children.
Nevertheless, for many of us who are not religious believers, the reactions by many religious believers to unconventional sexual behavior are so excessive and laden with emotion that we have to wonder what is really going on.
Topics of sexual discussion on wmb easily fall into the evangelical equivalent of pornography in their heat and excitement.
Report comment to moderator
What is your definition of “evvie” ?
It’s simply short for evangelical, Victoria. I assume anyone on here knows what an evangelical is.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Ted Syndrome
Report comment to moderator
Victoria–
“It’s a hard thing to do, when children or loved ones go astray, after believing in Jesus Christ as their Savior – However, there is no possible way to embrace a sinful lifestyle with anyone within your home – ”
What if they are your adult children, no longer in your home, and no longer claiming to be believers? Would you just disown them and never see them again till they “straightened out”?
Report comment to moderator
NT
Of course most people know what an Evangelical means, but they don’t call it “ewie” –
The definition is of “evvie” is – A special girl who is halarious, sexy and fun to be around are:
Report comment to moderator
If Victoria is going to cite the Urban Dictionary, I assume it must be a credible source.
Evangelical:
A sect of christianity that is full of mindless, brainwashed followers who spend their entire life in misery when they aren’t spreading the gospel. The whole sect is full of middle class/rich white folks who want to go to church to be entertained by crying, hysterical preachers and find new prejudices to be in support of. They believe that their religion is the only way of life and refuse to accept any other ways. There is no ‘conversation’ with evangelicals…they only convert. BEWARE.
resident Bush is an evangelical christian. Need I say more on why he seems so mindless and stupid?
Report comment to moderator
Janie
I wouldn’t disown a child, but I would not allow them to come into our home – Turning from the truth and God are serious, it isn’t something I would take lightly, my heart would be broken –
The Word of God takes presidense over all, and that would include my broken heart -
It is a willful person who turns from God and follows a sinful path, they have chosen it, the person who goes down this road has separated himself from God and his/her family, by choosing sin rather that the LORD –
Tough love is needed when sin comes between believers and those who have turned from God, who have gone their own way.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavett,
“Pastor Lockwood has fallen for the contemporary secular piety that homosexual behavior is just dandy and that homosexual folk have a right to marriage.”
I do not think that homosexual behavior is “just dandy”. That’s why I want my own church free to preach and practice what I believe to be right and true. I think homosexual behavior is a sin. I don’t want gays and lesbians to have the right to get married in my church. I just don’t think it’s my job to judge the behavior of unbelievers or to try to insist everyone in our society believe as I do or behave the way I think they should. We are to judge ourselves, the believers in our own churches and hold them accountable, and we are to present the message of salvation to any who want to hear it. We are not to go around smacking everyone with our own Biblical standards when they don’t even believe in Christ. Most sane adults believe in a central core of morality that allows us to have a societal rule of law that works fairly well. If homosexuals were granted the opportunity to have state-sanctioned legal unions, even ones that some church I’d never attend myself would solemnize, why should I be upset about that? I have no doubt that my marriage, those of my adult children, and those of most of my Christian friends will survive that.
Report comment to moderator
HamachiTwo
Check further, you will find it -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I would not “take it lightly”, either. There was a period of time when one of my sons was living unmarried with the woman who is now his wife. He knew that disappointed me greatly. But I still loved him, and I did not barr them from my home. I would not have allowed them to stay in my home in the same bedroom, but they were otherwise welcome.
Report comment to moderator
I wouldn’t disown a child, but I would not allow them to come into our home.
There is one person I know of here–a conservative Christian–who has spoken of having a homosexual adult son. If my memory is correct, it is Michael Martin.
As I don’t know anybody who participates here personally, I tend to believe whatever people tell themselves about themselves. (I realize I may be misled from time to time. It is easy, and I am sure tempting, to lie as people participate in online communication.)
As I recall (and I apologize if I summarize from memory inaccurately), Michael indicated that he disapproves of his son’s behavior and has spoken frankly to him of his disapproval. He also indicated that he has his son visit and they communicate regularly and manage to do so in a civil and even friendly manner.
Given the strong feelings that conservative Christians have on this matter, that sounds as about the best that can be achieved if the type of situation that Victoria refers to comes up.
I am glad that a similar situation has not come up in Victoria’s family. There are, of course, a few famous examples, such as the Cheneys and Phyllis Schlafly to name two. Mileage does indeed vary.
Report comment to moderator
mistake: “believe whatever people tell me about themselves” is what I meant to say.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train, you’re analysis at #31 that evangelical Christians will in the long run join the liberal mainline churches in accepting the gay agenda is dubious.
This coming from a guy who thinks Outkast is an intellectual giant and a stalwart defender of the faith!
Anyone following the present cultural scene knows that the best evangelical theologians and preachers in America have joined with Orthodox Jews and orthodox Catholics in a full frontal intellectual assault against the secularists on the issues of both abortion and marriage that they regard as the two most crucial moral issues of our time.
You mean like Joe Lieberman, the pro-abort Orthodox Jew in the Senate? And that “full frontal assault” isn’t working out too well. MA legalized gay marriage. Iowa did too, although it’s currently on hold. CA probably will do so soon. Several other states have legalized “civil unions” which are simply gay marriages under another name. And several top Christian leaders have endorsed legalizing civil unions, seeing that as the best chance of stopping gay marriage. Gay marriage to stop gay marriage! They’re really tearing down those strongholds, eh Peter? 20 years ago no evvie theologian or church leader would’ve favored legalizing civil unions. They’d have been outraged at the idea, and would’ve said that civil unions are simply gay marriages. But now many of them are in favor of the idea. Yes, they’re standing firm in defense of “traditional moral values”.
The mainline churches are involved in a precipitous decline, while the serious Christians are in the ascending.
Uh, “serious Christians” are “in the ascending”, huh? Right. Every day there’s less filth on TV, less porn on the internet and at your local “family” video store, more and more gays are repenting and dropping out of gay rights organizations, more and more abortion clinics are closing up shop, etc. Yeah, you guys are winning the culture wars, alright. And, again, where do you think those liberal mainline churches came from? The vast majority of them used to be Bible believing evangelical churches, decades ago.
What you smugly and viciously refer to as the evvie churches
Uh, there’s nothing smug or vicious about it. I type fast (unless I’m replying to you), and some words give me fits when trying to spell them and type fast. One of those words is evangelical. It’s a time and labor saver, and there’s nothing disrespectful about it. Talk about petty. And I assume you’ll be rebuking anyone who says “libs” for liberals from now on?
are in truth quite aware of people like you who, as Cole Porter once spoke of in his song Anything Goes, remarked that:
Wow. When you’re “defending” Judeo-Christian values, and you’re in a jam, there’s nothing like quoting a flaming homosexual to bolster your point!
Report comment to moderator
RN
To my knowledge the Cheneys are not Evangelical Christians – Whatever Phyllis Schlafly or the Cheneys do is their choice, I wouldn’t follow in their footsteps -
‘Famous’ doesn’t mean anything RN, to me it is what GOD says in His Word -
Report comment to moderator
Janie, If homosexuals were granted the opportunity to have state-sanctioned legal unions, even ones that some church I’d never attend myself would solemnize, why should I be upset about that?
You are more than a member of your church. You are a citizen who presumably should be concerned with the important moral issues of our time, which have to do with the subjects of abortion, marriage, divorce, adultery, etc., all of which have public aspects. Christians need to make their voices heard in the public square.
Report comment to moderator
Post 27
Central moral issue of our time? Hmmph. I think torture and today’s science – the creation of artificial life shoould have more consideration than folks’ preoccupation with other people’s sexual preferences.
Report comment to moderator
Peter, I am glad to make my voice heard. I think divorce amd adultery are bigger problems for marriage than gay civil unions. I think abortion is murder. I’m very concerned about those things, more so than about gay civil unions.
Report comment to moderator
Janie
Some things seem bigger than others, but as Christians we can speak out on as many issues possible -
There are no laws against divorce, or adultery – people can choose these things without any concern for laws. On the other hand, ’same sex marriage’ OR ‘civil unions’ are not law yet, SO…we can still make our voices heard so this does not become law –
Peter commented in post 27 . .
Janie, I believe what Peter posted is true.
Abortion is murder, I agree, and many of us have been doing what we can from the beginning to stop it legally, and we can CONTINUE!
Report comment to moderator
#23: …bathrobe and sandals with shoulder-length brown hair …tap water … cabernet or chardonnay.
Wow, Scroop, lots of anachronisms in that one sentence! I’m curious if this is what you were taught in your religious upbringing. If so, I think I can understand why you would rebel at such a gross inaccuracy! Perhaps you were attending the church of the minister I mentioned! Ever been to Macon, Georgia?
In all seriousness, though, this probably speaks of the same or similar problems I was mentioning. The “Jesus” you presented, perhaps jokingly, sounds too much like the “American Jesus”, or at least the one who is presented to Americans. Sad, really. No wonder that we have such a dim view of marriage (Britney Spears memories suddenly leap to mind).
Report comment to moderator
It’s simple, really.
Against abortion? Don’t have one.
Against homosexual unions? Don’t have one.
I wish it worked that way for your war.
Report comment to moderator
Hamachitwo,
Against slavery. Don’t have one.
Report comment to moderator
Exactly, Joel.
This is a beautiful day. I just agreed with Victoria on another thread, and now Joel and I are htiig it off. I love this place.
Report comment to moderator
btw, “htiig” is the new way all the cool people are spelling “hitting.” On the cutting edge here…
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Against slavery? Renounce the God of the Bible then, because he’s all for it.
(As long as it’s not Israelites being enslaved. He’s a tad bit racist, too.)
Report comment to moderator
Scepter Alert
Thanks for being mainly civil on this thread friends. I sent out a warning email or two, but other than that, great job!
Report comment to moderator
Night Train’s amazing lack of grasp of nuance trots to the forefront again.
I get sick of hearing about the secular left and their vision, intelligence and grasp of nuance – contrasted with the cretinous Christian sorts – while the secular left repeatedly demonstrates its ineptitude at all 3.
Report comment to moderator
Of course most people know what an Evangelical means, but they don’t call it “ewie”
Who said they did? That’s what I call ‘em for short. I often take the road less traveled. I’m kind of a trend setter, too.
The definition is of “evvie” is – A special girl who is halarious, sexy and fun to be around are
I’ve never heard that before in my life. But then, I usually don’t visit Urban Dictionary very often.
Say, aren’t you the one who jumped my case the other day for copying and pasting and not providing a link to make it clear where you got the info?
Report comment to moderator
NT
The definition: “evvie” is – A special girl who is halarious, sexy and fun to be around.
What “evvie” doesn’t mean is Evangelical –
NT says……”Who said they did? That’s what I call ‘em for short. I often take the road less traveled. I’m kind of a trend setter, too.”
Yep, you ‘made it up’ but you might have checked out what it really meant, or maybe you read it, and then decided you would change it. LOL
By the way, that definition is many places.
Report comment to moderator
What “evvie” doesn’t mean is Evangelical
It does when I use it.
Yep, you ‘made it up’ but you might have checked out what it really meant, or maybe you read it, and then decided you would change it.
Like I said, Evvictoria, I’ve never seen it anywhere except on here. And I don’t recall saying I made it up. It seems to me someone else on here was using it first, and it was clear that it was short for evangelical. Why would I look it up?
Report comment to moderator
Night Train’s amazing lack of grasp of nuance trots to the forefront again.
Nice rebuttal.
Report comment to moderator
NT – 66
NT writes………“Like I said, Evvictoria, I’ve never seen it anywhere except on here. And I don’t recall saying I made it up. It seems to me someone else on here was using it first, and it was clear that it was short for evangelical. Why would I look it up?”…….
You are now making a personal attack against me, by using this slur along with my name. Are you SURE you want to do this?
Report comment to moderator
#33: That almost describes your repetitious hatred of gays.
One person loving another is never evil. Of course, suddenly the Christians are rushing to say, “Oh, then it’s ok for adults to love children?” “See, you want adults to love children – or dogs”.
Christians can take two adults in love with each other in a monogamous consensual relationship and turn it into a smutty adult on child or adult with dog without the slightest feeling of shame or guilt.
I have to admit. My favorites are, “I have close gay friends and I have let them know I don’t approve” or “Can’t they just spend their entire life without any type of romantic love?” “God will reward them when they are dead”.
But, my all time favorite, someone on this site once wrote that his brother, a black belt, 6 foot two, 240 pounds was approached by someone in an airport bathroom. He shrieked and panicked and ran screaming from the bathroom wanting desperately to kill the guy that “peeked”. If every woman killed the guy that made a pass at her, most of us would never have been born.
You want to irk the evangelicals? Be sure to point out all the contributions from gays to society, in spite of their small numbers and the tiny contributions by the evangelicals. What is ironic, many churches and Christian buildings are filled with paintings and statues made by gays. The greatest Christian works of art are made by the gays. Isn’t that a hoot? What really makes you wonder, is it possible the greatest contributions by the evangelicals are their gay sons and daughters?
Report comment to moderator
I was going to say I got a chuckle out of being called an “evvie.” Beats some other things I’ve been called.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn
I don’t find it funny at all, either to be called one or to have it attached to the front of my name as Night Train did –
The definition: “evvie” is – A special girl who is halarious, sexy and fun to be around.
Report comment to moderator
The definition: “evvie” is – A special girl who is halarious, sexy and fun to be around.
Could be, in another context or forum. Night Train seemed to mean it as short for “evangelical.” No worse than Donks or libs, IMHO. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t be irritated. I’m just saying I wasn’t.
Beats “chum-scrubbing twit,” as one commenter here once called me.
Report comment to moderator
Beats “chum-scrubbing twit,” as one commenter here once called me.
Lynn, you used to work at Captain D’s?!?
Report comment to moderator
You are now making a personal attack against me, by using this slur along with my name. Are you SURE you want to do this?
You’re a trip, Victoria.
Lynn gets it. See her posts above.
Later!
Report comment to moderator
Lynn, you used to work at Captain D’s?!?
No, I think this commenter just liked the way “chum-scrubbing twit” rolls off the tongue. As an insult, it does have a certain flair . . .
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I find it kind of cute.
Report comment to moderator
“chum-scrubbing twit”
I think it’s from SpongeBob Squarepants. Sounds like something Squidward would say to SpongeBob, who works at the Krusty Krab restaurant.
Report comment to moderator
Who got the “Scepter Wack” email from Lynn?
I guess Peter Leavitt for his regular name calling. Any others?
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t get one.
Report comment to moderator
“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you argued the two most crucial moral issues of your time; I was thirsty, and you argued the two most crucial moral issues of your time; I was a stranger, and you argued the two most crucial moral issues of your time; naked, and you argued the two most crucial moral issues of your time; sick, and in prison, and you argued the two most crucial moral issues of your time. Homosexuals were hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, and in prison — and were made so by the crucial moral issues of your time.
Report comment to moderator
His left would be your right, BTW.
Report comment to moderator
“You are now making a personal attack against me, by using this slur along with my name.”
The definition: “evvie” is – A special girl who is halarious, sexy and fun to be around.
Wait a second. How is this a bad thing?
Report comment to moderator
I wasn’t going to say anything, Liz.
You’d think if I was going to “slur” evangelicals, and Victoria, I’d do a little better job, and would take the time to find something that’s offensive. That doesn’t sound uncomplimentary at all.
Report comment to moderator
Well I’m just saying, being special, sexy, and funny isn’t exactly bad…
Report comment to moderator
Night Train;
hey wait a second… you’re the one that stole my Cappuccino!
Report comment to moderator
We have an echo – until now, I wasn’t sure, but yes there is an echo!
Report comment to moderator
What you”ll find, if you hang around long enough, is that, rightly or wrongly, there’s a lot of animosity toward me on the part of several of the regulars on here. They usually can’t defeat my arguments, so they look for any reason whatsoever to complain about me, or try to get me booted, or just make me look bad in general. I mentioned that I’d read Steve Martin’s new book in its entirety at the local Barnes and Noble, and they began accusing me of “stealing”, and going on about how unethical it is to read at bookstores. Now, I take it, Victoria is trying to accuse me of slurring evangelicals and calling her a “terrible” name, when I’d never even heard of that meaning of it until today, and it’s hardly a slur at all, but rather a compliment. That is, she was trying to accuse me of it, til Lynn stepped in and made it clear that there’s nothing offensive about what I said. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the reason she stepped in is that Victoria or others emailed her to accuse me of “name calling”. But I could be wrong. It happens from time to time.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train, hey wait a second… you’re the one that stole my Cappuccino!
Uh-oh.
I gots to go!
Report comment to moderator
“We have an echo – until now, I wasn’t sure, but yes there is an echo!”
What’s an echo?
You obviously didn’t mean that in the literal sense…
Report comment to moderator
Night Train,
I’ve got every cop from here to new york after you.
just give yourself up and we might be able to solve this painlessly…
Report comment to moderator
Liz,
I will leave this to you to figure out, the rest of us have –
Report comment to moderator
“Echo…?” (Liz pounds her head against her keyboard) “What on earth can she mean…?” (Appealing to the masses) “…can I have a hint?”
Report comment to moderator
“(Liz pounds her head against her keyboard)”
No hint needed, just laughing, as you know we have figured this out!
Report comment to moderator
As most understand, there are certain phrases, and words which are used that identify people, and this is a real winner, which is very revealing……….. ops:
Report comment to moderator
I’ve got every cop from here to new york after you.
Feets don’t fail me now!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria;
I’m usually pretty smart, but your last two comments totally confused me…
Do people speak a different language on blogs or something?
Anyone know where I can pick up a copy of “the dummies guide to understanding Victoria’s comments?”
Report comment to moderator
Night Train;
LOL. That’s right… just keep on running.
Hey, can anybody lend me some blood hounds?
Report comment to moderator
Ok Victoria;
I studied your comments and I’ll narrow my window of inquiry…
1. What does “:roll:” mean?
2. What does “……….. ops:” mean?
3.What did you mean when you said; “there are certain phrases, and words which are used that identify people” ? Identify them how? and as what?
Report comment to moderator
Liz, I’m no expert when it comes to decoding Victoria, but I think she’s accusing you of being my sock puppet. That is, there’s no “Liz”, it’s just me pretending to post under a different name.
At least I think that’s what she’s driving at.
But I could be wrong. It does happen from time to time.
Report comment to moderator
Liz
Liz – 96
You’ve got it……LOL
Report comment to moderator
Night Train [87]
That is, she was trying to accuse me of it, til Lynn stepped in and made it clear that there’s nothing offensive about what I said.
Haha, you guys… I imagine NT teasing Victoria, then mama Lynn coming in from the other room to quiet Victoria’s complaining, then NT sticking his tongue out when mama turns her back.
To think, how old are you guys/gals?
Report comment to moderator
NT – 99
No it isn’t you….. revealing YES, surprising NO, not at all -
Report comment to moderator
NT [99], Victoria [102]
M-o-o-o-o-o-m-m-m-m!!! Night Train’s hitting me! Stop it!
Report comment to moderator
A “sock puppet” reveals her/him self by many characteristics, just follow the path -
Report comment to moderator
Hey Victoria!
If you’d care to step over to the blog entitled “mind, body, and spirit, exhausted and empty” you would see that Night Train and I have had some dissenting arguments.
If I am really Night Train, I must be pretty desperate for entertainment.
I mean, arguing with myself? I’m not that pathetic…
Report comment to moderator
If you’re accusing me of something, then accuse me.
Stop beating around the bush and just spit it out!
Report comment to moderator
M-o-o-o-o-o-m-m-m!!! Victoria’s being illusive again!!!
Report comment to moderator
Cat fight!!
Report comment to moderator
Me? A cat?
More like a cute little harmless kitty.
Hissss……
Report comment to moderator
No but seriously Vicky,
Who do you think I am?
I honestly haven’t the faintest idea.
Report comment to moderator
RDean [21] (W-a-a-a-a-y up there before the Jerry Springer-esque conversation)
Blast! And I was about to say, “Under a cabbage leaf.”
Just curious. What makes you think that “the majority of gays come from Christian families”? That is what my response was to. No more red herrings now.
Report comment to moderator
I know!
let’s play twenty one questions!
Or pick names out of a hat!
Or some other silly game!
Maybe that we can find out what in the world Victoria is talking about!
Report comment to moderator
“I mean, arguing with myself? I’m not that pathetic…”
Ahhhh, so you’re not admitting to being Outkast then!
Report comment to moderator
Are you saying that Oukast is pathetic?
Or was there some other underlying meaning to your comment?
Yeah… I really suck at this whole blogging thing.
Report comment to moderator
Liz [105] [106] [107] [109] [110] [112] [114]
Ahhh!
Report comment to moderator
Jeeze… Sorry Yorick.
I’ll try not to talk so much.
Report comment to moderator
There’s no need to apologize, Liz. You’ve done nothing wrong, and anyone would be mystified by Victoria’s cryptic accusations.
Report comment to moderator
Liz – 105
Sorry, but I’m not interested in stepping over to ANY blog’s – don’t have time, not interested –
Liz – 110
You are an adult right, . . . . . . . . . . or NOT? My name is Victoria, that might be hard for you to remember, but then again maybe it isn’t -
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
“Are you saying that Oukast is pathetic?”
No way! He is the toughest, most brilliant, kind, compassionate, intelligent, and all around loving guy anyone will ever meet. And, I love Brother Outkast very much! It’s just that he has this history of holding conversations between himself and “sock-puppets” he made up. I’m sure he has stopped doing it now…
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Revealed: ‘Gay’ plans to target 2-year-olds
5th-grade students could be handed ‘Coping With Sexual Orientation’
Report comment to moderator
Revealed: GAYS, plan to target 2-year-olds
5th-grade students could be handed ‘Coping With Sexual Orientation’
Report comment to moderator
NT [61]
Against slavery? Renounce the God of the Bible then, because he’s all for it.
OK, I know that this isn’t exactly germane to the topic at hand, but I think it’s interesting.
Of course, I vehemently oppose slavery, but I also believe that this is one issue in the Bible that requires consideration of context. We live in a very different time now, and the idea of “freedom” that Western society has gradually hypostatized is difficult to examine for its true value.
I’m edging into dangerous territory here, because 1) this all requires a much more in-depth discussion and 2) it’s not PC. Nevertheless, I should point out that Christianity values freedom as a means for a better society, and not a necessary end.
Slavery would not work in today’s context (where it is based on race, etc.), but was a reality then and not necessarily a repugnant one.
I hope this makes sense, because I’m drifting off to sleep.
Report comment to moderator
‘Gays’ plans to target 2-year-olds
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59259
Report comment to moderator
I should actually take a step back from my assertion that “Christianity values freedom…”, and just say “I value freedom.” I don’t think I’m informed enough on this topic to start speaking for Christianity as a whole.
Report comment to moderator
“Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB 777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation,”
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Check out the website – look at the list at the bottom for more detailed reports –
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59259
Report comment to moderator
Whoa, #123. What makes this kind of stuff anything less than slimy? A 3-year-old’s investigation into LGBT “issues” implicitly requires explanation of sexuality. Who would ever say that kids younger than 10 are/should be able to process that stuff?
Report comment to moderator
This is, of course, the logical extension of LGBT false claims about “gay identity”.
Report comment to moderator
Yorick , ….. thats a GOOD QUESTION? Can you answer it?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria [130]
Sad, sick people. That’s who. Goodnight.
Report comment to moderator
“Can you prove that Hamachitwo post 120″
I cannot prove he has stopped using sock puppets. No. But, I do give him the benefit of the doubt.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train at #50
This coming from a guy who thinks Outkast is an intellectual giant and a stalwart defender of the faith!
Outkast, is a bright, articulate devout Christian who tries to defend his faith from the depredations of virulent ant-Christians like you. He makes no pretension of being of being an intellectual giant.
They’d have been outraged at the idea, and would’ve said that civil unions are simply gay marriages. But now many of them are in favor of the idea. Yes, they’re standing firm in defense of “traditional moral values”.
Some of them [Christian theologians] have caved to the gay lobby. Many of them still hold that the law should reinforce the moral standards of the community.
Yeah, you guys are winning the culture wars, alright.
I’ve never said that our side is winning the culture war, though we’re making a strong fight.
Except for Arizona, every state that has had a referendum on gay marriage has defeated it. Even the blue state of Wisconsin did so in 2006.
Wow. When you’re “defending” Judeo-Christian values, and you’re in a jam, there’s nothing like quoting a flaming homosexual to bolster your point!
Flaming gays like Cole Porter sometimes speak hard truth. The poet Auden had this to say toward the end of his “gay” life. Few, if any, homosexuals can honestly boast that their sex-life has been happy
Report comment to moderator
Well you all went down the slippery slope to hell just as I thought would happen when I first saw this thread. I’ll go work on my own issues, thank you very much.
Report comment to moderator
#111: Just curious. What makes you think that “the majority of gays come from Christian families”?
The majority of Americans consider themselves as some type of Christian or with some belief in the Christian God. Gays come from everywhere in society. Every city, every nation has about 3 to 5 percent of it’s population gay. It has always been the case, it will always be the case. Anyone who is hetro and knows their sexuality cannot, under any circumstances be changed, knows in their heart, it’s not a “choice”.
Gays don’t usually reproduce. Every major city has a “gay” area. Where do these people come from? The come from surrounding towns and rural areas or move from other parts of the city. Why? To get away from Christain hate and violence that many have grown up with their entire lives.
Well know Christians have gay children, Phyliss Shafely (mother of the American Conservative movement), Alen Keyes (disowned his daughter), Dick Cheney, the list goes on.
If you have a relative that moved away to a big city and only visits rarely and had NEVER brought home a boyfriend or girlfriend and has never been married and shys away from talking about any relationships and is over 30, and doesn’t want you to visit them, there is a very good chance they are gay and hiding it.
The question I have, “Where do YOU think gays come from?”
Report comment to moderator
Adios #9
Rdean is on this Christians-disown-their-gay-children kick. It is oft repeated on many threads. I think cogency is lost when the point is made yet again. Many on here obviously aren’t convinced so he seems to think, like many newly married couples, that if the other doesn’t agree with him they must not have heard him.
Yet apparently a third of NYC’s homeless youth are gay. You gotta wonder what’s going on when appr. 5% of the population is gay yet 33% of a city’s homeless youth population (under 25s) is gay.
Report comment to moderator
…youth population (under 25s) are gay.
Grammar’s never been a strong suit.
Report comment to moderator
His left would be your right, BTW.
Sorry, but that made me chuckle.
Report comment to moderator
RDEAN #137: Gays don’t usually reproduce.
Not unless Exodus International have it their way…
*now how do I make an emoticon for “opening that old can of worms??”*
Report comment to moderator
#69 That almost describes your repetitious hatred of gays. – RDean
Really? This would be a feat of imagination on your part, since you’ll not find any comments of mine to support your accusation. Presume much?
Take more care,
SG
Report comment to moderator
Well, all I know is that in daughter’s kindergarten class, last month,the kids all wrote down the things they were thankful for. Daughter wrote down “my family, a roof over my head, and food in my tummy”.
One little boy wrote “my moms” cause he has two mommies.
But really, who cares? The boy seems well adjusted, is polite enough, and has two adults who love him. Why should he be confused by that? It’s all the baggage judgemental adults will heap on his little head, and the things they’ll try to tell him about his moms, that’ll be the problem.
And the moms? They’re friendly enough people at school events, and at least one of them makes a mean summer squash casserole. I’d recommend inviting them to the next church supper. One’s reaction might then go from ” LESBIANS!!!!” to ” lesbians.. whatever…” rather quicker than one might expect.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve “slept on” this issue and on what I expressed yesterday as where I stand on this issue. I remain opposed to the idea of “protecting” marriage with a federal constitutional amendment. The federal government has never had any authority over marriage; marriage has been governed by states, with documents gotten locally. So what I said yesterday is basically where I stand, but I wanted to say something to those who legitimately feel that being a Christian should extend beyond my church, and I should stand up for the two most critical issues for Christians at the present, marriage and abortion.
Report comment to moderator
Whoops, posted prematurely. I want to make it clear to everyone that I do “stand up” for both these issues. As I said, I consider abortion murder and any kind of sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage sinful. But, as far as sexual behavior goes, I don’t feel it’s my job to “judge” unbelievers, although I do consider it my job to hold the Christians in my church accountable in regard to it.
I do not believe that legal unions for gays/lesbians, or even legal unions for gays solemnized in liberal churches, are per se “harmful” to Christian covenantal marriages, and it is a low percentage of the population that would be seeking them. I also do not believe that gays want to get married so they can “destroy” marriage. I know others do not agree with me about this. And there are many besides a few gays who hate marriage. (Many of them are children of divorce.) So my efforts toward public support of Christian marriage will concentrate on efforts to “stand up” for marriage in other ways that I feel will combat the things that,IMHO, really destroy marriages–adultery, divorce, spousal abuse (women commit this, too), etc. I am praying that God will show me useful things I can do, and I am praying that He will show me if I am mistaken in my thinking about any or all of this.
Report comment to moderator
#138: Yet apparently a third of NYC’s homeless youth are gay. You gotta wonder what’s going on when appr. 5% of the population is gay yet 33% of a city’s homeless youth population (under 25s) is gay.
People on this site don’t care about those children. When Homeless gay children are interviewed in TV, nearly all say their parents “religion” is the reason they were kicked out of the house. Many are beaten up to turn them into “men”. There have been stories of girls “raped” to show them what it’s like being a woman.
Victoria, how do you spell that? V-i-t-r-i-o-l?
Report comment to moderator
“Galatians 3:28 (New International Version) There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Paul treated these categories unequally: he radically advocated including Greeks in actuality and foregoing circumcision. But he stopped short of pushing for abolishing slavery (he probably wouldn’t have lived long if he had). Scroll forward hundreds of years and the church finally realized: Slavery bad!
How many more centuries will go by before Christians realize – Same-sex marriage ok (neither male nor female in Christ).
Hopefully not too many.
Report comment to moderator
Donato #138
“Yet apparently a third of NYC’s homeless youth are gay….When Homeless gay children are interviewed in TV, nearly all say their parents “religion” is the reason they were kicked out of the house.”
This is one reason that if I had a gay son or lesbian daughter, I would not kick him/her out of my home. They would be sent to college, whatever, some way prepared for life just like my other kids.
Report comment to moderator
Donato, that’s #146. Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
Janie, thanks for your thoughts in 143/144, and your comments yesterday. You’ve articulated my position more clearly than I could have myself!
Report comment to moderator
RDean [137]
You have not yet answered my question! Hilarious.
But hey, I’ll answer yours anyway.
Homosexuality, just like many disorders, is the result of biological and environmental influences. There ya go. Now let’s love and support people with this burden.
Report comment to moderator
RDean.
You accused me of “repetitious hatred of gays” in post #69. I’m waiting for you to provide some evidence for your assertion.
It’s one thing to slander Christians as a group, but quite another to engage in baseless personal accusations.
Report comment to moderator
RDean [137]
Oh yeah, and I almost forgot…
If you have a relative that moved away to a big city and only visits rarely and had NEVER brought home a boyfriend or girlfriend and has never been married and shys [sic] away from talking about any relationships and is over 30, and doesn’t want you to visit them, there is a very good chance they are gay and hiding it.
This is really, really funny stuff. Hmmm… you’re so specific it’s almost as if you’re talking from experience, and it’s almost as if this would only apply to your life and makes for a terrible “for instance”.
You should get in touch with that person that moved away to a big city, Donato. Clear the air.
Report comment to moderator
To quote the great Stephen Colbert:
“The gays continue to threaten my happy marriage…by threatening to have their own happy marriages.”
Report comment to moderator
Gays don’t threaten anyone’s happy marriage. The problem that the sexual revolution in many ways has eroded the basic institution of marriage. The wisest words on this that I have read recently come from Robert George’s article Law and Moral Purpose including this:
I and others have elsewhere developed more fully the moral case for the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of one man and one woman pledged to permanence and fidelity and committed to caring for children who come as the fruit of their matrimonial union. I have argued that acceptance of the idea that two persons of the same sex could actually be married to each other would make nonsense of key features of marriage and would necessarily require abandoning any ground of principle for supposing that marriage is the union of only two persons, as opposed to three or more. Only a thin veneer of sentiment, if it happens to exist (and only for as long as it exists), can prevent acceptance of polyamory as a legitimate marital option once we have given up the principle of marriage as a male-female union.
To those arguments, I will here add an additional reason to reject the idea of same-sex marriage: The acceptance of the idea would result in a massive undermining of religious liberty and family autonomy as supporters of same-sex marriage would, in the name of equality, demand the use of governmental power to whip others into line. The experience of Massachusetts as well as foreign jurisdictions is that once marriage is compromised or formally redefined, principles of nondiscrimination are quickly used as cudgels against religious communities and families who wish to uphold true marriage by precept and example.
Part of the trouble pro-marriage politicians and others have in defending marriage follows from the fact that these pathologies that afflict the marriage culture are widespread, and supporters of marriage, being human, are not immune to them. This is not to excuse anyone from personal responsibility. But the fact is that sustaining a marriage despite the collapse of many of its social supports is difficult. In trying to stand up for marriage, political leaders, intellectuals, and activists who have had marital problems of their own are subjected to charges of hypocrisy. Many therefore censor themselves. As a result, the pro-marriage movement loses the leadership of some of its most talented people.
Report comment to moderator
Robert P. George, author of the above quote, is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.
Report comment to moderator
It’s okay if he disagrees with Colbert. Colbert is a comedian, much like Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh. I also disagree with Colbert.
Report comment to moderator
#156:
That is so cool. Argument from authority!!
Report comment to moderator
Lon Chainey #158, George doesn’t base his arguments merely on his authority as a Princeton professor but rather on his carefully thought through views on the subject of marriage. You would do well to consider his views and come up with your own counter-arguments; that what civilized people do.
Report comment to moderator
Peter,
I am not Lon Chainey. You are name calling again.
I have my opinion on the subject already, but thanks.
By the way, a civilized person would have used another verb in that last dig of yours
Try “is.” I think it will be just right.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt #158-159
Thanks for supplying that material from Robert George. I’ll look him up and consider what he has to say.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Janie. I know you are trying to weigh this issue seriously. Robert George would be an excellent Christian scholar to help you.
Lon, thanks for the grammar lesson. I shall try to get that verb in in the future and assist you when needed.
Report comment to moderator
Lon/Hammachitwo, A writer’s style is hard to disguise. You like RDEAN are either dopplegangers of notorious past banned WorldMag bloggers, Donato and Lon Chainey, or by some mysterious coincidence of quite like mind and pen. I note that after referring to you as Lon many previous times, this is the first time that you have registered a suggestion. After the first few times without a response, it seemed fair to regard you as Lon Chainey.
As Lon Chainey you often remarked that he was a minor New York lawyer working for a law firm in an investment firm and the brother of a gay person. Perhaps you could clue us in to your current identity as Hammachtwo, which is rather mysterious. If you could convincingly do this, I should be glad to apologize for an egregious mistake.
Report comment to moderator
I had two fantasy visions inspired by Victoria’s message #44
One is a vision of Victoria in the afterlife.
The second vision is Victoria having a vision for me.
#1
I believe the the story of Jesus as the Son of God who was born of a virgin and rose from the dead is a myth. But I suppose it might be true.
I imagine Victoria arriving in the afterlife and meeting Jesus and proudly telling Jesus how she supported Him and his teaching. I imagine Jesus just giving Victoria a long, sad look, and then turning away without a word.
Report comment to moderator
Run along, Peter. Your name calling is rather juvenile and uncivilized, as well as uninteresting.
Report comment to moderator
Here is vision #2. There’s a little preface.
Victoria asked me not too long ago if we are going to have turkey for Christmas. My answer was that I didn’t know.
Recently, my wife served me meat balls for dinner. “What do you think?” she asked.
“They were good,” I replied.
“I was trying a new recipe,” she said. “It’s almost there. I am going to serve this for the ‘kids’ [my daughter and her partner] for Christmas dinner.” [The 'kids' are 41 and 40.]
So we will have meatballs for our Christmas dinner.
My atheist family celebrates Christmas. We say “Merry Christmas” to each other. We don’t do Christmas presents. (My wife makes presents for her sister and best friend.)
Here is the vision I imagined Victoria having for me.
My daughter, her partner, and our granddaughter (3-years old and in her own words, “almost grown up”) come over for Christmas dinner. [This part will be real.]
When they arrive, my wife and I say to our daughter and her partner, “You can’t come in. We don’t accept your life style. If you leave each other, become Christians, and marry Christian men, we will change how we treat you.”
We take our granddaughter into our house. We tell her, “You will live with us, now. We will raise you as a Christian.” [I guess we have instantly converted between now and the time they come to visit.] “We will start telling you about Jesus and his love for you. You can see ‘Mommy’ again if she becomes a Christian and leaves ‘Mama’.”
I suppose Victoria could take this vision further than I can. I feel a little tired right now, so I will stop.
Report comment to moderator
One of my best friends announced to me that she had discovered her “true” sexual orientation.
She told me that she was lesbian and was now living with her girlfriend.
I still see my friend, (and her partner) on a regular basis and i have not banished her from my home or my life.
To do this would be to deny her the love of God. And nobody has that authority.
Treating gay people discriminately is not Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Liz,
It would also deny her of your love, and that would be sadder still, IMO.
Report comment to moderator
Hamachi; What does IMO mean?
Report comment to moderator
#151: You have not yet answered my question! Hilarious.
Apparently, a sense of humor may be the only sense you have. First off, #138 pretty much answered it with:
#138: Yet apparently a third of NYC’s homeless youth are gay. You gotta wonder what’s going on when appr. 5% of the population is gay yet 33% of a city’s homeless youth population (under 25s) is gay.
And then I repeated it in #146. Any gays I have ever heard talk about it said they always knew they liked members of their own sex as soon as they knew what sex was. Some things don’t need statistics. Gays don’t usually reproduce. They have to have gotten here somehow. They come from straight families. See the connection???? Unless, you believe in “magical creation”. Maybe they were shimmered into being by an invisible supernatural spirit with amazing powers?
Let’s see, you say:
#151: just like many disorders, is the result of biological and environmental influences.
I’m assuming your are some type of trained physician? Just kidding.
So, since it’s a “disorder” and you say, “Let’s love and support people”. I’m once again, assuming that you feel it’s wrong to make a person go through their entire life without the loving touch of another human being. From cradle to grave, they should never know romantic love? To me, only a cruel and heartless person who has never felt love himself or herself would wish this on a brother or sister or son or daughter.
Genius and blindness may both be biological in nature. Doesn’t stop them from getting married.
#153: talking from experience
I have a gay relative. Never visit unannounced.
I know what you are doing and it’s so pathetic. You defend them, you must BE one. I defend against the rants directed towards African Americans on this site. Does that “make me one”? You’ll never know.
#155: The problem that the sexual revolution in many ways has eroded the basic institution of marriage.
Obviously, since gays aren’t allowed to get married, this doesn’t have anything to do with them.
#155: demand the use of governmental power to whip others into line.
To do what???? Gays are only about 3 to 5 percent of the population. To put that into perspective. Say 3 out of 100. Or 6 out of 200. Or 600 out of 20,000. 600 out of 20,000 people???? That is like nothing.
And yet, Christians adorn many of their houses of worship with paintings and statues made by gays. Listen to music sung by gays. Are entertained by gays. So much contribution from so few. That’s odd.
Could you imagine how great the country could be if evangelicals contributed as much as the gays?
You know, the constitution already has protections written into it to protect us from the religious. Not a word about the gays or the atheists. Guess THEY are not a threat.
Report comment to moderator
#169 “What does IMO mean?”
Liz,
I’m not Hamachi, but I didn’t think you’d mind my answering this one. IMO is short for “in my opinion.” There are dozens of such acronyms commonly used on the internet. You’ve probably seen LOL (laughing out loud), which is probably the most common, but others I see often are AFAIK (as far as I know), IMHO (in my humble opinion), FWIW (for what it’s worth), and BTW (by the way).
There’s a very long list of them (including many I’ve never seen before) at http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/
I like AAAAA (American Association Against Acronym Abuse) – but I guess they’re falling down on the job.
Report comment to moderator
RDean [170]
Seriously, what are you talking about? How does quoting some figures about homeless gay youth in NYC and the obvious point that gays come from normal human reproduction in any way explain this assertion:
“the majority of gays come from Christian families” [4]
The only way the things you said could be connected is if you believe the only people reproducing in this country are Christians. Huh?
I’m assuming your are some type of trained physician?
It doesn’t take a “trained physician” to tell you that many psychological disorders are a confluence of hereditary and environmental factors. It also doesn’t take a philosopher to point out that your argument here, once again, makes no sense. Let me abbreviate it:
…since it’s a “disorder”… I’m …assuming that you feel it’s wrong to make a person go …without the … touch of another human
Sorry but, what? Please re-read this, revise and get back to me. Thanks.
I know what you are doing and it’s so pathetic. You defend them, you must BE one.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Now you shouldn’t get testy just because I’m exposing how specious your argument is.
I wasn’t implying that you are gay. Frankly, I don’t care. I was just pointing out that your long-winded “for instance” bordered on self-parody.
Report comment to moderator
RDean,
I’m still waiting to hear your explanation of what I believe to be a baseless assertion in comment #69.
An apology will suffice.
Report comment to moderator
The latest rejected gay person to make the news was in Colorado.
___________________
I hear there is a new program that cures gay people.
The side affect is remaining gay.
Report comment to moderator
I think Peter Leavitt has a good point in the bottom of the quote at 155. The issues besetting marriage are widespread and yes begin with the sexual revolution and the economic empowerment of women. Once you have a level playing ground, people don’t feel the need to stay in a bad marriage and hence the divorce rate goes up whether you are in Christian community in the US or not in one. What annoys me about the anti-gay rhetoric on marriage is that it equates gay marriage as a root problem rather than addressing the actual roots. Because to do that, one would have to attack any number of mainstream beliefs. Much easier to pick on a small segment of society to make the point.
Report comment to moderator
Well-said, Coyote Blue.
Report comment to moderator
What annoys me about the anti-gay rhetoric on marriage is that it equates gay marriage as a root problem rather than addressing the actual roots. Because to do that, one would have to attack any number of mainstream beliefs. Much easier to pick on a small segment of society to make the point.
Rather like what predators do in nature. They look for weak members of the herd to cull. A coyote will attack a fawn; not go after a big buck.
Report comment to moderator
#172: The only way the things you said could be connected is if you believe the only people reproducing in this country are Christians. Huh?
Gee, I’m not sure what it is you don’t get? More than 70% of America, you know, this country, American, claim they are some type of, get this,
C – H – R – I – S – T – I – A – N. In an election, more than 70% would be a landslide.
Definition of “Landslide”:
3. conspicuous triumph: an overwhelming victory, especially in an election
Gays come from people that “reproduce”. It’s so obvious, there aren’t even any statistics on it. If you know any (which I suspect you don’t), ask them where they come from. Wait, you don’t believe that gays come from the other 30% do you? Oh, that’s a good one. Funny.
Report comment to moderator
. . . dopplegangers of notorious past banned WorldMag bloggers . . .
The voice behind the pseudonym is a text editor that cuts and pastes copy from the ocean of text that unites all people, Peter.
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue. We are in agreement about this. The root problem of the decline of marriage and family in our culture is the sexual revolution itself which involves far more people than the homosexual community. While there are several causes of the sexual revolution, the most important one in my view is the decline of church authority that came about mainly mainly due to the decline of mainline Protestantism early in the twentieth-century.
Prof. George does consider the matter of gay marriage to be important, as he remarks in the following:
I have argued that acceptance of the idea that two persons of the same sex could actually be married to each other would make nonsense of key features of marriage and would necessarily require abandoning any ground of principle for supposing that marriage is the union of only two persons, as opposed to three or more
I am very grateful for your civil discussion of what I know is a difficult issue for you.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe they could be in love? Christians believe that gays don’t “feel” love like real people do. It’s one of the reasons they shouldn’t be allowed to build a family together, even if it’s only two. It causes terrible damage, somehow, to someone. No one can figure out how, but if enough people say it, it must be true.
Report comment to moderator
Your behavior as a commenter here is conspiciously irresponsible, RDean. I suspect I’m not the only one who notices your evasiveness.
SG
Report comment to moderator
I’m not the only one who notices your evasiveness.
???? About?
Report comment to moderator
RDean [178]
Conspicuous is right. I think Serious George has a point.
In regard to your post, I can only feel a tinge of pity for you. You won’t admit (and apologize) that you can’t back up this statement:
since the majority of people are Christian, the majority of gays come from Christian families[4]
And, you’re evading admitting your mistake to SG. I’m starting to think that, sadly, many non-Christians live in a fantasy world that they won’t give up, and where the rules of logic don’t apply.
Just in case you still don’t understand, this formula does not make sense:
Most of the people in country A are Christian. Country A has many homosexuals. So, most of the homosexuals in country A are Christian.
If you don’t know why that doesn’t follow, then I’ll just throw my hands up here.
Report comment to moderator
Just to make it a little more clear, this is a better representation of your (fallacious) argument:
Most of the families in country A are Christian. Country A has many homosexuals. So, most of the homosexuals came from Christian families.
Now, I wait for you to show that even non-Christians can exhibit humility.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, I am predicting that you will (once again) avoid the point at issue, and instead respond in some way to my statement about many non-Christians. Prove me wrong.
Report comment to moderator
RDean. Please see #’s 142 and 152.
Report comment to moderator
Where do you think gays come from? Gays are about 3 to 5 percent of the total population of America. They make up, according to government statistics, up to 40% of homeless children. Where do you think they come from? If is was from an accepting atheist family, they would be home. Go ask Alen Keyes. One has to wonder at your ability to connect the dots.
Report comment to moderator
True to form. Evade the question, repeat the same pointless statistics. It’s like talking to an atheist’s parakeet.
Here is your argument, since you apparently missed it in my last post:
Most of the families in country A are Christian. Country A has many homosexuals. So, most of the homosexuals came from Christian families.
Get back to me when you can explain that. No sooner, please.
Oh well, maybe I can get into a less pointless discussion with one of the other non-believers on here.
Report comment to moderator
Yorick,
As you, I dare to presume, have a different belief in regards to the causation of homosexuality RDean’s point may not make too much sense. But it makes perfect sense to others who don’t consider a household filled with sin-condemning rhetoric to be any less likely to produce gay children than a household that is liberal in its views on homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
#189: Most of the families in country A are Christian. Country A has many homosexuals. So, most of the homosexuals came from Christian families.
Let me fix that for you:
Most of the families in country A are Christian. Country A has many homosexuals. So, most of the homosexuals came from Christian families?
The answer is “yes”.
Report comment to moderator
RDean: And your answer for yourself re: comments 142 & 152? This is becoming embarrassing.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, I have a stalker.
So, do you feel gays should be “allowed” to marry? Do you believe they should be “allowed” to serve in the military and have the same rights as other law abiding Americans?
Report comment to moderator
Stalker? Um. No. You have someone who doesn’t take kindly to presumptuous accusations based on zero evidence and about someone you don’t know. That you haven’t a clue about my answers to your questions proves my suspicion. Your comments here are dishonest. I point this out because it’s a pattern that often hobbles what you have to say.
Report comment to moderator
See, you won’t answer. Ok, go ahead and “dodge” the question.
Report comment to moderator
RDean.
Consider that when you don’t know what a person believes on a subject, presumption and blanket accusations are offensive and unproductive.
I hope your holidays are peaceful,
SG
Report comment to moderator
Flaming Icarus [190]
it makes perfect sense to others who don’t consider a household filled with sin-condemning rhetoric to be any less likely to produce gay children than a household that is liberal in its views on homosexuality.
This is a very different statement, and I may be able to agree with you on this one. This is not what RDean was saying. If he was, he presented his point poorly.
RDean [191]
Most of the families in country A are Christian. Country A has many homosexuals. So, most of the homosexuals came from Christian families?
The answer is “yes”.
This is where I throw my hands up. This is CLEARLY a fallacy that does not follow. Kind of funny/sad. It is counterproductive to argue with someone who does not understand logical argument. Good day.
Report comment to moderator
Yorick,
You’re right. I guess what I wrote is quite different to RDean’s statement. I just wanted to try and get at some of the possible assumptions that are underlying his argument.
But I’m pretty sure you’re both arguing about different things (consciously or not). That is, Yorick, I think you’re arguing primarily against the structure of argument and RDean, you’re arguing in favour of the conclusion drawn from the argument. Would that be fair to say, or am I just presuming way too much?
Report comment to moderator
#197: This is CLEARLY a fallacy that does not follow.
It’s truly pathetic that you want to discriminate against people and you don’t even have a clue where they come from. Believing that the majority of gays in this country DON’T come from Christian families is like believing in mystical and supernatural creation over the science of evolution.
So, come on, where do gays come from? Make my day.
I have to use this in other posts. “You know, there are people on this site that don’t know where gays come from”. “They are just sure that gays don’t come from Christian families.” They can’t say where they come from, just not from Christian families. What a hoot!!!!
Report comment to moderator
Wow. What a strange, offensive guy. :-/ Maybe you should go back and read a few books by your atheist brethren, just for the exposure to… logic.
It’s truly pathetic that you want to discriminate against people and you don’t even have a clue where they come from.
There you go with that bitter tone again. Please, try to keep it together.
Haha, yes. Please use “You know, there are people on this site that don’t know where gays come from” in future posts. I’m sure everyone else will be just as convinced by your fantasies.
What a hoot!!!!
Yes, indeed.
Once again, good day. I’m satisfied with this thread, so no use coming back to it.
Report comment to moderator
Good, don’t come back. You can’t even answer the question. You don’t know where gays come from. I bet you believe they are “recruited”. But, if you do decide to take a “peek”, please share the humor. Tell us where gays come from.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!