Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Old foes unite to fight Prop. 8 ruling
The attorneys who faced off in the Florida recount are now uniting to fight the recent California Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 8. Theodore Olson and David Boies are taking the Proposition 8 case federal, seeking a permanent injunction against Prop. 8 and arguing that it denies same-sex couples basic liberties and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
But gay marriage activists — who are already organizing to overturn Proposition 8 at the ballot box — are opposed to the lawsuit. In a memo, nine gay rights activist organizations said it’s too soon and may set their efforts back:
Pushing the federal government with multiple lawsuits before we have a critical mass of states recognizing same-sex relationships or suing in states where the courts aren’t ready is likely to lead to bad rulings. Bad rulings will make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and will certainly make it take much longer.
The attorneys are confident they can win, however, with 80 years of experience between them. According to the San Francisco Gate, Olson (former solicitor general under George W. Bush) has won 75 percent of the 55 cases he’s argued before the Supreme Court.
back to top272 Comments to “Old foes unite to fight Prop. 8 ruling”
I think it is a winning argument and I think it can win, but I don’t know if it can win with this current court. Then again, Lawrence v. Texas, was decided by this court (minus Alito) and we could easily see another watershed decision.
Report comment to moderator
Roberts was not on the Lawrence Court. But you are right that Alito’s vote would have been with the 3 conservatives in Lawrence.
Report comment to moderator
Was that before Roberts? You are right. Rehnquist was among the three conservative in Lawrence as well, so it’s an open question I guess whether Roberts would vote as Rehnquist did.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
What are you implying Victoria?
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone else here wish that we had a few more plumbers, nurses, pastors, teachers, bus-drivers and mechanics and a few less lawyers, politicians, activists, entertainers and journalists? If so, perhaps it would not be such a constant chore to protect and preserve or liberties without corrupting our public morals.
Report comment to moderator
Who do you think is doing all the protecting and preservation of liberties, Joel Mark? Remember your Shakespeare.
Report comment to moderator
I watched them on Larry King last night and they seemed very confident and clear on what they believe the fundamental issues are. To see two men who have no personal stake in the matter and would have no reason to defend gay people, sitting there and saying “We are doing this because we believe the Constitution should protect all of our citizens equally” was eye opening. It’s a sign that America is changing and for the better. You couldn’t get two better lawyers. Ted has argued before the Supreme Court more times than just about anyone else in the United States.
I don’t agree with the gay rights movement. They have been way too timid and cautious, and in too many cases more enamored with the “high life” of Washington, DC than with the lives of ordinary gay people.
I see no reason not to attack this issue on all fronts. From court cases, to ballot initiatives, to legislative action, to activism, to engaging family, friends, and co-workers personally.
There is never a good time to press for freedom. If the defendants in “Brown v Board of Ed” and “Loving v Virginia” had listened to public opinion we’d probably still have segregated public schools and segregated marriage.
I wish them Godspeed!
Report comment to moderator
DC, you must be tickled pink-O at this duet!
Report comment to moderator
Post #9 should have read.
There are some who must be tickled pink-O at this duet!
Report comment to moderator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEx_aPBZtsE Here’s a youtube of Boise and Olson on Larry King. Listen to them in their own words.
Report comment to moderator
I guess this means buh-bye to DOMA. Then again if these two lose it will only serve to set back the homomarriage advance in the state houses.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, can you explain your comment? Is there a link between gay rights and communism of which the entire world is unaware?
Report comment to moderator
Well we can take the sanitized version:
pink-O – - Definition:
somebody with left-wing sympathies: somebody who favors the political left
Report comment to moderator
This is a dangerous gun jump that gay-rights activists are right to oppose. I think if this case hit the current court today it would lose 7-2. Right now the momentum is positive via state legislative action.
Report comment to moderator
As Ted Olson makes clear in the youtube clip above — “This is not a liberal-conservative issue. It has to do with human decency, human rights and equality under the law.”
Report comment to moderator
No way this loses 7-2. If it loses at all, which is not a given, it will lose 5-4 and become the new Roe. My prediction is the Supreme Court will not take the case unless they intend to strike down prop 8.
Report comment to moderator
“…seeking a permanent injunction against Prop. 8 and arguing that it denies same-sex couples basic liberties and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.”
This seems like selective reasoning. It also denies basic self-presumed liberties to heterosexual polygamists, homoseualy polygamist, polyamorists and other creative combinations of consenting adults of various numbers who claim to be in love and to desire “marriage.”
Prop. 8 prohibits citizens from redefining marriage in all sorts of creative ways, not just in ways that would suit some homosexuals. Prop. 8 also discriminates against homosexuals who want to marry multiple partners. It even prevents the L.A. Lakers from claiming to be “married.” No wonder it must be opposed!
______________
Report comment to moderator
Re: #4
Leave it to the conservative Christians to immediately resort to innuendo.
As I said in yesterday’s Whirled Views, the conservative Christians will label Ted Olson a “traitor” and go after him personally for this.
Also, the conservative Christians just don’t get it. Implying that someone is gay or labeling them as gay is no longer a “scarlet letter”. You only show others how ignorant and hateful you are.
Report comment to moderator
Of course that’s what he said – What did you expect him to say?
And just what decency is there in same sex marriage, if one believes that it is sinful, not to mention the homosexual sexual liason without the faux marriage certificate?
How long will it be, before marriage between five people will be legal, after all, they should have equality under the law – but who’s law?
Report comment to moderator
#19 – I know I shouldn’t bother, but here goes. Exactly how is it “hateful” to oppose sin? The God of the Bible is the God of the universe whether or not anyone believes it. His truth is the truth regardless of whether anyone chooses to follow it. There is absolutely no ignorance or hate in any of this. And please, spare me any talk of homophobia. A phobia is a fear. This could be termed disgust, revulsion, or even sympathy for these poor misguided souls, but never fear. Also, it helps to know how the story ends.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria — being gay is not a choice (like having multiple wives). Being gay, and being discriminated against for being gay, is no different than being black, hispanic, a woman, or disabled. As soon as homosexuality is correctly recognized as an inherent trait (and the science is quite clear) then the next step is for homosexuals to be regarded as a suspect class underwhich governmental discrimination is subject to heightened scrutiny.
The line of reasoning above clearly and indisuptably avoids the parade of horribles you all like to trot out. They’re inane. Please stop.
Report comment to moderator
PaulR — Given that the bible is not literally true and contains many falsehoods that have been disproved by science, I find it difficult to consider the bible’s rather opaque views on homosexuality as authoritative. Given that the sin in my view is to continue to demonize a group of people in our midst who want simply to be able to love and marry like anyone else.
Report comment to moderator
#23 – Given your doubts about the Bible, how in the world can you possibly define sin?
Plus, the science is not at all clear on homosexuality being inherent. All such studies have been infamously problematic. Nice, but weak, try.
They have always been free to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Report comment to moderator
DC
I won’t stop, and neither will the state of California – we WON, and we aren’t going to stop – All the money in Hollywood couldn’t flip Prop 8 -
Report comment to moderator
Vickie, darling, sometimes you lose by winning. 36,000 legally recognized gay married people walking around California living productive lives is a victory for my side of the issue. And it is simply a matter of time before Prop 8 is overturned. A matter of time.
Report comment to moderator
Question to the legal scholars: what if the Supremes take this case, and rule something greater than 5-4 to uphold prop 8? Say 6-3 or better?
What are the legal/political ramifications if this happens?
Report comment to moderator
DC dear –
We will just have to wait and see. The faux marriages might have a while to WAIT!
Report comment to moderator
DC Lawyer wrote, “being gay is not a choice.”
Sir, you are dehumanizing homosexuals. I might agree with you if you said that animals or robots do not have a choice with regard to who and how they love and are sexual with. But we are talking about human beings, sir!!! Of course they have a choice. Otherwise, you could not even define them as genuine human beings.
Report comment to moderator
They have always been free to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Of all the stupid things that get said by ideologues on either side of this debate, this is probably the stupidest.
Report comment to moderator
One could argue that animals are incapable of advanced moral decision-making and are driven by their given genetic make-up or their instincts. But not human beings.
Report comment to moderator
#30 – ???
Report comment to moderator
If there is no God and the Bible isn’t His spoken Word to us, then all we have is evolutionary theory to explain things, and there’s no way evolution explains or proves homosexuality as something one is born with like other genetic traits. It’s simply not a trait evolution would’ve passed on.
Report comment to moderator
It isn’t stupid to say:
Anyone can marry those of the opposite sex, ANYONE – those who have a difficult time with this statement want to mix it up, and then call it “stupid” ? – hmmmmmmmmm
Report comment to moderator
Deet-33
That’s quite a cogent argument! I like it.
Report comment to moderator
BrotherDan (27), generally speaking, the more unanimity in a decision the great sense of public and legal consensus on the outcome and the greater likelihood that the decision will command respect as precedent if not settled law.
Some scholars talk about precedent and superprecedent, the latter being those core cases where the legal questions are no longer in doubt. Now that said, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld the doctrine of seperate but equal, was decided 7-1. It was overturned by Brown v. Board of Ed in 1954 by a vote of 9-0. Perhaps because it was 7-1 it took 60 years to overturn it. I submit that the 9-0 vote was clearly intended to send a message that the question was no longer debatable and to emphasize the sense of wrongness of the prior decision.
Report comment to moderator
33 is not that cogent. it does not explain same sex behavior in animals or the pervasiveness of same sex attraction across millenia.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve got some friends on the inside of this issue via a private listserv and we just predicted (or formulated) a brilliant Solomon like decision for Justice Kennedy to make.
The 4 conservatives (Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia) will obviously hold prop 8 stands with Scalia writing a BITING dissent.
Some of the liberals, perhaps, but probably not all 4, will vote for a federal right to gay marriage.
Kennedy, and perhaps some of the liberals who DON’T want a federal right to gay marriage will issue the deciding plurality decision. And that is, they will reinforce Romer v. Evans’ rule that a majority is NOT entitled to take away rights from a minority via the democratic process; hence Prop 8 is overruled without recognizing a federal right to gay marriage. And that also leaves some other state ballot initiatives in doubt (like Hawaii’s), which will be settled by further litigation. This will pave the way for more same sex marriages to be recognized at the state level.
Report comment to moderator
There are Darwinian explanations for homosexuality; I can link to them if you’d like.
I think science has shown, at the least, that same sex orientation is a very complex thing, probably has multiple causes, that there is no single “gay gene” but does have some kind of strong basis in human biology.
The orientation is also unchosen, and for the overwhelming majority of human beings, unchangeable, though it can be repressed, sublimated, etc.
Report comment to moderator
37-
It is cogent from and evolutionary point of view.
Your examples from the animal kingdom, etc., is generally explained by the Christian as being the result of the Fall. I know you may not agree with that understanding, but it has Biblical merit, nonetheless.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #18
We’re talking about the right of two consenting adults to marry. That’s the issue that is being discussed and litigated.
When the conservative Christians throw in polygamy, man/goat marriage and all that other crap it’s merely a tactic to try and delegitimize the issue before us and the court. It’s an appeal based on fear, ignorance, and hate.
Report comment to moderator
39-
I believe it can be prayed over, changed by grace, and repented from. I’m sorry how that probably sounds to you. But it is something that has happened and continues to happen.
Report comment to moderator
there’s no way evolution explains or proves homosexuality as something one is born with like other genetic traits. It’s simply not a trait evolution would’ve passed on.
Shows how simplistically (and wrongly) you understand evolution.
For one thing, sexuality is not only about reproduction. In our cousins, the Bonobo chimps, bisexuality works to bond the community together, which gives all the individuals survival advantage. And “kin selection” favors progeny who have childless uncles and aunts with more time to give to support them.
See: Evolution Myths: Natural Selection Cannot Explain Homosexuality
Report comment to moderator
BTW DC Lawyer, thanks for your answer in 36. That makes sense to me.
Report comment to moderator
I believe it can be prayed over, changed by grace, and repented from. I’m sorry how that probably sounds to you. But it is something that has happened and continues to happen.
BroD – I prayed over it, accepted grace, believed in healing, married a woman, etc., etc., for over 20 years. During this entire time, I had no gay sex. I have the capability to be celibate or, what is even more difficult, to function sexually in an “opposite marriage.”
But I have always been fundamentally and biologically gay.
Finally, when I was still a Christian, the “Spirit” prevailed on me to accept that, even though my upbringing and church said my sexual orientation was wrong, God disagreed.
Report comment to moderator
43-I actually read your article, Spin.
Please forgive this small rule infraction, but from your own article: “Or perhaps homosexuality is neutral, neither reducing nor boosting overall fitness. Attempts to find an adaptive explanation for homosexual behaviour in macaques have failed, leading to suggestions that they do it purely for pleasure”.
Hmmmm.
Report comment to moderator
42,
No need to apologize; I’ve heard much worse (indeed some of my friends believe in much worse). I agree that it can be prayed over and repented from (and repressed/sublimated); however, I see NO EVIDENCE that the orientation can be changed by “grace.”
Report comment to moderator
45-
I didn’t know that about you Spin. That kind of leave me speachless. But don’t worry, I think of something to say…
Still, that was good to know.
Do you mind if I pray for you in the privacy of my own life?
Report comment to moderator
I think 45 gives an honest account. Even if, in a complicated world, there are some “waverers” who have some kind of innate capacity for sexual and romantic love with both sexes but fall into the “gay” identity, and then change to the “straight” identity, it’s nonetheless true beyond a shadow of a doubt that a great deal of self identified gay men and women are exactly like Spinoza; whether they become evangelical Christians or not they will always be homosexually oriented. This isn’t the exeption; arguably your “success stories” are the rare exception. This is the RULE. And the question is: How do you deal with it?
Report comment to moderator
#38 JR. what SCOTUS liberals do you think would be against a federal right to gay marriage?
Report comment to moderator
#49 “Do you mind if I pray for you in the privacy of my own life?”
Not at all – but please go one better and listen to God’s answer!
Report comment to moderator
I have a question for my gay friends here: If you have a similar story to Spin’s, if you have at one time or another tried to leave the gay lifestyle, or change your orientation if you prefer, why did you try? Was it just for social acceptance? I know this is personal, and you need not answer. Right now, you are the closest thing I have to knowing or having gay people in my life. I would like to hear your story. I promise not to turn it against you.
Report comment to moderator
52-
I always try to listen for His answer. And I test what I believe I’ve heard against the plain meaning of scriptures. And I try to study the Bible for myself, then check my interpretations against many Biblical Scholars. Sometimes, I even disagree with their interpretations!
It’s a labor of love.
Report comment to moderator
“And that is, they will reinforce Romer v. Evans’ rule that a majority is NOT entitled to take away rights from a minority via the democratic process; hence Prop 8 is overruled without recognizing a federal right to gay marriage”
They better do a better job of presenting the same rehash, cause even the California SC didnt buy it…
Prop 8 merely defines marriage. It’s like creating a referendum to define the term “paper”. The term applies equally to all, thus it takes away no rights from anyone.
You have the option to chose paper..over plastic…or you can chose the opposite without penalty. Further, the government has every initiative to apparently give benefits to those who do chose paper over plastic.
If you want to gain equal benefits, then devise your own term like “gayrriage” and state it has equal governmental benefits to marriage.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure. I can see Breyer and Souter (who won’t be on the Court) joining the Kennedy hedge. Perhaps Stevens too; but he’s so old, I can’t see him caring. Perhaps he’d like to go out with a bang. The more I think about it, the more I think this is really what’s going to happen. And it will be a brilliant move. Gay marriage — back on in Cali and perhaps other states (like Hawaii). But no Fed. right to gay marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
That’s your spin. But the bottom line is this was an example of the majority taking something away from the minority. And Romer doesn’t permit that. Was this briefed in the recent case that just came down? I am not aware of it. BTW, the person who thought of this did it in a sarcastic rant on a listserv that I am on, but is a high profile attorney in California who is working on the cases and works for one of the two law firms (Boies or Olson, I’m not disclosing) who will lead the fight.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, as usual you are correct when you use the word “faux.”
How people can look at the words “husband and husband” or “wife and wife” and conclude that either is the SAME thing as “husband and wife” is such a lie, such a delusion, that one questions their sanity. No man can have a father/son relationship with his daughter.
But we have people who live in their delusions.
Report comment to moderator
What the Bible has to say (or not say) on marriage equality is irrelevant to the issue. We live under a Constitution, not the Bible. The issue should be and hopefully will be decided based on Constitutional principles, not the Bible.
The first hearing for an injunction on the enforcement of Prop 8 isn’t scheduled till July. And it will take awhile for it to wind it’s way up to the Supreme Court. The Court generally takes cases that involve an important Constitutional principle that affects a group of people. They take less than 100 cases a year. So they could decline to hear the case, which could be good or bad depending on the outcome and your perspective. If they do take the case, they will look at the record of the appellate court proceedings leading up to the case. This is where I believe Ted and David will put their expertise to work. And given Ted’s experience of arguing before the Supreme Court, I believe he represents an excellent shot at getting a favorable ruling.
Nothing is for certain and there’s a long ways to go. But that’s ok – no matter what happens, the fight for equality under the law goes on. The conservative Christians underestimate our determination. They’ve done their worst to us and we’re still alive and kicking. We will fight for as long as it takes because we are fighting for our freedom. When you’re a slave in your own country you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by fighting for your freedom.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
Deet: “If there is no God and the Bible isn’t His spoken Word to us, then all we have is evolutionary theory to explain things, and there’s no way evolution explains or proves homosexuality as something one is born with like other genetic traits. It’s simply not a trait evolution would’ve passed on.”
The evolutionary angle has already been addressed, so I won’t harp on it. However, there are a number of other possibilities that you haven’t addressed. It’s possible that God willfully creates homosexual individuals and has no problem with their same-sex relationships. It’s also possible that the creator of the universe is malevolent and doesn’t approve of same-sex relationships, but creates homosexual people anyway. With a little imagination, I am sure we can come up with dozens of other possible scenarios.
Report comment to moderator
And of course, they don’t want this case to go through the federal courts. If they lose, they really lose. It would undo everything they think they have accomplished.
Report comment to moderator
No man can have a father/son relationship with his daughter.
But we have people who live in their delusions.
Speaking in such absolute terms. Most gays “fit” psychologically “fit” within their gender. But I think we are all aware of some gays who are so gender non-conforming that, personality wise, they are more like the opposite sex than the same sex; these are the gays who oft-become transgendered.
And indeed, if a man has such a butch daugther that she is more like a boy than a girl, his relationship will likely be healthier if it is more like “father-son” than father-daughter. Likewise if a father has a really queeny gay son. That’s one reason why gay men disproportionately have problems relating to their fathers (the cause of much psychological distress). Macho fathers have to be aware that if their son is queeny and feminine, not to treat him like his other “straight” brothers if he had one, but perhaps more like a daughter or a hybrid.
For one, I think gender hybrids are great when they have the best of both sexes.
Report comment to moderator
“But the bottom line is this was an example of the majority taking something away from the minority.”
What minority? Every single individual has the same opportunity to chose marriage. There is no stipulations on doing so or not doing so. It simply defines the term.
What minority can not or is being forced to marry? Please show proof of who is being stripped of this right?
This minority does not exist. Every man and every woman has the same opportunity to marry the opposite sex.
Report comment to moderator
I like litigation as a method of achieving the ends of social justice and human rights. The superiority of the legislative process is way over-stated. I suspect it’s propaganda from people who have no universal principles and rely upon accumulated and inherited prejudice. The fact that we can get rights from the courts that we can’t get from the ballot box makes those rights all the more valuable, to me. Local lawmaking is dandy for designating no-left-turn intersections, but fundamental rights are matters that matter everywhere to all of us. If we allow people’s rights to be abridged in California, then we allow people’s rights to be abridged, even if we’re virtuous in Vermont.
I also like the idea of loosing an appeal and rallying the cause around a 4-5 defeat. Look how good that was for the cultural right.
But I think #17 is astute in predicting that SCOTUS won’t accept the case unless it intends to strike down Prop 8, on whatever grounds.
Justice Kennedy might be glad for the opportunity to see the Bush v. Gore counsel again, if he feels as burned by Bush as some people say Justice O’Connor feels. If he wanted to repair that travesty, this would be a way to do it.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: “How people can look at the words “husband and husband” or “wife and wife” and conclude that either is the SAME thing as “husband and wife” is such a lie, such a delusion, that one questions their sanity. No man can have a father/son relationship with his daughter.”
Your semantic nonsense is just a lousy attempt to muddy the waters. A father has a parent/child relationship with his daughter, just as he would with his son. The only reason to be gender specific is that you want to treat people differently based on gender.
Report comment to moderator
We wont call “yellow”, “blue” for the sake of those who have jaundice…
Report comment to moderator
We wont call “yellow”, “blue” for the sake of those who have jaundice…
Report comment to moderator
Same sex marriage isn’t legitimized by a piece of paper, it’s still a faux union – making sin into law doesn’t make it legitimate, it’s still sin –
In the eyes of the law of 5 states and numerous foreign countries, it is a legal marriage. It’s fully enforceable and the court will back it up.
We really don’t give a rat’s behind about your definition of “sin”. That has no standing under the law.
You can argue about what the Bible says about gays till the cows come home. It doesn’t matter. What matters is the law and the Constitution. The religious discussion is irrelevant.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
“If there is no God and the Bible isn’t His spoken Word to us, then all we have is evolutionary theory to explain things”
That is the most depressing thing I have ever heard. You are so wrong, explanations are available without submitting to the patriarchal hierarchy theism or the patriarchal technocracy of reductive academic institutions. There is something called the humanities! The study of ourself, our feelings, conditions, histories, processes, writing, agreements, theories, etc etc etc… And this amazing thing offers not just explanations to pressing questions, but also tools to help make questions better, and critical thinking, feminism, creativity, rigorous engagement, and above all the belief that we can make our understands better when we admit that all things are more complicated than they first seem–not requiring technical explanation or divine justification!
Yikes, ok now that’s out of the way…
Deet, I was first depressed by your statement, and wrote the above before realizing you were being snarky. While I personally don’t like evolutionary explanations for most things, you’re remarkably ignorant of what people who do enjoy evolutionary arguments have to say about the possibility of a set of “gay” genetics being passed down. When you say “It’s simply not a trait evolution would’ve passed on,” you’re speaking from the position of knowing absolutely NOTHING. You and I may both dislike evolutionary logic, but the difference between us is–I know something about it.
DCL,
I remain a skeptic, while Jon Rowe’s explanation is more feasible to me than the optimism you and Anlir and pumping out, I think that they can hope to pick up Stevens and one more who is not Ginsberg.
Report comment to moderator
“I see NO EVIDENCE that the orientation can be changed by ‘grace.’”
What you “see” is not adequate evidence for waht is.
If there is a God, an intentional Creator with divine power, then repentant sinners can change. in fact, that’s the whole point of the Bible. There is hope for human homosexuals!
Report comment to moderator
I forgot to respond to what I originally started out wanting to respond to. If they take this case to the Supreme Court and lose, it would not “undo” everything that gay rights activists have accomplished, as NJL says it would. She is wrong. It wouldn’t unlegalize SSM in any state that already has it. It wouldn’t affect the individual question of whether any state’s constitution requires SSM. It would just make clear that no state is required by the federal constitution to legalize SSM. There is nothing that says a state’s constitution can’t require more stringent protections than the fed’s. California’s still most assuredly does.
Still it’s worth not losing in the federal courts, because losing would validate the anti-marriage amendments already adopted by several states. It worth it to keep racking up state wins, which strengthens our federal position, while we wait for a more liberal court that will strike down those numerous state amendments–and can do so more readily because they won’t have to find fault with a previous court to do so.
Report comment to moderator
The primary point in, under, through, over, with, around, and on this issue is summed up in one crucial life-changing word:
Repentance.
Without that, there truly is no ultimate or pen-ultimate hope or relevant wisdom to speak of from any perspective on this matter.
___________
Report comment to moderator
All the homos I’ve known thru school or work had horrid relations with their fathers. (I’m sure the number of gay men with CEO or career mil officer dads would be quite high) So you have a young pre-adolescent who didnt get the unconditional love of a male authority figure. His Dad may not have been there or even worse told him that dad/son hugging was somehow “unmanly” Hence, I suspect “the first time” for lotsa gay males is with just that–a “more mature” or older looking gay authority figure from whom the young homosexual teen seeks to meet a deep-seeted psychological need for Dad Love (for lack of a better term)
It all comes down to the old cliche: for the homo to change he’s gotta truly want to change. If the homosexual truly wants DELIVERANCE from that lifestyle (please don’t cue up the banjo music) why would the Lord not grant that desire? I’ve heard testimonies where the speakers were able to overcome escape all manner of bad vices (booze drugs etc) but it was only when they realized they were hopeless sinners and turned to Christ. Dont discount the power of Christ’s love to lead folks out of all sorts of captivity, among those SEXUAL SIN.
We had a gay friend. He wanted to end that life. He moved in with some accountable young men from our Austin church (a church which later lost many members after a gay man was ordained deacon). Our housemate eventually married a lovely church gal and they have 3 kids and live happily in Amarillo. (This despite counsel from the Austin pastor to yield to homsexual temptation/orientation)
Report comment to moderator
“Same sex marriage isn’t legitimized by a piece of paper,”
Then you shouldn’t worry yer pretty head about gays gettin’ that piece of paper…
Report comment to moderator
We are all born oriented towards any number of sins. (”Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Ps. 51:5.) One of the best descriptions I’ve read is that we are born with “an irresistable bent” towards sin. In this context, whatever the sinful desire, we are all “born that way.” The sin of homsexuality is no different. When speaking of a predisposition to homosexuality, I have no problem believing one can be “born that way.” Although it cannot be proved one way or the other, it would be consistent with both Scripture and observation. But when speaking of homosexual conduct–which is what the Bible condemns as sinful–there is always a choice, however difficult or inconceivable it might seem to one to deny the desire.
We cannot deny the sinfulness of any conduct on the basis of being born with an innate orientation or bent towards that conduct. If we could, all sin would be justified.
Report comment to moderator
“All the homos I’ve known thru school or work had horrid relations with their fathers”
Most likely the relationships were bad, because their fathers were homophobic (since that generation was), and not the other way around. But I know a lot of straight guys with horrid relations with their fathers too. I’d be willing to bet that there are more bad fathers of straight guys than of gay guys. I have a very good relationship with my dad, btw.
You are just parroting the pseudo-psychology of fraudulent ex-gay Christian counseling. It is complete rot and has been wisely rejected by professional psychology.
I’m sure it makes you feel better and more self-righteous, however.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, but you are playing the semantic game.
Can a man have a father/son relationship with his daughter? No. But if you redefine words, you can. What you refuse to acknowledge is that there is a difference in men and women and two men or two women together is NOT the same as a man and a woman together. That’s what marriage is, and what you are doing by redefining the word marriage is the muddying.
You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
This need to redefine a word to include something it has never included is pathological.
Report comment to moderator
Something that seems slightly interesting to me is the fact that some liberals say “that’s the law; abide by it” when talking about issues such as teaching intelligent design in public schools (as in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, “the debate is settled,” they say, but when it comes to Prop. 8, homosexuals continue to push for the laws to be changed, and don’t abide by the laws voted into effect. Is it just me, or is there a bit of double standards there?
Report comment to moderator
Re: #73
Sawgunner,
Forgive me for my impertinence, but you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to the reality of the vast majority of gay people’s lives. But you’ve got 3 strikes going against you (you’re straight, you’re a conservative Christian, and you don’t like “homos”). So there’s a lot of crap to wade through before we could even address the substance of your post. In fact, there’s too much.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
“But when speaking of homosexual conduct–which is what the Bible condemns as sinful–there is always a choice, however difficult or inconceivable it might seem to one to deny the desire.”
Same sex marriage is not – like Paul’s version of hetero-marriage – just a consolation for the weak of will. It’s a gift. A wonderful thing!!! Any gay person who finds a loving partner is entitled to all the happiness it brings.
Report comment to moderator
What you “see” is not adequate evidence for waht is.
If there is a God, an intentional Creator with divine power, then repentant sinners can change. in fact, that’s the whole point of the Bible. There is hope for human homosexuals!
You are right on one account Joel. This isn’t about what “I see.” This is about objective reality. And objectively reality demonstrates no evidence that, for the overwhelming majority of people, sexual orientation can change by wishing or praying it that way. As a matter of objective reality, praying has been shown to be as effective in changing sexual orientation as it has been shown in healing amputees by growning new limbs.
Report comment to moderator
If the homosexual truly wants DELIVERANCE from that lifestyle (please don’t cue up the banjo music) why would the Lord not grant that desire?
For the same reason that God doesn’t heal amputees by growing them new limbs. When I get to Heaven I’ll ask God why.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: This minority does not exist. Every man and every woman has the same opportunity to marry the opposite sex.
Repeating it doesn’t make it less stupid. (See #30.)
Report comment to moderator
The Bible approaches the sinfulness of all humanity by calling for both condemnation and compassion. Together, the two are essential elements of Biblical love, something every sinner, including homosexuals, desperately needs.
Homosexuals are in defiant rebellion against the will of their Creator who from the beginning “made them male and female.”(Matt.19:4)
The only hope for any of us is salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Homosexuals need salvation. They don’t need healing, it is not a disease. They don’t need therapy, it’s not a psychological condition. Homosexuals need forgiveness because homosexuality is a sin.
As a Christian, I cannot compromise what the Bible says no matter how compassionate I desire to be. My first sympathies are to the Lord and to the “exaltation of His righteousness”. My response is both a biblical response (regarding what Scripture says about it)and a Gospel response. I honor His Word and leave the results to Him.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – “Can a man have a father/son relationship with his daughter? No. But if you redefine words, you can. What you refuse to acknowledge is that there is a difference in men and women and two men or two women together is NOT the same as a man and a woman together. That’s what marriage is, and what you are doing by redefining the word marriage is the muddying.”
That’s all entirely irrelevant – Can anybody in a married-but-childless relationship have a father/son relationship? No. Should they be married? By your logic, no, they should not.
Your pretend logic exists merely for the purpose of rationalizing an ingrained prejudicial instinct. This habit is illustrated by your appeal to RCC pedophilia as an argument against gay marriage. By your reasoning, straight women should be prohibited from marrying, because of the recurrent example of elementary and middle school teachers seducing their underage male students.
But you never really own up to the logical consequences of your arguments do you – this proves that your beliefs weren’t arrived at by legitimate reasoning in the first place – they are just the rationalizations of blatant prejudice erected to convince the persuadable by any means possible.
Report comment to moderator
“Homosexuals are in defiant rebellion against the will of their Creator who from the beginning “made them male and female.”(Matt.19:4)”
Uh Deet – from the beginning (or very near it), he made us asexual prokaryotic cells.
Report comment to moderator
Deet – “The only hope for any of us is salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Then why do you care whether or not the “unsaved” (in your view) get gay-married? If the only hope is conversion, why do you care about the sexual practice of the unconverted? This always mystified me w/the current crop of superficial evangelicals – I’m quite sure that even in my born-again days, I would have thought it well outside the gospel’s purview to argue against civil gay marriage! Might as well be trying to enact laws against pride, sloth, envy, avarice, etc…
Report comment to moderator
#81, “And objectively reality demonstrates no evidence that, for the overwhelming majority of people, sexual orientation can change by wishing or praying it that way.”
But that’s not the claim I am making, Jon Rowe. “Wishing or praying” are not the change agents, God is.
And your analogue with amputees is dirickulous… and nonsensical. Apples and spaceships.
Report comment to moderator
SG – “Our housemate eventually married a lovely church gal and they have 3 kids and live happily in Amarillo. (This despite counsel from the Austin pastor to yield to homsexual temptation/orientation)”
I imagine a lot of people thought Ted Haggard had a model marriage too…
Report comment to moderator
Deet,
I can respect your opinion, but see NO reason why “Christians” need to take this opinion and force it as public policy in whatever government they live. There are some truth that are “public truths” (i.e., don’t murder, steal or bear false witness) and others that are “private” truths (like don’t worship false gods). Nancy Pearcey’s notion that you can’t distinguish between the two is recipe for theocracy. If that’s the case then why don’t we make it illegal to break the First Commandment and do what the Old Testament says: Execute Hindus and Hari Krishnas and perhaps Muslims because they encourage Christians to worship false gods?
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Just saying it doesn’t make it true. The amputees comparison is as close to an apples to apples comparison as it gets on this issue. God will change someone’s sexual orientation when he heals the amputee and gives him a new arm. We are waiting for the evidence of either.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
#88 “dirickulous” – I kinda like that word. Has a nice ring to it.
But let’s put #81 more explicitly. There is no evidence that God miraculously intervenes to change sexual orientation, and quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. Were it otherwise I would probably know – I ministered in a healing ministry for several years, constantly praying that my sexual orientation would change. During this time, I married, had 2 kids, and did not “act” on my natural sexuality.
But I remained as I have known since age 10 – with a same-sex orientation.
Having said that, I think there are some bi-sexuals that happily switch from gay to straight mode and credit God for the switch. But they’re never very far to one side of the Kinsey scale!
Report comment to moderator
#92 – Both Dean Hamer and Simon LeVay believe that sexual orientation is largely biological and that several genes are responsible for homosexuality and gender identity. These are thought to be overlapping but not identical sets. I know Simon LeVay personally, btw, and co-wrote a book with him.
What Camille Paglia thinks is irrelevant to any scientific discussion of biological basis.
Report comment to moderator
Citing Camille Paglia? Ever hear of the logical fallacy “appeal to authority.” Well if we are going to appeal to her authority why don’t we quote the same book we she notes that, though not “normal” homosexuality is “abnormal” in a good sense like having a genius level IQ and where she states civilized society needs to nuture homosexuality because of the irrefutable connection between homosexuality and artistic genius?
Report comment to moderator
Why “V” – you just cut and pasted that junk from the internet:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/seven-print.html
According to you, that means we can automatically discount it!
Report comment to moderator
The Traditional Values Coalition is an anti-gay hate organization. They have about as much credibility on gays as the Klan would have on racial issues.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza @ #76, you mention “professional psychology.”
Psychologists are called “psychobabblists” by some people for a reason, you know.
I rather think that all this talking about evolution, psychology and more can and will lead to some fairly devastating consequences. If we are just products of random chance, there is no God and no morals either (after all, they were just created as our brains evolved, right?).
So if there is nothing saying what we should or shouldn’t do, what’s to prevent anyone from committing atrocities and anything they feel like? Although the example has been used countless times, it doesn’t hurt to repeat fact that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (forgive me if I messed up their names) wore shirts that said “natural selection.” While this doesn’t prove anything, it is a telling indicator that if we are just animals in the battle for survival, the strongest wins, and it doesn’t matter what we do to win. And this includes eugenics, abortion, and genocide in order to improve the gene pool and create the “master race.”
If anyone makes the point that “the majority of people think it’s wrong to kill innocent people” or whatever, the majority of people has often been wrong, and besides, if you just base what’s right and what’s wrong on feelings, I might think differently and say “I feel it’s all right to kill anyone I feel like if they don’t give me what I want.” And who’s to say I’m wrong if morals are based on preferences and not on an absolute standard?
In the event that anyone believes that there are no moral absolutes, we are in serious trouble, because then anything goes.
Report comment to moderator
Everyone, please stop saying “the experts say this” or “according to Dr…”
The “experts” believe that global warming is caused by humans, that vaccines are perfectly safe, that
Oh, what’s the use?
I have a rather large dose of cynicism when it comes to many things, but I think it’s justifiable. To think that all the “experts” are perfectly honest, give out all the evidence, and never have an agenda they are trying to further is ludicrous.
Just like in public schools, where only evolution is taught, and any evidence that points to another scenario is not given. I think that since evolution is still being taught, ID should be taught also and the students should research and decide for themselves which fits the evidence better. They should not be indoctrinated, but after all, that’s what many public schools are: public indoctrination centers.
The whole “hate crime” legislation is ridiculous.
Telling someone they are in sin if they are living a homosexual lifestyle should be perfectly fine, but now that will be illegal. So much for free speech.
What happened to the principles of freedom that our country was founded upon?
Now we have people in power that want to take away our freedoms and turn the U.S.A. into the U.S.S.A. (United Socialist States of America). [Sigh]
Anlir,
I was just wondering about something:
Homeschooling is illegal in Germany and likely elsewhere.
Would you support banning it here?
Report comment to moderator
Does the prohibition against homosexuality have any validity apart from compulsory patriarchy?
For example, you own vinyards, olive groves, and ships, but your boy is queer and unlikely to manage it well unless you force him to marry the grain merchant’s daughter. Without compulsory patriarchy, you’re be finished!
If, on the other hand, you can leave the family business in the steady hands of your mercenary, educated, and effective daughter, you can jolly well let the boy be a girl. His perversion is non-economic. What a relief!
Report comment to moderator
Rio,
You totally misstate “hate crimes” legislation. Hate crimes legislation punishes actions not speech. You can scream at us and call us “fags!” all day long. Your ministers can thunder from the pulpit every Sunday that all homos are going to hell.
But if you pick up a brick and smash someone’s head in while screaming “God hates fags!”, you’re gonna be charged with a hate crime. If you and group of your fellow conservative Christians take a baseball bat to a man and beat him to death on the street while yelling “die faggot!”, you’re gonna be charged with a hate crime.
We can debate the wisdom of hate crimes legislation, but let’s keep the facts straight.
P.S. What does homeschooling have to do with this issue?
Report comment to moderator
Spinny, talk about muddying waters. It’s not about childless couples and you know it. My example is about how WORDS are used. It’s not about biology. Stop lying and stop being deliberately obtuse.
As a female, if I gave birth to a daughter, I would have a mother-daughter relationship with that child, and if I tried to call it a mother-son relationship because golly, gee whiz, I wanted a son, I would be WRONG, pathologically wrong.
To quote Jon Rowe: “Just saying it doesn’t make it true.” And that’s what homosexuals want to do with the word “marriage.” They want to say marriage is between two people of the same sex, when it simply isn’t. Marriage is between and man and a woman. Two men or two women cannot have the same relationship. It’s impossible. It cannot be duplicated because there is no difference in the sex of the parties. Marriage requires that difference in sex, one male, one female. What homosexuals have together is not marriage. Be honest and come up with your own word, but don’t call it something it is not.
Homosexuals will continue to believe that if they can redefine marriage they can redefine normal and they can make themselves normal. It isn’t the heterosexuals who can’t accept that homosexuals are different — it’s the homosexuals.
I have no idea who this woman is, but this is one dismissive remark: “What Camille Paglia thinks is irrelevant to any scientific discussion of biological basis.” Because you don’t agree with her she should be dismissed?
And I have to agree with Rio: what happened to free speech? For people who are ranting about “liberty and justice” — you’re the ones taking away liberty.
Report comment to moderator
If we are not “just products of random chance” then life is not capable of generating variation to exploit new opportunities and survive the onslaught of environmental change. We would be extinct, and God would be an incompetent creator.
Report comment to moderator
I now pronounce this an Official Gay Blog! on Worldmag, proving yet again that nothing brings out Worldmagers like a “gay” blog does.
Onward to Certified Gay Blog! status!
Report comment to moderator
What NJLawyer and her fellow conservative Christians are arguing is that in order for them to freely practice their religious faith they have to take away the legal rights and liberty of gay Americans. To which we say “See Dick Cheney for our response”.
We are not going to live under your religious tyranny! We are American citizens and we have the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. You do not have the right to impose your religious beliefs on us and force us to live under them. We will fight for our freedom for as long as it take and we are never giving up!
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
I agree that this argument has a chance. Before Lawrence, states with anti-sodomy statutes could argue that there was a rational basis for refusing to grant legal status to adult gay relationships. After Lawrence, it looks more like states are making a distinction that arises from no legitimate government interest.
Moreover, the equal protection argument stands a better chance of success with someone like Justice Kennedy, who might be less inclined to buy into a similar argument grounded in substantive due process. It’ll be fun to watch this case percolate.
Report comment to moderator
The whole gene argument is a waste of time. Homosexuality is a sin whether you are born that way or not. It has absolutely no bearing on the discussion from the Christian side of things. I was born a sinner — I didn’t become one. I was born with a propensity to sin in particular ways that others are not. That doesn’t excuse me from my responsibility to not sin.
The whole problem with homosexuals is that they want to call their disgusting behavior good and right and pure and want us all to accept them so they can indulge their wicked desires.
My guess is that they will eventually get their way in the legal department and will even try to stop me from posting comments like this because they will declare it a hate crime to show dissent to their agenda. Obviously they will hate my remarks and perhaps even hate me. I certainly don’t bear homosexuals any ill-will with respect to their health and well-being. After all they are sinners like the rest of us.
Report comment to moderator
The whole problem with homosexuals is that they want to call their disgusting behavior good and right and pure and want us all to accept them so they can indulge their wicked desires.
Wrong!
What we want is our rights as citizens of the United States of America.
The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not have a coda that says “except gay people”.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir @ #101,
The murderers of Matthew Shepard (correct spelling?) didn’t even know he was a homosexual, even though Katie Couric blamed his murder on Christians.
The homeschooling question was not related except for the fact that it’s banning something.
I was just wondering about that; it doesn’t have much to do with the issue.
I have to say, your comment seems rather lame. It seems like you’re committing the hasty generalization logical fallacy, which damages any argument.
(” If you and group of your fellow conservative Christians take a baseball bat to a man and beat him to death on the street while yelling “die faggot!”, you’re gonna be charged with a hate crime.“) was pretty lame. There are many conservative Christians who don’t believe in even defending themselves from muggers, let alone homosexuals who aren’t attacking them.
So be careful with the generalizations. I feel sure that there aren’t many Christians that will support calling homosexuals names and killing them.
Report comment to moderator
No, I’m not wrong.
Single men and women have the same rights whether they are gay or not. Both can freely fornicate in this country as much as they want to without any legal consequences.
You just want everyone to be told they must accept it as a valid lifestyle. I suppose the biggest impediment you face is not from religious people, but rather from the masses who find gay behavior disturbing and would rather not have to be around it. However, with enough television shows making it all appear okay (just as has done with all types of sin) it will become an accepted behavior at some point.
But accepted behavior doesn’t make it right behavior.
Report comment to moderator
A (mostly) civilized dicussion.
I suspect that these couple of paragraphs from a Times column rather neatly summarize a lot of what is going on.
One of the main divides between left and right is the dependence on different moral values. For liberals, morality derives mostly from fairness and prevention of harm. For conservatives, morality also involves upholding authority and loyalty — and revulsion at disgust.
Some evolutionary psychologists believe that disgust emerged as a protective mechanism against health risks, like feces, spoiled food or corpses. Later, many societies came to apply the same emotion to social “threats.” Humans appear to be the only species that registers disgust, which is why a dog will wag its tail in puzzlement when its horrified owner yanks it back from eating excrement.
Psychologists have developed a “disgust scale” based on how queasy people would be in 27 situations, such as stepping barefoot on an earthworm or smelling urine in a tunnel. Conservatives systematically register more disgust than liberals. (To see how you weigh factors in moral decisions, take the tests at http://www.yourmorals.org.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28kristof.html
Report comment to moderator
111
That is amusing.
All sin is disgusting, but not everything disgusting is sin.
Morality comes from God, but you knew I would say that.
Report comment to moderator
#91, Jon Rowe wrote; “Just saying it doesn’t make it true.”
What are you talking about (I’m sincerely asking)? Did I ever say that my saying something is what makes it true? I don’t think so. If you are referring to an expression of a moral conviction on my part, then I presumed from the start that readers would have to simply judge for themselves. But I can state my position.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Your moral convictions are fine. What I questioned was your seeming notion that “grace” could change a homosexual orientationm into heterosexual one. I see that as not unlike saying “grace” can grow an arm that has been amputated.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
The amputee comparison is apples and spaceships. Forgiving sin and giving that repentant sinner a new lease on life and a new set of godly desires and priorities is not comparable with giving an amputee a new limb, except that both are good things.
Report comment to moderator
Rio,
I don’t know where you get the they didn’t know MS was homosexual. I think you are referring to the fact that a drug deal/robbery may have been *a* motive/complicating in the murder and that one of the killers — though predominantly heterosexual — purportedly had homosexual experiences in his past. That doesn’t change the fact that the murderers knew he was homosexual, and a stereotypically queeny one to boot.
Report comment to moderator
Never under-estimate the power of grace.
It’s “amazing!”
More to the point, never under-estimate the power of God.
If you don’t believe in God, Jon Rowe, then that would explain your position with regard to the powerlessness of God’s grace.
Report comment to moderator
No it is not Joel. It is a close apples to apples comparison. A homosexual who has TRIED and FAILED to get God to change him/her to a heterosexual knows what I am talking about. The ORIENTATION does NOT change, for at least a strong, overwhelming majority of them. It can only be repressed/sublimated.
Report comment to moderator
I do believe in God Joel. I just believe in a more realistic God, one that is more deistic and universalistic, much less dogmatic. I believe in the God of doubt, a God who purposefully with-holds His/Her/Its revelation from man to teach us a lesson in humility.
Report comment to moderator
#118, “A homosexual who has TRIED and FAILED to get God to change him/her to a heterosexual knows what I am talking about.”
A homosexual who has repented knows what I am talking about.
Report comment to moderator
I am here to personally testify that what Jon said in #118 is absolutely correct.
How many more Ted Haggard’s do we have to have before the conservative Christians wake up and smell the coffee?
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote: “I just believe in a more realistic God, one that is more deistic and universalistic, much less dogmatic.”
But Jon, you are being VERY dogmatic about what you think God cannot do.
_____________
Report comment to moderator
When one actually objectively examines the folks who claim to have “repented” of their homosexuality, one finds that they are indeed repressing/sublimating their sexuality. The statistics and the personal stories that groups like Exodus and Focus on the Family put out are not what they’re portraying. There might (might) be a tiny sliver of folks who go from gay to straight (though it’s more likely they retained sexual attraction to both genders), but that does violence to the 99.9% who are gay and will always be gay. Sexual orientation is extremely difficult, if not downright impossible, to change. The failure rate is extremely high and the psychological damage is too great. There’s a reason why no competent practitioner in the psych community supports it.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, not being God myself, I try not to make it a practice to judge other people’s repentance. But I know it is the bottom line with God.
Report comment to moderator
For all those who state that they could really care less of what the Bible has to say–Then why are you trying to argue that position on a site that is clearly bent towards Christianity? It’s like like going to a baseball game and complaining that they aren’t using a basketball.You’re on a Christian site, so what do you expect?
Reason will clearly not work to bring unrepentant sinners into the Kingdom. So I leave with this.(my paraphrase of a song)
Better is one day in His House than a thousand years elsewhere.
How silly it is to argue with the Creator. Don’t let any sin so take over your mind soul and spirit that it will keep you from being in His House.
Report comment to moderator
I like litigation as a method of achieving the ends of social justice and human rights. The superiority of the legislative process is way over-stated. I suspect it’s propaganda from people who have no universal principles and rely upon accumulated and inherited prejudice. The fact that we can get rights from the courts that we can’t get from the ballot box makes those rights all the more valuable, to me.
I just have to wonder what planet Scroop moth is from.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir wants to over turn Prop 8 because it prevents him from marrying his teddy bear.
Report comment to moderator
And Anlir is proof positive that someone can change their sexual orientation.
Report comment to moderator
I just have to wonder what planet Scroop moth is from.
Have you read the US Constitution? The judiciary safeguards the rights of minority groups when majority opinion would seek to limit them.
It’s sort of an important thing.
Report comment to moderator
Exactly, SteveG.
We litigators are kind of a big deal.
Report comment to moderator
Still not sure how to answer those who say homosex refutes evolution. If Boy A ancient primate-like ancestor decided he is attracted to and mounted up on Boy B ancient primate-like ancestor and vice versa, then this coupling won’t yield a brood of proto-people, right? Could it be that the ancient gay primate-like ancestors had the Ray Boltz gene? You know the one that let them act straight and even mate with female proto-people primates? If something that’s homo can behave straight it must mean sexuality and how it is acted out is a conscious choice
Report comment to moderator
Fives55: “For all those who state that they could really care less of what the Bible has to say–Then why are you trying to argue that position on a site that is clearly bent towards Christianity? It’s like like going to a baseball game and complaining that they aren’t using a basketball.You’re on a Christian site, so what do you expect?”
I don’t think anyone expects the more conservative members of this site to declare that same-sex marriage is a positive thing. The hope, in my view, is that the more conservative members of this site can recognize that even if they don’t agree with same-sex marriage, they can still uphold the US Constitution and not enforce their religious morality via legislation. Heterosexuals have nothing to gain or lose based on the legality of gay marriage, but one can be reasonably certain that the supporters of Proposition 8 were by and large, heterosexual. It’s completely mind boggling and disappointing that so many people would go out of their way to deny rights to others. It’s especially disappointing considering that Christians enjoy more religious freedom in this country than anyone else, yet they still feel the need to squash the rights of others.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner,
There are all sorts of traits that can emerge via evolutionary processes that aren’t apparently helpful for reproduction. Frequently, these traits are discovered to be beneficial in some way, but it isn’t always intuitive. If you don’t have enough background in evolutionary theory to go beyond “Boy A” and “Boy B,” then you are probably going to have a difficult time understanding how this works.
Report comment to moderator
SG,
To further elaborate on my comments to Joel Mark, I think a great deal of self defined gays have a perfect “6″ pure homosexual orientation, just as a great deal of self identified straights have a perfect 0 heterosexual orientation. Those are the folks who have absolutely no choice over their orientation. I think though that a lot of self defined straights and gays are not 0s or 6s but somewhere in between. Ray Boltz and all of the other gay men who get married to women, perform sexually, are probably in that boat.
Still, his heart is with members of the same sex; a marriage for all that time and prayer didn’t change that.
Report comment to moderator
I want to respond to something JON (#90) said yesterday in response to my post #84 because I think he brings up a good point. Sorry I can’t always keep up with these posts in a timely manner.
Why should it matter if the government approves civil unions, thereby granting the same privileges and legal representation to gay couples?
Well, in a way JON, ultimately, it doesn’t matter. God will accomplish His purposes regardless of what governments do. I think sooner or later, our government probably will allow gay marriage across the board, but as we’ve seen with other issues, legality does not necessarily equate to morality. Sin is still sin.
Authority in governement is granted by God to be “a minister of God to you for good, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.” (Rom. 13:4). Our governement may grant us liberty but we are not “free” to do whatever pleases us.
And Scripture warns against “calling evil good and good evil.” (Isaiah 5:20) and of the consequences of promoting lies as truth. God may very well allow America to “sow to the flesh and reap corruption,” (Gal. 6:7) storing up wrath against the day of judgment(Rom. 2:5).
One of the aspects of all of this the church either isn’t aware of or has ignored is how our capitulation to the political an cultural influence of homosexuality has caused pain, suffering and even death for our brother and sisters in Christ half way around the world.
Faith J.H. McDonnell (WORLD March 28) pointed out how African believers suffer because of the liberal leanings of the Episcopal Church in America.
When the church sanctions sin and causes believers in other countries to be maligned and murdered, we have grievously erred before God. Their blood is on our hands as much as it is on the hands of those who physically harm them.
The blood of His saints is precious to God and I, for one, dare not risk His ire for political expediency or “modern thinking” or in the name of tolerance.
The disapproval of men must not deter Christians from speaking the truth of the Word of God. I do think the church needs not only courage in these days but also compassion to reach out to those struggling with homosexuality. They’re not our enemies; they’re our mission field.
Report comment to moderator
Deet,
I can respect your opinion and know that as long as you believe in this kind of Christianity there is no way I am going to change your opinion on homosexuality so I won’t even try.
As I read the Bible and the works of revisionists like the late John Boswell of Yale (who try to argue the Bible is not against homosexuality) I see them right only on one account: the story of S & G from a plain literal textual reading seems to be about gang rape, not ordinary homosexuality.
Leviticus and Paul’s comments can’t be explained away however.
I would just note that in a pluralistic society you have to live with fellow homosexual American citizens just as they have to live with you and other biblical Christians. Therefore, some kind of compromise should be reached.
I’m for privitizing marriage altogether and leaving the question in the hands of the churches and private entities, not in the hands of the government/courts.
Report comment to moderator
What if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution equivalent to Prop. 8 was passed, in accordance with all constitutional requirements? Would it be wrong? Would anyone have been denied liberty and justice? To answer “yes” to either requires a belief in a moral authority that transcends the Constitution. So, what authority?
Report comment to moderator
RIO – “I rather think that all this talking about evolution, psychology and more can and will lead to some fairly devastating consequences. If we are just products of random chance, there is no God and no morals either (after all, they were just created as our brains evolved, right?).”
The theory of evolution doesn’t say we are just products of random chance, so you don’t have to worry.
Report comment to moderator
I would love to see an answer RKG’s question from Anlir. I’ve tried to ask similar things to him in the past, and as yet, not even an attempt at a response. Just bumper sticker platitudes.
Report comment to moderator
#102 NJL – So this is just a semantic issue for you? You are willing to discriminate on the basis of semantics. That’s really sick! Equal protection gives way to NJL’s lexicon. Frankly, I don’t believe you – you’ve said enough elsewhere to show that word purity is not your primary concern – and besides, your willingness to ignore the mistranslation of NT Greek words in order to argue against gay marriage shows a gross inconsistency.
I have no idea who this woman is, but this is one dismissive remark:
“What Camille Paglia thinks is irrelevant to any scientific discussion of biological basis.” Because you don’t agree with her she should be dismissed?
Camille Paglia is a colorful individual whom I appreciate, but she is not a scientist. It is irrelevant to cite her (and way out of context I might add) in a discussion of biological origin of homosexuality. I can guarantee you, though, that you don’t agree with a very large fraction of Paglia’s output!
Report comment to moderator
RKG –
What if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution equivalent to Prop. 8 was passed, in accordance with all constitutional requirements? Would it be wrong?
Yes.
Would anyone have been denied liberty and justice?
Yes
To answer “yes” to either requires a belief in a moral authority that transcends the Constitution.
If by “authority” you mean a law-giving deity, it requires no such thing! Liberty and justice (e.g., freedom and fairness) can be defined as part of an ethical philosophy that has no reference to an arbitrary deity. If I subscribe to such a philosophy, I can make an ethical judgment as per my own conscience.
What you are doing is abrogating the responsibility to think ethically in favor of your interpretation of the mythological musings of ancient cultures (i.e., the bible). Not a good path to sound ethical judgment!
Report comment to moderator
For all those who state that they could really care less of what the Bible has to say–Then why are you trying to argue that position on a site that is clearly bent towards Christianity?
I don’t care what the Bible has to say. But I care about the fact that people discriminate and try to control social policy on the basis of their interpretation of what the Bible has to say. They should be confronted at every turn! And no less so on their own turf!
Report comment to moderator
#131 Did you read the link from New Scientist. There are lots of ways this can work.
Also – its important to discriminate between “biological basis” and “genetic basis”. “V”s quote of LeVay above refers to the fact that his work showed a biological correlation, but he did not do any genetic work (Hamer does that).
His work built on animal studies that showed how variation of hormone exposure in the womb can change sexual preference in adult animals. Some of the hormone exposure is the result of the mother’s hormone levels at the time. Gradients can occur across the womb even in a single pregnancy. This is probably why the identical twin of a gay man has only a 50% chance of being gay (still much higher than average) instead of a 100% chance.
Report comment to moderator
p.s. I should clarify that LeVay’s work dealt with brain differences between gay and straight males that also map to sexual dimorphisms in humans and with sexual orientation differences induced in animals by fetal hormone exposures. He himself did no in utero hormone studies (and certainly no one does them on people!).
Report comment to moderator
Re: #137
Yes, a national “Prop 8″ style amendment would be wrong.
1. The US Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia said that marriage is a fundamental right.
2. It would violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There’s your answer, Ree.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
I should note that it matters not what makes people gay. We don’t ask what makes people straight.
Most people are straight. Some are gay.
Most people are right handed. Some people are left handed.
People are who they are.
Let’s treat everyone equally under the law.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner: Still not sure how to answer those who say homosex refutes evolution. If Boy A ancient primate-like ancestor decided he is attracted to and mounted up on Boy B ancient primate-like ancestor and vice versa, then this coupling won’t yield a brood of proto-people, right? Could it be that the ancient gay primate-like ancestors had the Ray Boltz gene? You know the one that let them act straight and even mate with female proto-people primates? If something that’s homo can behave straight it must mean sexuality and how it is acted out is a conscious choice
So you’ve never heard of recessive genes?
There are genes — we all have them — that we don’t express because they’re recessive. But if both parents carry the recessive genes, their offspring have a good chance of expressing them.
For example, red hair is caused by a recessive gene. The parents may have brown hair or blond hair and have a red-haired child.
So if the gene for same-sex attraction is recessive, it doesn’t require either parent to be same-sex attracted in order to pass on the gene.
Report comment to moderator
If something that’s homo can behave straight it must mean sexuality and how it is acted out is a conscious choice
This contains its own contradiction –
“If something that’s homo” implies there is already an a priori unchosen sexual orientation.
“can behave straight” – Um that’s called the closet
“it must mean sexuality and how it is acted out is a conscious choice”
If by “sexuality” you mean orientation – you’ve already contradicted yourself above by saying “something that is homo.” If by “how it is acted out” you mean whether or not one is sexually active, in or out of the closet, nobody denies those are choices! Although some definitely find it easier to “behave straight” than others.
So tell us about your personal experience resisting gay temptation by choice. Musta been a real challenge in the military!
If God commanded that everyone be same-sex married and disallowed straight sex, would it be a simple matter for you to comply?
Report comment to moderator
3147 This becomes even more complex when multiple genes are at work. At present, we don’t know how many genes are involved in eye color, but it is a least three. No Single Gene For Eye Color, Researchers Prove.
Eye color is a much simpler trait than sexual orientation. It stands to reason that there are a lot of genes that affect it. There are: Non-sex genes ‘link to gay trait’
These also do not rule out environmental factors, and most scientists believe these also play a role.
Report comment to moderator
JON,
Actually, Sodom’s judgment didn’t come on the basis of one particular sin. Certainly, homosexuality was part of the reason for its demise but really it was only a small part of Sodom’s wickedness.
In Ezekiel 16 God addresses a long list of iniquities that ISRAEL was guilty of: faithlessness (after the Lord brought the nation into existence), ingratitude (after all His blessings, the people enjoyed wealth and fame), idolatry, the slaughter of its children in the pursuit of that idolatry,pride and arrogance, sexual perversion(the only thing most people key in on about this city while missing so much) and also for negligence when it came to the poor.
God states in Ezekiel 16:49) “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister, Sodom.”
Sounds a lot like America, doesn’t it?
Jesus himself mentioned Sodom in Matt. 11:24 as a rebuke to the unrepentant cities that witnessed his miracles by saying that if Sodom had had seen his ministry and heard the Gospel, that city (Sodom)”would have remained to this day.”
Like I said, I think something will be worked out to accommodate the current trend. Perhaps it will even be something like you suggest, the “privitizing” of marriage; I don’t know.
My concern is with the legitimizing of sin, particularly by the church, and redefining relationship to suit ourselves when God alone reserves the right to define the parameters of relationship since it is He who made us relational beings.
Gotta go for now.
I appreciate your posts, JON, and your willingness to chat.
Report comment to moderator
#134 – “Those are the folks who have absolutely no choice over their orientation.”
This dehumanizes human beings. Orientation is not a physical or material matter. Of course human beings have a choice over their oientation. First a man makes his choices, then his choices make the man. It’s a life long process.
If Jon Rowe said that animals or automotons do not have a choice with regard to their orientation, I might agree. But we are talking about human beings here. Of course they have choices, and they make them throughout their lives with all sorts of on-going implications.
The “I can’t help it” excuse should be given up after age 5.
Report comment to moderator
#134, Again and again and again, Jon Rowe, prayers are not necessarily the change agent–GOD is.
Report comment to moderator
#151 JM – “Of course human beings have a choice over their orientation.”
Just last month, UK psychologists issued a press release that added their voice to American disagreement with your patently false assertion:
“”The Royal College shares the concern of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association that positions espoused by bodies like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in the United States are not supported by science.
“There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed,” adds the release.
“Furthermore so-called treatments of homosexuality as recommended by NARTH create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”
Report comment to moderator
#146 – “I should note that it matters not what makes people gay.”
From the standpoint of equal protection, you’re absolutely right.
Report comment to moderator
The “dehumanizing” that goes on comes from the bigoted anti-gay conservative Christians who are doing their dead level best to treat us as legal and social outcasts. Joel doesn’t know the first damn thing about gay people.
Liberty and justice for all.
Report comment to moderator
#141: My question doesn’t demand that you answer with a law-giving deity; it simply asks upon what authority can you judge such an amendment wrong if it is unassailable legally. In your answer, you have no way to define liberty and justice, or freedom and fairness, apart from yourself. In other words, those things mean whatever you want them to; you are a law unto yourself.
#145: If the U.S. Constitution is amended to prohibit same sex “marriage” that would overrule anything to the contrary elsewhere in the Constitution or uttered by the Supreme Court. So where else would you turn for authority to say it was wrong?
Report comment to moderator
Oooh, Anlir’s starting to get nasty again.
Spinoza,
Would you mind telling me what the theory of evolution states, if not that random chance is responsible for life? So many evolutionary scientists can’t seem to agree on the age of the Earth, how the world and the universe came about (after all, strictly defined, evolution deals with life after it’s already been created, right?), and more. I can list a number of evolutionary hoaxes (skulls altered to look more human or apelike, moths glued to logs where they didn’t live, etc.) if you like.
I wait for your reply.
Report comment to moderator
For the homosexuals and homosexual supporters out there. I have a question.
Give me a definition of immoral sexual behavior? Is sexual behavior only immoral when force is involved (or unwilling participation in the sense of being coerced or pressured) like in cases of rape? I would tend to assume that you would also view hurting another emotionally and so on is unacceptable as well (thus adultery and cheating are not acceptable). So if I remove these from consideration then does this mean that any other type of sexual activity is acceptable:
Masturbation
Premarital sex
Group sex
Homosexuality
Bestiality
Or do you maintain that some type of committed relationship is needed to avoid immorality in some sense? And, if so, what is your basis for this requirement?
Don’t know that I’m seeking a debate since I’m settled with my (Biblical) beliefs, but perhaps an understanding of what your views are would be helpful.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
Rio,
It seems that all your information about evolution comes straight from creationist propaganda, but on to your questions.
Rio: “Would you mind telling me what the theory of evolution states, if not that random chance is responsible for life?”
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection states that the non-random survival of organisms, based on fitness with respect to their environment, is responsible for the diversity of life.
Rio: “So many evolutionary scientists can’t seem to agree on the age of the Earth,”
Scientists of all disciplines agree that given the evidence, our best estimate for the age of the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.
Rio: “how the world and the universe came about”
The Big Bang Theory is our best cosmological model. The universe, as we know it, is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Whatever happened “before” space-time is likely incomprehensible to us.
Rio: “(after all, strictly defined, evolution deals with life after it’s already been created, right?)”
You are correct that evolutionary theory does not encompass the origin of life, the origin of the universe, or cosmology.
Rio: “I can list a number of evolutionary hoaxes (skulls altered to look more human or apelike, moths glued to logs where they didn’t live, etc.) if you like.”
For every supposed hoax, there are hundreds, if not thousands of verified examples that firmly support evolutionary theory.
Report comment to moderator
#158 GWF81–I resisted getting into the evolution discussion, but just a point of order: I think the “diversity of life” to which you refer depends on random mutations, resulting in changed or new organisms, before the “non-random survival of organisms” occurs. The diversity cannot be explained simply by things not dying; something has to change, and then not die, for the diversity to occur. Of course, it’s the idea that random mutations result in more “fit” organisms–over and over again–that intellecutally honest Christians like myself find scientifically questionable.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza quotes,
I’m not saying that sexual orientation can or can’t be changed, but I am wondering what would constitute reliable evidence that a person has changed his or her sexual orientation. I’ve heard the testimony of many people who claim that their sexual orientation has changed, but I’ve only ever seen these testimonies be dismissed. The person is accused of lying or being mistaken either about their previous orientation or their current one. In other words, either they’re in denial now and they’re still really homosexual or they were just confused and experimenting earlier when they were practicing homosexuals.
So, conceding for the sake of argument your category of real honest-to-goodness, born homosexuals, what would be the proof that one has changed? I ask, of course, because it seems fairly apparent to me that the claim that a the orientation of a homosexual can’t change is an a priori one, not a conclusion based upon evidence.
Report comment to moderator
Not all, perhaps not even most gays “fit” the gender non-conforming stereotype, at least not in a hard way. However, one thing I find strange about some of the ex-gays is they seem to have the same mannerisms after claiming to be “ex-gay.” John Paulk, Stephen Bennett, and Alan Chambers still come off like mildly stereotypical gay men. Here’s a link with a pic of Stephen Bennett.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/481/
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza says,
So you define “sound ethical judgment” as that which lines up with Spinoza’s conscience? But where is the ethical imperative on anyone besides Spinoza in this system? Of course one can determine whether a given law or course of action is consistent with a given philosophy, but that doesn’t say anything about a universal imperative. Appealing to the philosophy, itself, as the arbitrator of right and wrong is meaningless if the philosophy only exists in the minds of individual human beings, but has no transcendent existence.
So you haven’t answered the question after all. So, by what transcendent authority is the denial of so-called “gay marriage rights” wrong?
Report comment to moderator
I’m afraid I don’t understand the liberal argument. It appears you think homosexuality is either constitutionally or morally approved.
So why do neither the constitution or any moral laws support the practice? Regrettable omission?
You can rant all you want about (and indeed do) that traditional sexuality is constitutional, but it’s not. The constitution says nothing about the matter. So our government either
1. Forgot about sexuality.
2. Considered it obvious.
Actually they left it to lesser mutable laws as they reasoned it didn’t need protection.
The constitution transcendatal law embodied. It rather our intreptation of that law. It does not embody any sort of marriage. If you want to say homosexuality is equal to hetero, make that a law. Stop pretending its already there.
The constitution does not protect your practices. If you want protection, go get it, and stop having judges pretend you already possess it.
It’s like two eight year olds who discover over a ten dollar bill on the road. One says “I am virtous. I should get this.” The other says “no I lost this yesterday. It already belongs to me.”
Report comment to moderator
I presume you all know homosexuals are miserable, the lot of them. The miserable person (any type) convinces himself that some external circumstance makes him wretched. If he changes that, something else becomes the source of his problems. He does not realize it’s internal.
Report comment to moderator
Provost – 164
Yes they are miserable, I have never met one that wasn’t. What I have witnessed is a loneliness deep within. Often times the reason for their unahappinss is blamed on others; the others being anyone who doesn’t agree with them, or celebrate their homosexuality as being normal, without sin.
Report comment to moderator
Provost doesn’t read apparently. We’re discussing the fundamental right to marriage, and the 14th amendment to the Constitution. What people do in the privacy of their bedroom has no bearing on the matter.
I presume you all know homosexuals are miserable, the lot of them.
Well, you “presume” wrongly!
I understand that gay-bashing is mandatory for conservative Christians to prove their loyalty to Christ. But don’t expect us to stand by quietly and let you get away with it.
Hate is not a family value.
Hate is not a Christian value.
Stop the conservative Christian hate against gay people!
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
No, it is not semantics.
A boy is a boy, and a girl is a girl. And when they grow up a boy and a girl get married.
When a boy and a boy grow up they don’t get married. Whatever it is that two boys (or two girls) do together, it simply is NOT marriage. They are the same sex and marriage brings members of different sexes together. That’s part of what marriage is, and that’s the part you want to go away — because you can’t accept that you are different.
You literally refuse to see that. A dog is a dog, and a cat is a cat and renaming them something else doesn’t change them.
Anyone who needs to redefine a word is dishonest at his core.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
You are arguing a tautology.
One could just as easily assert, no two men or two women are “married.”
I understand your tautology isn’t going to change and that’s why I support privatizing marriage.
Report comment to moderator
#157 –
Would you mind telling me what the theory of evolution states, if not that random chance is responsible for life?
For one thing, natural selection is not random – “selection” takes place by the environment which has specific properties, etc. So there is a deterministic aspect of it. This is why “convergent evolution” produces similar qualities in organisms that are in similar environments, even when they are not related to each other.
For another, natural selection isn’t the only operative force in evolution. Endo-symbiosis, biochemical and mechanical properties of organisms, etc., all have deterministic aspects that shape how life has evolved. Evo
So many evolutionary scientists can’t seem to agree on the age of the Earth,
That’s nonsense – why do you say that? The standard age of 4.56 billion years comes from a lead-lead model that is not equivocal. What are you talking about? I’ve heard of no other estimates with more than a 1% deviation for years.
how the world and the universe came about (after all, strictly defined, evolution deals with life after it’s already been created, right?), and more.
It is not necessary to know any of these things to establish evolution. Nevertheless, the general outline of the origin of earth from a disk of gas and dust around the Sun is well established (coincidentally, I’m currently writing a chapter on it for a college text). The early steps in the origin of the universe ~14 billion years ago is understood better than I would have guessed possible, but it’s ultimate “origin” is not understood at all. So what? If you want to put God there, go ahead …
I can list a number of evolutionary hoaxes (skulls altered to look more human or apelike, moths glued to logs where they didn’t live, etc.) if you like.
Drinking the Jonathan Wells “Icons” kool-aid or what? Piltdown Man to which you seem to be referring is about a century old and was exposed by evolutionary scientists (not creationists) who have since recovered thousands of legitimate hominid fossils relevant to human evolution.
Moths have been glued to logs for the purpose of making a picture in a textbook, but not for purposes of carrying out research. What’s wrong with that?
Report comment to moderator
I’ll take the law over the brainless, heartless rantings of the conservative Christian anti-gay bigots any day. And the law in 5 states says that those gay couples are married. Now the conservative Christian anti-gay bigots can put their fingers in their ears, stomp their feet, and scream “Not married! Not married! Not married!” all they want. It doesn’t change reality. They are legally married and the court will back them up.
It’s amazing that we have to explain such a basic concept to someone who claims to be an attorney.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
I’m not saying that sexual orientation can or can’t be changed, but I am wondering what would constitute reliable evidence that a person has changed his or her sexual orientation. I’ve heard the testimony of many people who claim that their sexual orientation has changed, but I’ve only ever seen these testimonies be dismissed.
I wouldn’t dismiss them all – bisexuals clearly have some choice about which side of their orientation they actualize, and some of them may experience a “change.”
So, conceding for the sake of argument your category of real honest-to-goodness, born homosexuals, what would be the proof that one has changed?
There are objective tests wrt sexual orientation – they usually involve wiring up somebody’s ‘nads, showing them sexually attractive images of both sexes, and seeing which ones they respond to involuntarily.
To prove a change, all you’d have to do is show, for example, that somebody who responded more to the same sex in the first test, responded more to the opposite sex in the second test.
Why don’t you ask your favorite ex-gay ministry to implement such a test as “scientific proof” of their methods?
Report comment to moderator
#167 – it is just semantics. “Marriage” is a word. You may define it as you wish. You are simply asserting that your chosen definition is the only possible meaning for it. That is merely semantics. You may reserve the term “opposite marriage” for you definition if you wish. Everyone will then at least know what you mean.
But at the heart of the matter: There is no evidence for ideal “marriage” as a platonic form that exists independently of practice and includes only a human male and a human female.
You are just affirming your consequent – as per usual.
Report comment to moderator
ree – Of course one can determine whether a given law or course of action is consistent with a given philosophy, but that doesn’t say anything about a universal imperative. Appealing to the philosophy, itself, as the arbitrator of right and wrong is meaningless if the philosophy only exists in the minds of individual human beings, but has no transcendent existence.
Most ethical philosophers radically disagree with the above. I do too.
There may or may not be a “universal imperative,” but if there is such a thing, I would expect it to obey a logical system of ethics (unlike the OT). On the other hand, even if ethics is entirely a human construct, that doesn’t mean it can’t be done objectively or that it is meaningless. Was calculus delivered by divine revelation? NO! Is it subjective? NO! Is it meaningless. Not to anyone who understands and uses it!
Report comment to moderator
The so called “ex-gay” organizations will not subject their methods or their “gay to straight converts” to independent study or analysis. They make outlandish claims and then refuse to let them be independently verified. The fact is, these so called “ex-gay” groups have done a lot of damage to a lot of people. Many of them are run by famously anti-gay hate organizations/ministries. Every reputable psychiatric and psychological organization in America and around the world have condemned their pseudo-cures.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
There are THREE different relationships here.
Man and Man
Woman and Woman
Man and Woman — when they come together it is marriage. Simply put, they bring different bodies together. Two men and two women can NEVER duplicate that.
The other two relationships are completely different. They don’t bring different bodies together, and that’s part of marriage. Homosexuals and lesbians will NEVER have that part of marriage. EVER.
There is no such thing as “opposite” marriage. There is marriage, plain and simple. But you are in such denial about yourselves and the fact that you are different that you can’t face reality. This is a sign of mental illness. You do not accept that you are different. You are trying to force a round peg into a square hole.
Yes, that’s sinful. But that’s not my point here.
It’s DISHONEST. It is NOT reality. It’s looking at an orange and calling it a peach.
What you want — homosexual “marriage” — is the thing that is meaningless. You want something that doesn’t exist.
Report comment to moderator
I am not the one playing semantics here. Homosexuals are. They are the one who can’t look at a word — marriage — for what it is.
Report comment to moderator
The law is what matters. And the law says that they’re married. Chanting religious shibboleths doesn’t change the law and has no standing before the court.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
“I am not the one playing semantics here. Homosexuals are.”
Last I checked David Boies and Ted Olson were not homosexuals. Rather they are two of the most powerful and distinguished attorneys in the United States. Are they likewise mentally ill because they think same sex couples can fit within the definition of marriage?
Report comment to moderator
I think Anlir must head up an anti-Christian hate organization. The constant railing against Christians is not very loving.
Report comment to moderator
When it comes to denying or taking away my fundamental rights and constitutional protections, you better believe I’m not going to be very “loving” toward the conservative Christian anti-gay bigots. I make no apologies for standing for freedom. Gay people will not willingly be slaves to religious tyranny. We have the right to freedom because we are American citizens and human beings.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
Former Exodus International leaders apologize
Three former leaders of Exodus International, often described as the nation’s largest ex-gay ministry, publicly apologized Wednesday for the harm they said their efforts had caused many gays and lesbians who believed the group’s message that sexual orientation could be changed through prayer.
[...]
“Some who heard our message were compelled to try to change an integral part of themselves, bringing harm to themselves and their families,” the three, including former Exodus co-founder Michael Bussee, said in a joint written statement presented at the news conference. “Although we acted in good faith, we have since witnessed the isolation, shame, fear and loss of faith that this message creates.”
[...]
“God’s love and forgiveness does indeed change people,” said Bussee, who remains an evangelical Christian. “It changed me. It just didn’t make me straight.”
Report comment to moderator
Provost at #164: I presume you all know homosexuals are miserable, the lot of them.
I presume you don’t actually know any homosexuals, if you really believe that.
I know several, and have known more in the past. I can’t think of any who were any more “miserable” than any other person facing the normal trials of life.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81 (and Spinoza),
A few things:
1) As with global warming, why should I get all my information from mainstream sources when they all agree and when the establishment is controlled by people who think alike (and I believe they reach wrong conclusions)?
2) When I have the time, I will find examples that point against natural selection (for instance, traits that should not be beneficial being present) and why the “glued moths” incident is rather important. In case I forget to do either, you can remind me.
3) Some of the things you have mentioned seem to me that you are calling microevolution and macroevolution the same thing. The former is simply variation and change in species; not evolution as commonly thought.
4) Evolution is a theory, not a law, and yet it is taught as if it were a law. Actually, I’d call it a hypothesis because it has yet to be documented convincingly and beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you find a half-lizard/half-fish, you will actually have some concrete evidence for evolution…provided no mad scientists have been experimenting with hybrid mutants. (like in James Patterson’s Maximum Ride series
On a side note, you might like the fact that those books talk a little bit about evolution and a lot about global warming 
)
So if you find a half/half creature, first check for mad scientists.
5) Newtons three Laws of Thermodynamics basically says that things deteriorate (lose energy) over time. To evolve, an animal would have to get new information in its genes, and how is that possible, especially when you consider Newton’s Laws?
Things naturally get worse over time, not better (advances in technology and such things don’t count, since I am just talking about the natural state of things without outside interference).
For instance, stars and people and everything else gets old and dies, materials disintegrate, hybrids such as mules are sterile, etc.
Here’s an article (non-Creationist, it looks like) about Newton’s Three Laws of Thermodynamics.
http://www.allaboutscience.org/three-laws-of-thermodynamics-faq.htm
6) Secular humanist evolutionists are understandable (somewhat), but people who claim to be Christians and who also claim to believe in evolution puzzle me somewhat.
If God created life, then he wouldn’t need to use evolution, since it’s not as efficient as simply making things not have to evolve. If the universe is just a machine and we all evolved, there is no use for God (and no morals or anything else either).
7 To continue off #6, where do you believe morals come/came from?
Or is there even such a thing?
Note:
I will be busy tomorrow and so I likely won’t be able to reply to you for a bit.
Report comment to moderator
but people who claim to be Christians and who also claim to believe in evolution puzzle me somewhat.
I’ve got some posts from my friend and co-blogger Jim Babka (President of Downsize DC and former Press Secretary to the late great Harry Browne) who is a moderate evangelical and believes in evolution. Jim is orthodox on his Christology; he doubts eternal damnation, but does believe in punishment in the afterlife for the unsaved. And he embraces the natural law and science. The later is where evolution fits in.
Report comment to moderator
sigh …
OK, Rio, here we go again:
1) As with global warming, why should I get all my information from mainstream sources when they all agree and when the establishment is controlled by people who think alike (and I believe they reach wrong conclusions)?
Why should you trust fringe scientists — or non-scientists — when the entire mainstream science community says they’re mistaken?
2) When I have the time, I will find examples that point against natural selection (for instance, traits that should not be beneficial being present) and why the “glued moths” incident is rather important. In case I forget to do either, you can remind me.
Traits that should not be beneficial, but are not deleterious enough to prevent reproduction, would not necessarily be selected against. Natural selection is not “survival of the fittest,” as it is popularly misdescribed, but “survival of the fit enough.”
Species fail when they’re made to compete against another, much better adapted species, for scarce resources. When the food supply is plentiful and the differences between the two species are not that great, both can do fine.
3) Some of the things you have mentioned seem to me that you are calling microevolution and macroevolution the same thing. The former is simply variation and change in species; not evolution as commonly thought.
They actually are the same thing. The distinction as made by Creationists is a false one. “Macroevolution” is simply many instances of microevolution accumulated over a long period of time.
4) Evolution is a theory, not a law, and yet it is taught as if it were a law. Actually, I’d call it a hypothesis because it has yet to be documented convincingly and beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you find a half-lizard/half-fish, you will actually have some concrete evidence for evolution…
And there are many examples of such transitional forms. I’ve posted links to articles about them several times, as have other science-minded folks here. Creationists just ignore them and go on blithely insisting they don’t exist.
5) Newtons three Laws of Thermodynamics basically says that things deteriorate (lose energy) over time. To evolve, an animal would have to get new information in its genes, and how is that possible, especially when you consider Newton’s Laws?
Things naturally get worse over time, not better
You misunderstand the laws. In a closed system, one with no additional input of enegry, things move toward entropy (the state of balance when there is no further energy to propel change.)
Earth is not a closed system. The Earth constantly gets new energy from the sun. The sun itself will eventually burn out and then life will become impossible, let alone evolution, but until then, the laws of thermodynamics do not work in favor of Creationists.
The article you linked to would have told you as much had you bothered to understand it. Sending intelligent, well-read and educated people like GWF and Spinoza to that link as if they might just not have heard of it yet is insulting. Spinoza’s field is star formation, for pete’s sake … I think he understands basic physics.
6) Secular humanist evolutionists are understandable (somewhat), but people who claim to be Christians and who also claim to believe in evolution puzzle me somewhat.
If God created life, then he wouldn’t need to use evolution, since it’s not as efficient as simply making things not have to evolve. If the universe is just a machine and we all evolved, there is no use for God (and no morals or anything else either).
The evidence all shows that evolution is the operative mechanism by which life diversifies and develops. That you can’t understand why God might have used it is immaterial.
7 To continue off #6, where do you believe morals come/came from?
Or is there even such a thing?
I’ll leave this one for the two you addressed specifically; as I am a Christian who believes in evolution, my answer likely won’t be much different from yours.
Report comment to moderator
I just have to wonder what planet Scroop moth is from
From Earth, but about to descend on Uranus.
Report comment to moderator
Rio,
I think SteveG answered your points pretty well, but I’ll add a few thoughts based on my understanding of things.
I don’t think it’s wise to read either just creationist writings or just those written from the viewpoint of evolution. I try to read both. Over time, I’ve come to find the latter more convincing, though I’m still looking at both.
Science used the words “law” and “theory” differently than we do in popular speech. A theory is not a hypothesis that hasn’t been proven well enough to reach the status of law yet, but an overarching explanation that encompasses a number of facts and laws, and is well-supported by the evidence.
New information in genes comes from mistakes being made in copying the existing information. The copying process is part of life’s natural process, whereby energy (from whatever source the organism gets its energy) is used in sustaining life and reproducing new life. The mistakes are generally not useful and most often harmful, but occasionally one happens to be beneficial.
God could most certainly have created everything without evolution. Maybe He did, but the evidence seems to indicate that He did use evolution. Looking at the natural world, I don’t see efficiency as a high priority with God. Some natural processes are efficient, some are not.
I believe morals come from the character of God.
Report comment to moderator
What do you do with the Bible Pauline? Is a THEORY more convincing or is GOD’s Word? Rio has it right when stating:
If you believe God used evolution, what do you do with Genesis and Exodus, are these accounts just a myth, how do you reconcile the Word of God with evolution?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
We’ve been through this discussion before, and I’m sure neither of our views have changed. You had the same discussion with SteveG recently.
I realize that evolution poses a challenge to the traditional reading of certain passages, and I don’t take lightly the theological issues it raises. But if the evolutionary explanation is wrong, then there have to be good scientific arguments against it as well as theological ones. I’m more than willing to listen to good scientific arguments against it, but it hardly serves the cause of creationism to advance arguments based on a misunderstanding of evolution.
I’ve looked for years for a good book presenting the arguments of evolution and creationism side by side, but all I’ve found is books written from one side or the other, presenting the other point of view only to show what’s wrong with it. I’d like to see something that shows the best arguments on both sides, with responses directly to the best arguments from the other side, and responses directly to those, and so on.
I finally concluded that if I want something like that, I guess I’ll have to compile it myself. However, the whole subject is hardly the focus of my life, as I consider my family, job, and church involvement to be my main priorities. As I find time and resources, I look at this evolution-creation matter, and note areas worth looking at further. And so far, the evidence and explanations made for evolution have been pretty good.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline – 190
Whether you ever find the book you’re looking for, or write one yourself doesn’t have anything to do with the questions I asked you, (#189) which you avoided answering. Here are my questions once again – if you don’t want to, or can’t answer them that’s fine.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline: I like your thoughtful and fair-minded approach.
One further thought I had after the recent discussion with Victoria and others is that Creationists really dramatically overstate the theological “problems” that evolution raises.
The only thing necessary for Christ to be the propitiation for sin is that there be sin, and there very obviously is. It is in no way necessary that there have been a literal Adam and Eve and, as I said a few times in that earlier discussion, if God inspired the writing of the first three chapters of Genesis to serve as a mythic/allegorical explanation of the existence of sin, it is hardly surprising that He would continue to use the same metaphor later on in the Bible.
It is true that reading those chapters non-literally makes the Bible’s arc less neat and self-contained, but so what? Life is not neat and self-contained, and the truth of God is certainly far greater than a few hundred pages of text.
Finally, I find it completely unacceptable to reject sound, well-evidenced and long-tested science on the basis that it doesn’t support one particular view of how to read an ancient story. Creationists also greatly understate the evidence for evolution, usually based on, as Rio demonstrates, not having the first clue what they’re talking about because they get all their information from Creationist sources.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I didn’t avoid answering your questions, I pointed out that I’ve answered them previously, and all I can do now is repeat what I’ve said before, and you’ll repeat what you’ve said before.
I’ve explained that I do not believe in inerrancy, that I believe the Bible is reliable in teaching us all we need to know about God and our relationship with Him, but that it is not necessarily accurate in every detail and does not need to be in order for God to teach us what we need to know. I do not expect to change your mind, and I do not expect you to change my mind, and I do not consider it profitable for either of us to argue back and forth here about it.
So instead of sitting here at the computer, I’m going to go take my son to the library, work in the garden, do the shopping and cleaning, spend time with my husband on his weekend off, and enjoy the beautiful day God has given us today.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline
You have NEVER answered my questions regarding Genesis and Exodus 20.
The portion in Exodus which gives the Ten Commandments is either believed or thrown out as well, in which case, if it is thrown out, you have discarded the law of GOD.
#181 – “We have the right to freedom because we are American citizens and human beings.”
Who said you weren’t? Do you think that polygamists and polyamorists are American citizens and human beings too? Should these consenting adults who claim to be in love also be allowed to marry and/or have legal civil unions as they see fit in whatever numbers they choose? Should they have marriage and civil union equality too? Or are they less human than homosexuals?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria:
Why was God tired?
Report comment to moderator
Steveg
YOU WROTE: “Why was God tired?”
The Bible doesn’t say GOD was tired, it says HE rested. I often rest, but I’m not tired.
Report comment to moderator
OK. So does God ever really cease activity, tired or not?
Report comment to moderator
Steveg,
I don’t know what GOD does with HIS time, HE has not told us.
Report comment to moderator
Nice evasion. But just about every idea of God in all of Christian theology holds that God is constantly active in the universe, the world, each of our lives. God does not ever literally rest, does he?
You may have figured out where I was leading you and answered with a non-answer to head it off, but the conclusion is obvious even to you. Whether you are willing to admit it or not, the Bible’s language about God resting has to be figurative … but once you admit that, you’d have to admit that the rest of the creation story might also be.
Point made.
Report comment to moderator
Do you think that polygamists and polyamorists are American citizens and human beings too? Should these consenting adults who claim to be in love also be allowed to marry and/or have legal civil unions as they see fit in whatever numbers they choose? Should they have marriage and civil union equality too? Or are they less human than homosexuals?
Illegitimate questions that are designed to “poison the well” around the discussion and divert us from the real issue before us: will we allow gay people to have the same legal rights and liberties that the rest of America enjoys?
The hatemongering conservative Christian anti-gay bigots are losing. Their attempts to keep us a legal and social outcasts is running against the tide of history and the promise of America.
Hate is not a family value.
Hate is not a Christian value.
Stop the conservative Christian hate against gay people!
Liberty and justice for all!
*****
Wooh-hooh! I now pronounce this a Certified Gay Blog! on Worldmag. To be sure, some of it has gone down a rabbit trail. But it still goes to show ya that nothing bring the Worldmag folks out of the woodwork like a “gay” thread. When it comes to conservative Christians, things like poverty, war, health care, and genocide can’t hold a candle to “teh gay”.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
Enjoy your day, but I would like to hear your argument for the errancy and fallibility of the Scriptures.
I’m interested in this primarily because God’s historical actions recorded in Scripture are the basis of much of His teaching. A simple example would be the work of Christ. If there is no Christ then there is nothing in the Scriptures worth reading.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg
I didn’t know where you were going at all – trying to second guess me? – the jokes on you.
God says he rested, so HE rested, that’s hard for you to understand.
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55
You can’t figure it out Steveg – GOD hasn’t given us the ability to understand everything HE does, it’s HIS choice – Maybe you feel left out, and then decide what you can’t figure out can’t be literal. Everything GOD hasn’t made clear as crystal is not figurative.
You haven’t begun to make a point!
Report comment to moderator
NOPM
Excellent point!
Report comment to moderator
“To be sure, some of it has gone down a rabbit trail.
Are you popping in to get it back on track, Anlir?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
That’s a pretty weak argument.
Report comment to moderator
# 204 SHOULD HAVE READ:
“You can’t figure it out Steveg – GOD hasn’t given us the ability to understand everything HE does, it’s HIS choice – Maybe you feel left out, and then decide what you can’t figure out can’t be literal. Everything GOD hasn’t made clear as crystal cannot be categorized as figurative.”
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
Why are those illegimate questions and how do they poison the well?
Report comment to moderator
Because:
1. There is no association between gay marriage and polygamy, man-goat marriage, etc. We’re talking about allowing same-gender couples the right to enter into a legal arrangement otherwise known as civil marriage. Not religious marriage. Civil marriage.
2. It’s an attempt by the anti-gay bigots to tie gay people to some practices that delegitimize and demonize the relationships that gay people have or desire to have.
3. It’s an attempt by the anti-gay bigots to say that if you allow gay marriage you have to allow all that other stuff. No you don’t.
4. It’s based on plain old fear and bigotry. We can do better.
The issue before the people, the legislatures, and the courts is gay marriage. That’s what’s being debated and decided on – not the other stuff. Let’s debate this issue on it’s own merits.
We can discuss the other issues on their own merits when the time comes.
Gay people want marriage because they see it as a noble institution, not because they’re tying to destroy it. Marriage is good for families, the community, and the nation. So why would we want to deny that to gay people?
There is no logical reason to treat gay people as legal and social outcasts. Increasingly, the people, the legislature, and the courts are realizing that there is no rational basis for denying gay people access to the same rights and benefits that the rest of America enjoys.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
Mike: Well it would be weak if it were the entire argument, but it’s not.
I give up, though. Some argument are just not worth the trouble.
Report comment to moderator
Or more to the point you can’t make your argument.
Report comment to moderator
Oh no sweetie, the argument’s been made and the case has been proved. It’s not my fault that it’s beyond your ability to understand. I could not prove to you that water is wet if you thought the Bible didn’t agree.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg, you haven’t proven a thing –
And than we have one of your cutesy remarks: “It’s not my fault that it’s beyond your ability to understand. I could not prove to you that water is wet if you thought the Bible didn’t agree.”
Calm down Steveg, you’ll figure it out. . . . maybe!
Report comment to moderator
You’re forgetting one important thing, SteveG:
The Queen holds the Worldmag Immunity card (aka: God’s Final Authority).
You can’t touch it!
Heh.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
SteveG
Just because God uses anthropomorphic and anthropopathic language does not suddenly mean that all of Genesis may be understood as some type of accomodation.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
Fair enough.
I am an anti-gay bigot based on my religious views. (I use bigot in the best sense of the word!)
And you are an anti-Christian bigot.
We disagree. I don’t suppose this necessarily means you have to hate me. I don’t hate you.
But it does mean I’ll never approve of your sinfulness even if it becomes legal.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, while I respectfully disagree with your position, I believe you seem to take a more, um, balanced (?) approach to this issue than some of the others.
A few things:
Mistakes generally don’t create improvements…it just doesn’t happen, as far as I know (correct me if they do).
The only people that arguing for or against evolution with are fence-sitters, I think, and I doubt there are many of those, especially after being taught evolution in public schools.
There are those that were evolutionists (or even just non-Creationists) but changed their beliefs after they did a good deal of research and realized that evolution doesn’t have all the answers to the questions they were asking. For instance, Lee Strobel and Michael Behe.
SteveG,
Why should you trust fringe scientists — or non-scientists — when the entire mainstream science community says they’re mistaken?
What if they’re right?
I see you still trust “the mainstream experts.” I’m warning you, that can be extremely dangerous…
Don’t use the “the majority of people think and say” argument, because there are millions of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and more, and you don’t think they’re right, do you?
Earth is not a closed system. The Earth constantly gets new energy from the sun. The sun itself will eventually burn out and then life will become impossible, let alone evolution, but until then, the laws of thermodynamics do not work in favor of Creationists.
The article you linked to would have told you as much had you bothered to understand it. Sending intelligent, well-read and educated people like GWF and Spinoza to that link as if they might just not have heard of it yet is insulting. Spinoza’s field is star formation, for pete’s sake … I think he understands basic physics.
I assumed it would be helpful to link to the article I mentioned if anyone wanted clarification rather than me simply stating something.
The article you linked to would have told you as much had you bothered to understand it.
Read the bottom paragraph of the article again (I can’t reprint it here because of the copyright policy) carefully, and note what it says about “natural” and “supernatural” causes. If you protest that it’s from a creationist website (I’m not sure what the website is entirely like, having only briefly checked it out), facts are facts, regardless of where they’re read, right?
Richard Dawkins believes that life on Earth may have started by aliens. Naturally, he doesn’t know where the aliens came from or who made them, but the conversation with Ben Stein when he said that is rather amusing.
Report comment to moderator
Rio: If you think the only Christians arguing for evolution are “fence-sitters” you haven’t been keeping up. Look up Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, Kenneth R. Miller, Karl Giberson, Darrel Falk, just to start. All of them are committed Christians and all of them defend evolution.
Nothing about evolution demands atheism; that is another creationist misconception.
However, I’m bored with the whole topic. I have learned that some ignorance is just beyond correction and am happy to let you persist in your misguided beliefs. The science is in and it’s sound, and if you (and Mike and anyone else) are going to insist that your faith requires you to reject actual facts, there is nothing anyone can do for you.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, also Owen Gingerich. His book God’s Universe is both fascinating and brief, an unusual combination.
Report comment to moderator
And even Michael Behe is an evolutionist, he just argues that God dropped by and added some systems from time to time.
Report comment to moderator
But it does mean I’ll never approve of your sinfulness even if it becomes legal.
Of course, there are many “sins” that are not illegal. If everything that was considered a “sin” was made illegal, we’d be living in a police state. Heck – some people think a woman not wearing a burka is a sin.
Not that gay people want your approval (or the approval of any conservative Christian). All we’re asking for is equal treatment under the law. You will neither be forced to approve, attend, recognize, or acknowledge our marriage just as you aren’t forced to do so for atheists or anyone else that offends you. Liberty and approval are two different things. I don’t approve of people getting divorced and remarried multiple times. But I recognize their liberty to do so.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
One last point: The last paragraph of that article, talking about the creation of matter, poses no problem for theistic evolutionists. It may or may not pose a problem for atheistic evolutionists — I can’t speak to that — but I am not one of those.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t use the “the majority of people think and say” argument, because there are millions of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and more, and you don’t think they’re right, do you?
I’m not talking about public opinion, I’m talking about the consensus of scientists who work in the relevant fields, study the questions and keep up with what their colleagues or doing.
It doesn’t really matter what people think about a matter of fact if the people are not experts … aeronautical engineers know how to design airplanes, accountants do not. So why would I care what the vast majority of accountants think about the right way to design an airplane?
(Or conversely, why would I care what the vast majority of aeronautical engineers think about the best way to write a corporate financial statement?)
Report comment to moderator
I still think gays want my approval. That will become more obvious (if it isn’t already) as this progresses (or should I say regresses?).
Of course I will be required to recognize gay marriage in some sense. You have been arguing for recognition all along. If you didn’t want recognition on some level you wouldn’t actually care what the state has to say. The state will attempt to enforce whatever it declares legal. And gays seem to have a particular zeal for making lots of noise and bringing lawsuits whenever they feel slighted.
Report comment to moderator
Of course I will be required to recognize gay marriage in some sense.
What are you required to recognize? Be specific.
Gay marriage has been legal for over 4 years in Massachusetts, yet there has not been a single instance of a conservative Christian or anyone else being forced to recognize a gay couples marriage or anyone’s marriage for that matter.
What you do have to recognize is the law. But that’s something all of us do every day for things that we don’t necessarily like or agree with.
For example, there are still a fair number of people who think drinking alcohol is a sin. Yet they are able to live with it being legally available. No one forces them to buy it. No one forces them to drink. No one forces them to go into places that serve it or sell it. Plenty of them walk right by the beer section in Walmart and don’t buy it.
It’s called “liberty” and it’s what makes America great.
You have been arguing for recognition all along. If you didn’t want recognition on some level you wouldn’t actually care what the state has to say.
Could we also not say the same thing about heterosexual marriage? It’s not about “recognition”. It’s about equal treatment under the law.
The state will attempt to enforce whatever it declares legal.
Indeed it does. That’s how the “rule of law” works in America. Surely you aren’t proposing anarchy?
And gays seem to have a particular zeal for making lots of noise and bringing lawsuits whenever they feel slighted.
A vast misreading of the situation. We are fighting for our fundamental rights as America citizens for equal treatment under the law. I’ll tell ya what – if you were denied your fundamental rights, you’d be fighting just as hard (as you well should).
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
Which of the men who you’ve mentioned above, believe that we as humans evolved in any way shape or form from apes? I would expect you know as you stated their being Christians who believe and defend evolution.
Report comment to moderator
Who do you think you are to demand I answer your inquisition?
You really have a pride problem, Victoria. Knock it off. I am tired of the way you go from thread to thread issuing your proclamations and demanding people justify themselves to you.
Sometimes it’s amusing and sometimes it’s just tiresome, but it’s never gracious.
Report comment to moderator
Uh-oh, you’ve done it now, SteveG. You’ve committed blasphemy against The Queen. You are damned to hell right along with me. Don’t worry – it’s not so bad. In fact, it’s kinda fun!
Report comment to moderator
Will business owners have to supply health benefits to the spouse of a gay person? If this is the case then the law has to be recognized because the marriage is recognized.
I also think it is quite safe to say that school textbooks will be updated to reflect gay marriage as a normal way of life. Naturally I can and will teach my children as I deem best, but you are being coy if you don’t think there are far-reaching ramifications to recognizing gay marriage legally.
Like I said earlier, you want acceptance. Getting the legal status goes a long way toward promoting and pushing gaydom.
Anarchy? What about non-violent resistance? Do you frown on that?
Immoral behavior shouldn’t merit the same treatment as moral behavior.
Report comment to moderator
#203 – Homosexuality is not really the issue, Anlir, though you want to make it center-stage for some personal reasons. Nor are polygamy, or polyamory the central issues. The “real issue,” Anlir, is the legal definition of marriage. And if homosexuals can demand a redefinition to give them marriage “rights” on their terms, then why in the world shouldn’t polygamists, polyamorists and other interest groups involving consenting adults who can claim to be in love also be allowed to redefine marriage to give them “rights” on their terms too?
Can’t answer thatone intelligently, can you, Anlir.
Report comment to moderator
Business owners provide health benefits to all kinds of employees, including ones who’s personal life they might not agree with. If an employer offers spouse or family benefits, they don’t question whether it’s that person’s first, second, third, or fourth marriage. In my business I see employees divorcing their spouse, dropping them off their insurance, getting married, and adding the new spouse (and children) to their coverage all the time. No employer bats an eye at that. So what’s the big deal? Or are you saying gay people shouldn’t be allowed to have insurance?
School textbooks acknowledge all kinds of families that people might be personally opposed to. Some people are morally opposed to interracial families. Some people are morally opposed to inter-religious families. Some people are morally opposed to blended families. Some people are morally opposed to single-parent families. Yet, textbooks acknowledge their families. So why shouldn’t a child with two moms or two dads have the same acknowledgment? Acknowledgment doesn’t equal endorsement or approval.
Like I said earlier, you want acceptance. Getting the legal status goes a long way toward promoting and pushing gaydom.
How is treating people equally under the law “promoting and pushing gaydom”? That’s just anti-gay propaganda. No one gets singled out. No one gets discriminated against. You live your life freely. We live our lives freely. That’s what America is about.
What you and your fellow conservative Christians are saying is that in order for you to freely practice your faith it requires gay people to give up their legal and civil rights as American citizens. That’s religious tyranny and it’s profoundly against our constitution.
Immoral behavior shouldn’t merit the same treatment as moral behavior.
We don’t live under the Bible, we live under the rule of law. There are all kinds of things that people might consider to be immoral that receives legal protection. No one is forced to engage in it, but it is legally protected. That’s how freedom in a democracy works. We allow people to make choices that we might not make ourselves.
In this country, a person condemned to die for mass murder still has the fundamental right to get married, even while sitting on death row. Yet, gay people who obey the law, work, pay taxes, and live exemplary lives can’t? That’s nuts!
No, no. Let’s treat everyone equally under the law.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
#210 – “There is no association between gay marriage and polygamy, man-goat marriage, etc.”
I am not necessarily (at least not on this topic) saying there is, Anlir. Don’t “poison” my point. I am asking, if homosexuals can change the definition of marriage on their terms, why can’t other sexual interest groups?
Anlir wrote; “We’re talking about allowing same-gender couples the right to enter into a legal arrangement…”
Why couples, Anlir? Why do you discriminate against triples and quatriples? On what legal or moral basis? Why can’t they have equal marriage rights along with homosexuals? Are polygamists less human than homosexuals? Do you hate polygamists, Anlir?
Anlir, what is your reason for treating polygamists and polyamorists as legal and social outcasts?
__________
“Liberty and justice for all…” except those who Anlir apparently thinks do not qualify for it based on their sexual preferences (like polygamists, polyamorists and others).
Report comment to moderator
Can’t answer thatone intelligently, can you, Anlir.
Then you apparently can’t read Joel Mark.
Hate is not a family value.
Hate is not a Christian value.
Stop the conservative Christian hate against gay people!
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark and his fellow conservative Christians stand for religious tyranny and the enslavement of gay people.
We stand for liberty and justice for all.
And we will win this fight. It will not be easy and it will be long. But we will never give up fighting for our freedom.
History will not be kind to the hatemongering conservative Christian anti-gay bigots.
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry you feel this way Steve. I have answered your questions.
Steveg you have asked a lot of questions which are to numerous to mention here are but TWO of the latest, which I gave answers.
I have asked you a question and you appear to be insulted, it doesn’t make sense.
Report comment to moderator
#234
Anlir,
Marriage is the social structure that’s been set up for thousands of years to ensure that children are cared for by their natural parents. Some married people chose to have no children—some find themselves infertile. This doesn’t negate the state’s valid concern in having a mechanism (marriage) in place that ensures that children are provided for when they are naturally produced as they normally are.
Homosexual relationships do not fit into that valid purpose which the state has, since they are by nature always incapable of reproduction within the union. I don’t think the state has any other valid concern with marriage other than natural provision for the children. If not for that, I would think that the state should have nothing at all to do with marriage, and it should be a religious and/or a civil contractual issue only.
It seems to me that what you are really complaining about is the special regard the state gives to propagation of the species—which homosexual relationships are cut out of—not by the state–but by Nature.
Anlir, aome people may hate gay people, but the people who talk to you here don’t seem to; they just disagree strongly with you. Your blanket acusations against all Christians who don’t agree with you is tiresome.
And you haven’t even come close to answering Joel Mark’s concerns about the reasons for not recognizing other types of marriage arrangements. The slippery slope is a very valid concern here.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
No. Gays don’t prohibit me from practicing my faith. It is simply an immoral behavior as is a whole slew of behaviors. The state not condemning it may be one thing (which I think ought to be done), but instead to go and sanction it is definitely going too far.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: You and I have strong opinions and when we disagree, we both can be perhaps too assertive about defending our own point of view. This is not a good sign for us ever getting along very well.
What I object to in your style is that you rarely if ever show any signs of being willing to even consider an opinion that disagrees with what you already believe. I’ve never seen you change your mind on anything, or even admit that someone who disagrees might have a valid point.
Of course I expect you to describe and defend what you do believe, but when you’re confronted with one who disagrees you often seem to appoint yourself examiner and demand that they justify their positions to you. You do not seem to see yourself as one person among many holding one opinion of many; you seem to see yourself as in possession of the only truth and divinely appointed to act as inquisitor of everyone else.
I am hardly the only person who has tried to exhort you to be more gracious and less officious, but you never listen. You do not seem to be interested in considering your own style and manner with people.
The answer to your question to me should be obvious.
Report comment to moderator
DJ: But same-sex unions have absolutely no effect on heterosexual couples having and raising children, so how is that an objection?
Report comment to moderator
DJ,
The state currently allows millions and millions of straight couples who either have no intention or no ability to have a child to get married. If the state’s interest in marriage is solely for procreation, then why does the state allow so many non-procreative couples to get married? Sorry, but the “marriage is for procreation” argument went by the wayside a long, long time ago. These days, being married and having a child are not interdependent.
And, as SteveG pointed out, same sex marriage has no effect on heterosexual couples having and raising children. Same sex marriage has been in effect for over 4 years in Massachusetts and the birth rate remains stable. Heterosexual marriage is as popular as ever. No families have been destroyed. No one has been harmed. No one has been forced to “gay marry”. None of the dire consequences that the anti-gay movement predicted have come true.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
Steveg
You’re right about one thing, I will not change my mind about what I have studied in the Bible which I have taken the time examine over and over again. As a Born Again Believer I don’t need to question what I believe or why, I’ve already made my decisions regarding most issues – that would include creation, homosexuality, but MORE IMPORTANTLY the Bible being TRUTH.
My desire to know the TRUTH was intense when I was about 30 years old. I no longer was willing to just listen, I wanted to KNOW, and I wanted proof, that led me to where I am today. I prayed to GOD that HE would show and help me understand and answer my questions… HE did just that. By showing me the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were proof of the Old Testament, brought me straight into the New Testament – The prophecy that had been foretold in the OT came to pass in the NT, not all of it, because there are parts which have come to pass and others which will come to pass – it is thrilling to study prophecy. For the first time I could see with my eyes what the Bible said concerning so many questions I had. With prayer and intense study the HOLY Spirit guided me through that amazing part of my life. I believed with a fervor that is unimaginable unless one has experienced it. Steveg, I believe that can only happen when one prays and begs GOD to show them the truth.
My Christian beliefs are not up to re-examination they are SOLID, they are built on a foundation which GOD has given me through HIS HOLY Spirit -
Report comment to moderator
As a Born Again Believer I don’t need to question what I believe or why
I told you, SteveG. The Queen is infallible. She is God’s Final Authority.
Now, bow your knee to her and beg her forgiveness.
As for me, it’s still:
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
If it were ‘obvious’ I would not have asked the question. You however have chosen instead to attack me for asking.
Again the post I wrote, which has caused you to react with such irritation:
Which of the men who you’ve mentioned above, believe that we as humans evolved in any way shape or form from apes? I would expect you know as you stated their being Christians who believe and defend evolution.”
_________________________
Report comment to moderator
Well, the literally accurate answer is that none of them believe that humans evolved from apes.
But that would be too facile. The answer I think you’re looking for is that all of them believe that humans and apes evolved from a more distant common ancestor … which is what the science shows.
You will probably now tell me that means they may not really be Christians since they are disagreeing with the Word of GOD, and I will tell you that they are disagreeing only with your hyperliteralized reading of Genesis, and the whole argument will — if we let it — replay all over again.
Except, I’m not going to bother. You’ve stated your unwillingness to even consider another point of view as anything other than an error that you believe yourself obligated to correct, and I am just not interested in spending the time to say the same things I’ve said several times knowing there will be no more point to it than there ever has been.
Report comment to moderator
#240 same-sex unions have absolutely no effect on heterosexual couples having and raising children,…
For years gay activists have been claiming that all they want is to live their lives in peace and safety, to have the same right to visit their partner in the hospital, etc. If these practical things were really the issue, civil unions would have fit the bill, while leaving the childrearing aspects of heterosexual marriage largely untouched along with the schools.
But civil unions are not desired, as we found out in Connecticut. As soon as civil unions were legislated, gay activists filed suit in court and had them overturned and replaced with marriage.
I have come to believe that a large part of this issue centers around the children and who is going to set the agenda for public education. Are children going to be re-educated and indoctrinated that homosexuality is simply another acceptable lifestyle? Or will these things continue to be family issues, as they should be, rather than promotional opportunities for homosexual activists and their political agendas.
The case in California last fall where the first grade children were taken to their teacher’s gay wedding without parental consent is just the tip of the iceberg. I’m not sure what the whole agenda is, but I’m very convinced that it is not about “liberty and justice for all” whatever they may claim.
Report comment to moderator
These days, being married and having a child are not interdependent.
Anlir,
You don’t have to watch the proceedings in any family court very long to know that in general, children are far, far better off with both their parents, and the income that goes with it. That is the state’s interest in marriage.
The state has a vested interest in both those parents staying connected to the children they produce. It’s cheaper than the state paying for the upbringing of those children. That is, in my view, the predominant interest the state has in marriage. Otherwise, a civil contract for property issues and a religious ceremony serves the same purpose. I thought for sure that I’d heard you voice similar suggestions regarding civil contracts, but maybe I’m mistaken in that.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 219 “All of them are committed Christians and all of them defend evolution.”
” Francis Collins John Polkinghorne, Kenneth R. Miller, Karl Giberson, Darrel Falk,”
227 – My question
245
My response:
To believe that we all come from a common ancestor is to say the Bible isn’t true. You can’t blend apes and humans together and expect to come up with anything other than a farce.
GOD Almighty created everything, if you can’t believe that, then what you’ve done is made GOD so small HE was nothing more than part of evolution. The idea that GOD created and then somehow put enough together to start the ball rolling in the universe at a wily-nily journey is nothing more than twisted. Those who purpose this theory know what their doing and why, and so do I.
I have said more than a few times that I would not get into the discussion of Predestination, Chosen or the Elect. Well, its time for me to talk about it. GOD knew before HE created the world who would believe and who wouldn’t. GOD does have HIS Chosen……. those who are predestinated, all this before the foundation of the world. That would mean before the world was formed, and before GOD created the world, and Adam and Eve. To think that GOD doesn’t know what will take place or hasn’t planned it HIS way is not paying attention, or is purposely believing that GOD isn’t ALL powerful. ( I hope Cameron is reading this, if anyone has her email, let her know please.)
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Ephesians 1
“Unless one is willing to take the position that God has placed these decapitated AREs in these precise positions to confuse and mislead us, the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable. This kind of recent genome data thus presents an overwhelming challenge to those who hold to the idea that all species were created ex nihilo.” (p.136-137). The language of God by Francis Collins
Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
But human are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history. (p. 264) The language of God by Francis Collins
Let us not forget Francis Collins says he is a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
POST #248 should have been numbered to read:
1. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
2. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
3. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
4. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
5. But human are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history. (p. 264) The language of God by Francis Collins
Let us not forget Francis Collins says he is a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria:
And Collins is right. He understand theology and science and knows they need not be in conflict. You cannot accept that. I understand that, but I also understand that you are mistaken and Collins is right on the point.
If you believe in predestination, then it should not be any trouble to simply see that God foreknew billions of years ago (in human time, as I doubt time means much from the perspective of eternity) instead of just a few thousand. He designed the laws of nature and set the conditions in a way that would lead to the creation of human beings, through an unfolding process of constant creation and change governed by the laws he ordained and put into place.
And that’s all I’m going to say on it. There’s absolutely nothing to be gained for either of us to spend the hours it takes to rehash the arguments we’ve already been over multiple times.
Report comment to moderator
Collins no more knows the Bible then I could perform brain surgery. IF he did know the Bible, he would be able to understand that man did not come from an ape – that is ignorant beyond belief.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2 Timothy 4
It certainly tickles the ears of those who want to twist the Bible and believe in ‘apes’ as their ancestors.
Those who choose to believe a man/men over GOD Almighty, HIS power haven’t studied the Word of GOD.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Yes, I know, evolution says we descended from a common ancestor as apes all the rest. I said evolutionary scientists don’t agree on the age of the Earth of whatever because I’ve read multiple books that have listed the age of the planet or the times of other things at various billions or hundreds of millions of years. Maybe those books are outdated.
While I often enjoy arguments simply for arguments’ sake, I do think this one is rather pointless, since you will reject the evidence I present, and I admit, vice versa.
What I meant about “fence-sitters” (by the way, isn’t Hugh Ross is an evolutionary Christian?) was that trying to argue your case (yours or mine) and present them with evidence will generally only have a likely possibility of convincing them that your views are correct if they are not firm in their beliefs and aren’t really sure what they believe. Most of those who change sides do so after conducting their own research; not after being convinced by someone else, I am thinking.
Lastly, I have to say, your comment (However, I’m bored with the whole topic. I have learned that some ignorance is just beyond correction and am happy to let you persist in your misguided beliefs.) was pretty cheap, and sounds quite like an ad hominem attack fallacy.
I too have gotten fairly bored with the topic, but I haven’t called you ignorant even though you haven’t agreed with my position or the evidence I have brought forth or mentioned.
It just seems to me that you strike a somewhat condescending tone because you have “loads of evidence” and the “majority of the scientific community” agrees with you, while my views are in the minority. I recommend that you just try not to sound arrogant, like one poster arguing evolution against my fellow creationist, Opinionated Teen did.
Pauline,
If you’re still on this thread,
If you don’t take the Bible as infallible and inerrant, what parts of the Bible can you trust? If some parts are in error, there’s no telling what they might be. There’s a lot of disagreement and misinterpretation of the Scriptures at the present among those who believe the Bible is inerrant, but if it isn’t, there will be more problems, because it can be argued that core passages of the Bible are inaccurate and thereby irrelevant to a Christian’s life. The way I see it, it’s all or nothing with the Bible. I can get back into this discussion later if you’d like.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You aren’t qualified to speak on evolution because you don’t understand it. You have some nerve looking for the speck in Collins’ eye.
For the record evolution does NOT teach man came from ape, but rather man and ape have a common ancestor.
Report comment to moderator
Rio: You’re right, that remark was condescending. I apologize for it.
Understood on fence-sitters, and I think you’re probably right about that.
Thanks for the reminder of Hugh Ross. I have not read his more recent work, but yes, I think he does fall into that category.
Report comment to moderator
Below you will find exactly what I said in post 248 – you would benefit by reading slower, so you don’t make these mistakes in the future.
No one has to look very far to see that Collins isn’t a Bible student, not even close – you can’t mix it up and come up with apes, unless you choose to throw out the first five books of the Bible including the Ten Commandments –
We all learned about evolution in school Jon – lol
Report comment to moderator
I hope this will correct all the bold –
Below you will find exactly what I said in post 248 – you would benefit by reading slower, so you don’t make these mistakes in the future.
No one has to look very far to see that Collins isn’t a Bible student, not even close – you can’t mix it up and come up with apes, unless you choose to throw out the first five books of the Bible including the Ten Commandments –
We all learned about evolution in school Jon – lol
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza says,
That’s funny because in a previous discussion you were quite embittered with both your parents for supposedly rejecting you because of your sexual preferences. But for this discussion, it’s more convenient for you to boast of a good relationship with dear old dad.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza says,
Yes, calculus was delivered by divine revelation. Theologically, we refer to that kind of revelation as general revelation, as opposed to special revelation. But calculus, like morality, is a transcendent truth and, as such, it’s a testimony to a transcendent God. Morality is also knowable, albeit imperfectly, through general revelation. And its transcendent nature also testifies to the transcendent God in Whose nature morality is grounded.
Despite what “most ethical philosophers” might say, it’s incoherent to speak of an objective morality while discounting an objective Being in Whom it’s grounded. One can’t get around this.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
But that didn’t stop you from writing:
IF he did know the Bible, he would be able to understand that man did not come from an ape – that is ignorant beyond belief.
Confusing the two things is a mistake that misunderstands evolution.
Science teaches man and the great apes do share a common ancestor. It’s flat out wrong to say that evolution teaches men come from apes. But it is accurate to say that mankind are actually superevolved monkeys.
Report comment to moderator
Rio,
You ask “If you don’t take the Bible as infallible and inerrant, what parts of the Bible can you trust? If some parts are in error, there’s no telling what they might be.”
It’s not that I trust some parts and not others. I trust all of it to faithfully teach what God has revealed about His nature, our nature, how to live in relationship with Him, what He has promised – but not to necessarily be accurate in details which are not central to that teaching. The Resurrection is essential to Christian doctrine. The means by which God created the various kinds of life on this earth are not, at least in my opinion. Regardless of whether you believe in young earth creation, old earth creation, or evolution, the Bible is clear that everything was created by God, that mankind is made in the image of God, and that mankind is now sinful and in need of a Savior.
SteveG,
As I remember, Hugh Ross is an old earth creationist. At least that was my impression when I read a book by him a few years ago.
By the way, thanks for the website you sent me. I’m finding it very interesting. (I tried to reply to your email but it bounced back as undeliverable.)
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
No Science doesn’t teach that man and the great apes share a common ancestor. Evolution is nothing but a theory, a theory is not a fact.
If you want to believe that you come from an ape, in any way shape or form such as Collins believes, that’s fine, enjoy your heritage.
4. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
p. 264 – The language of God by -Francis Collins
My ancestors were not apes or any other animal.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You keep on making the same mistake:
If you want to believe that you come from an ape, in any way shape or form such as Collins believes, that’s fine, enjoy your heritage.
Evolution teaches that man and ape share a common ancestor, which they do. That’s what science teaches. Even a number of the most notable distinguished ID advocates (Francis Beckwith for instance) believe this. Your war is with scientific truth.
Victoria, you can’t face the truth that you — as a human being — are a superevolved monkey. Deal with it.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
You and I disagree on many things, homosexuality, Founding Fathers and Creation —- I would guess there are far more subjects, however – this subject isn’t going anywhere, I believe the Bible and what it says.
Science may well be your god, but it isn’t mine, nor is my heritage part of any animal group –
You can go on to mention all the advocates of Evolution who have ever written a book, but I disagree with them.
Have a nice evening -
Report comment to moderator
Pauline: By the way, thanks for the website you sent me. I’m finding it very interesting. (I tried to reply to your email but it bounced back as undeliverable.)
Huh. That’s weird. Hopefully it was some temporary problem. But I’m glad the site is being useful to you.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Fine. One thing:
Science may well be your god, but it isn’t mine, nor is my heritage part of any animal group….
You believe what you want but scientific TRUTH instructs that you and apes share a common ancestor which makes you a superevolved monkey.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
Enjoy whomever you believe your ancestors to be, whether its a monkey, ape or a mouse – LOL
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
Ok…
Personally, I find details rather important.
Try cooking a fancy dish without a recipe, or with inaccurate measurements. Well, I guess we can agree to disagree.
Thanks for responding.
Report comment to moderator
Hey Mr. Rio –
Rio, I re-read your bio, very intersting – I too like great cars (yep I bet the blog is surpised) – on to more important matters. Do you believe the Bible to be the inerrant inspired Word of God? You might have answered this question on another post which I might have missed. I do believe it is the inerrant inspired Word of God.
So that I don’t have to go back and read all the posts – could you tell me how you believe regarding Creation?
I believe the Bible is inspired, without error.
Thanks Rio.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
They are NOT your ancestors. Rather, they ALL have common ancestors. YOU have common ancestors with a MOUSE.
Maybe Adam and Eve were the first ameboes. Is there a way to make that square with the Bible?
Report comment to moderator
Science may well be your god, but it isn’t mine, nor is my heritage part of any animal group –
It’s not just science that you and other fundamentalists have discarded, it’s creation itself. You stick to your childish view of mythological metaphors gleaned from a book penned by man, even when it is contradicted by facts of creation that were not constructed by human authors. If God is the Creator, this shows utter contempt for Him. In His place, you have created a god of your own primitive theology. The real object of your worship is your own interpretation of the bible, not God. You certainly care little for truth!
Even the bible says that the “Heavens are telling.” What do they say? For one thing – the universe is about 14 billion years old. It also says that God’s power and divine attributes are understood “through what has been made.” What can we see from creation? Earth is 4 1/2 billion years old, and life forms appeared in an evolutionary sequence. We evolved …
But Queen “V” and other fundamentalists have neither eyes to see nor ears to hear what their self-confessed God is saying in creation.
Report comment to moderator
Yello.
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!